Talk:Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metroid Prime 3: Corruption article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Metroid Prime 3: Corruption has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

Contents

[edit] WP:VG Assessment

Some very simple things.

  • Needs more images. One in the plot section, and another in the gameplay one, would do.
  • Ref 15 is a big red error.
  • The reception section has some language errors. For example GameSpot is not a "who", and generally does not state things. The author, however, does.
  • The Plot section is too long, and does not explain the setting. Do explain this, in about he same length as the whole plot section stands now.
  • The article needs to be wikified with links to topics outside the scope of video gaming. Especially the Plot and Development section could benefit from this.
  • Profile pages in the external links are generally bad, as they (should be) unable to convey any more information than the Wikipedia article.

Rated B-class, Mid-importance. This could easily be A-class if the above points are worked upon. User:Krator (t c) 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Needs additions, fixes, improvements and more details (such as the GFS Valhalla and Energy Cells). Help Anyone? 172.164.14.50 15:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixes and improvements I can see, but additions and more details? The section's already a bit large, as noted in the WP:VG assessment above. Arrowned 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid Prime Preview out in Europe

just downloaded it, added it to the main body of the article, but stumbled when trying to add the ref (http://wiinintendo.net/2007/10/15/metroid-prime-3-channel-in-europe/) couldn't quite figure out how to do it, and I didn't want to screw up the entire reference list so figured it was better letting someone else do itGolden Dragoon 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Took care of it. Arrowned 20:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Golden Dragoon 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary, again

The plot summary is way too long. Realistically, it could be condensed to a paragraph. One should not read this article as a replacement for playing the game. Here's what it could easily look like:

The Space Pirates, in alliance with Dark Samus, are attempting to spread Phazon throughout the galaxy by the use of Leviathans, meteor-like objects/creatures which are able to spread Phazon over entire planets after impact. Early on, Samus and several other bounty hunters are attacked by Dark Samus; as a result, Phazon becomes part of their life force, and they are equipped with technology that allows them to utilize Phazon as energy. Over the course of the game, Samus travels to several planets and other parts of the galaxy, fighting many corrupted creatures, including the other bounty hunters, and eventually arrives at Phaaze, the source of all Phazon in the galaxy. Samus travels to its core, where she defeats Dark Samus, and as a result, Phaaze is destroyed and all Phazon in the galaxy is rendered inert.

It's been a while and I wasn't sure if the Leviathans were alive or not, so just fix it as necessary. --iTocapa t 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not bad. I think it could use a LITTLE more depth than that, but that is a very nice nutshell summary of the game. Perhaps this summary should be the one we use on the Samus Aran article for her role in this game? There are some important plot points (particularly the Aurora Units, which are apparently the basis for Mother Brain) that deserve mention - we just don't need a whole lot of detail about them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Could be shortened. But we need to include the setting somewhere, and usually it enters the plot section. igordebraga ≠ 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review and concerns

Overall, a solid article. I do have some issues and suggestions:

  • The lead is written in a counter intuitive way, considering the article layout. Shouldn't plot come before reception? Should you mention something about its marketing?
  • Pick a tense. Reviews and comments switch from "So and so says that " to "Nintendo replied." I would say stick with past, unless its a figure like "as of (date), sold X units."
  • Reception- splitting up the section into individual publications seems to through more weight behind the reviewers rather than what they said. Most games split it up into postive/negative portions, with concerns of each publication throughout. This is just a stylistic concern, nothing that will pass/fail the article.

Get back to me when you think you have fixed the above, and I'll go through it once more. Thanks, David Fuchs (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Further concerns: Believe it or not, you can have (and actually need) a longer plot section. What I suggest is follow games like Halo 3 in creating a synopsis section with setting, characters, and plot. The plot can really remain the same, but it needs an introduction for those who have never played the games (like me!) David Fuchs (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully someone will grab that soon. I was able to attend to your earlier suggestions, but since I have yet to complete the game, I am hoping someone else maybe able to spruce up the Plot/Synopsis details :-p. Needless, It should not be a difficult task - or at least I hope it will not. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's mentioned that Electronic Gaming Monthly gave the game a Silver award with scores of 9.0, 8.5 and 8.5. Would you mind explaining what the scores are for? bibliomaniac15 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I clarified that the numbers are separate overall scores from the three reviewers. Just64helpin (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the development section could be trimmed a little. I took one look and thought: I am not reading all that! But that's just my opinion. Epass (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as the concerns above were not addressed, I am failing the article. David Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That's too bad. I believe the intro might need to be expanded a bit (add one more paragraph), and the final sentence of the first paragraph needs to be cited. Everything else looks really nice and I think it should soon be ready for another GA nomination. --haha169 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA On Hold

  • The paragraphs are very splintered, they don't flow well, so consolidate the paragraphs into bigger paragraphs.

That's really all, it looks very strong otherwise, stable, very comprehensive, totally referenced, even a free use image which is not super common for video game articles. For FA, copyedit a bunch, either with help or by yourself, and you should have a sparkling FA. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, such as selecting two paragraphs that should be merged? I looked through the article and each paragraph appears to deal with a new topic from the previous one; the only paragraphs that are very much related are in the ones in Reception, which I have improved on. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Your instincts served you well as you fixed it without thinking you had :) Passed! Copedit this thing, and send it to FA! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)