Talk:Deadly Premonition

Deadly Premonition has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 28, 2013	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

NPOV and NOR

I removed a large portion of this article because it contained unreferenced, severely negative information. While the edit may contain relevant information to this game, please see the above links to ensure that information added to Wikipedia meets both a neutral point of view and does not contain original, unsourced information. avs5221 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception rewording

The 'reception' section needs rewording, it gives the impression that the game is actually good, whereas this is not the truth. The reviews clearly show that the game is terrible, but they are giving the game a high score purely for comedic purposes and cult-like aspects. The IGN review is clearly the most accurate and least ignorant review there, and this is coming from someone who generally dislikes what IGN has done to the journalistic integrity of the video game reviewers' job in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.171.65 (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You DO know that out of 10 reviews on Metacritic, 7 of them are above the 65 mark, 4 of which are in the 80+ range, right?

I reworded it back to reflect the actual reviews, and not your personal opinion of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.162.107 (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back, AGAIN. I don't care if you don't like the game. 'Mixed reviews' indicates close to a fifty fifty mix of poor reviews and good reviews. THIS game, specifically, has the majority in the positive according to metacritic, and quite a few of those are in the top tier scores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.162.107 (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay Section

The Gameplay Section of the page is unbelievably wordy and reads more like a player's guide than a description. "Hide Mode" is particularly bad for this. Anyone else think it needs tightening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.59.140 (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

either a fan or an Ignition staff member has been at this article

I edited the Reception section of the article to be less biased in tone, and more "just the facts, ma'am".

But the Gameplay section still reads like biased codespeak typed up by a fan or advertiser, and as the poster above me mentions, it's far too verbose.

I'm not informed enough about the game to tackle that section responsibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.236.95 (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. I just deleted everything but the intro paragraph in the Gameplay section. Frankly, the broad summary it provides is enough to be appropriate for a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.236.95 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

I just started playing this, and its not specified in the "plot" section of this article, but why are there teleporting zombies everywhere? I suppose I could play more, but I just think that the whole plot should be listed in that section, like it is with most other games, books, and movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.8.19 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is pretty underwhelming, but the game doesn't really explain the zombies. There's been speculation as to where they come from, but it's just speculation and not appropriate for the article. Reach Out to the Truth 22:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen of the plot, they just sort of appear-- I haven't gotten far enough into the game to really understand what they're all about. I'd actually really be up for working on this article with editors if they're up for it. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Best Worst Game" award from GamesRadar

Ive seen some gamesradar reviews and references, so i guess it's a reliable source now. They gave Deadly Premonition the "Best Worst Game" award, given to the crappiest game they liked. Should that be included in the article, or is it a bit too informal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequels

Swery has announced that he is making a sequel to the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.99.63 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, dont forget, that he also announced a Prequel as well, which doesnt seem to be in development atm. 84.173.171.216 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon in-depth article

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/2/12/3977154/the-sinners-sandwich-deadly-premonitions-creator-on-making-a-good-bad Axem Titanium (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deadly Premonition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 16:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed a number of issues below for this article. Unfortunately, at this time the problems seem to be substantial enough that I do not think the page is near Good Article standard, nor that it can attain such a status quickly. Anyone is welcome to address the below comments and then the article can be renominated. —Ed!^(talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the first sentence, most of the content in the lead of the article should be moved into the "Development" section. The lead section should summarize the contents of the entire article, and shouldn't have citations because that info should all be found elsewhere in the article. See WP:LEAD for more information about this.
The "Gameplay" section contains no sources. While it might seem like you don't need sources to describe the experience of playing, the section should actually be describing the mechanics of the game, and so I think there are a substantial number of sources needed to describe the genre, how the game plays, and the characters.
The plot section comes in at just over 900 words, and is too long. The plot should be very concise, and just touch on the major plot points. A good rule of thumb at higher levels of article quality is a plot section that is around 400 to 500 words, about half the length that it is now. Glancing over the plot, I see a lot of little details added in that could be removed. See WP:PLOT for more information on this.
What was the budget of the game? This should be in the "Development" section.
In the "Development" section, I see you added Jeff Kramer as the voice actor for the main character. That was good, but voice actors should be added and cited for the rest of the cast, as well.
"Reception" section: "It is considered one of the most divisive games to be released in a long time," -- this sentence uses multiple "weasel words" which need some more detail, otherwise they seem misleading. See WP:WEASEL for more on this.
References 21, 42, and 43 are bare URLs and need to be formatted. I see some references, like number 5, which might need some more information, as well.

It needs a gameplay screenshot instead of a cutscene screenshot. --Niemti (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also something about the recption of DC. --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deadly Premonition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deadly Premonition/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to get to this by the end of next week. Life is busy at the moment, so things might not align for a while. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No rush! Thank you for taking the time out of your busy week for this article; I'm eagerly waiting to see your thoughts. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

@Rapunzel-bellflower: Here's my thoughts on the article.

In the lead, is it possible to describe the gameplay in some way?
Having quotes and citations in the lead isn't ideal. Maybe find a way to paraphrase.
There generally seems to be an excess of quotes over paraphrasing in prose. Maybe some rewrites are in order.
Last two paragraphs of the Dev section currently use "Ref 1" too much. You don't need to cite each sentence, just the paragraph. Same issue with the "Audio" paragraph.
Any source for the composers?
Way too many quotes in Reception.

That's all, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a number of good points. Let me have a think about how to best tackle them, and I will address them shortly, perhaps tonight or tomorrow. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don‘t want to butt in to this but when I was thinking about reviewing this article a few weeks back, there was one thing I noticed I wanted to point out: in the plot section‘s final paragraph, “the alternate dimension“ is mentioned. The article never talks about it earlier on and should be clarified (maybe in the setting?) what it is about (the two rooms, an alternate reality, a parallel universe?) and under which circumstances it is visited.DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not butting in at all! Let me see if I can make it a bit clearer in the article. The plot of Deadly Premonition can be so ridiculously complex! In case you're not familiar with the game (do play it then; I highly recommend it!), the alternate dimension in this case is a woodsy place for spirits after death. It's like the afterlife but in parallel with the everyday world of the game...and it does intersect with the other two supernatural rooms in the game (the Red Room and the White Room, both of which are more of a manifestation of York/Zach's mental state/interiority). Do let me know if you have other concerns! Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake:, I believe I have made the changes you requested. Please let me know if you would like me to make further changes. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rapunzel-bellflower: After looking through it again, I see much improvement. Thanks to DasallmächtigeJ for mentioning that point above. Looking at it now, it still needs some work if you're taking it further, but as a GA I think it's a Pass. My only remaining suggestion is that you ensure all sources are archived, as things like developer blogs can just vanish overnight. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Thank you so much for your time! What would you recommend working on if someone wanted to take the article further, out of curiosity? Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis York Morgan, fictional character with DID

Hey, I was reading up on some symptoms of a mental illness I have (to make sure I was gonna be okay, and to clarify, I am!) and a brief diversion led me to the category page for Fictional Characters with Multiple Personalities category page. What stuck out to me is that Francis/Zachary York Morgan from Deadly Premonition aren't on that list. I've long considered Francis and Zachary to be great DID/plural rep. I'm not yet familiar with the finer points of wiki editing , but would you guys agree? And how would I go about making sure Francis is listed properly in that category? Do I just add the category to the page, then go to the category and tweak the listing? --Actuallyasriel (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]