Talk:Development of Deus Ex

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

DYK nomination

[edit]
{{Did you know nominations/Development of Deus Ex}} czar ♔ 16:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Development of Deus Ex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 19:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'll have a stab at this. Expect a input in a day or two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Generally fine. Just some minor points that need addressing.

  • "Their text editor would let players could take notes in-game as well." - Poor grammar here.
  • "He also felt that matrix management structure under which the Dallas art team worked for the project but were not the project's staff hurt the game's progress." - Perhaps "that the matrix management" would work better.
  • "The game was designed to be "genre-busting"—partly simulation, role-playing game, first-person shooter, and adventure.[5] It's an "immersive simulation" (similar to Ultima Underworld[4]) in that there are no reminders of being in a game, such as interface or backstory.[5] Spector described the player's role-playing in player-character decision-making as developing a "unique alter ego" built from the ramifications of their unique gameplay choices.[5] The game is from the first-person perspective and includes shooting, but there are other non-violent gameplay options. And like an adventure game, Deux Ex is primarily based on a linear narrative story and item collection, though its puzzles are open-ended with many possible solutions and consequences. Ion Storm viewed the game as about "player expression" rather than themselves appearing "clever".[5] They treated the player as a "collaborator" and sought to empower to "make choices and ... deal with the consequences".[5]" - This whole paragraph doesn't read very well: when read out, it sounds more like pieces of promotional material strung together.

That's all I can see there. Fix those issues and it should be okay. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake, thanks for the review. Look good now? czar ♔ 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I think this can be considered a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Development of Deus Ex. 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) 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal: Merge Development of Deus Ex into Deus Ex (video game)

[edit]

I'm proposing that Development of Deus Ex be merged with/redirected to the relevant section of Deus Ex (video game), which has recently been promoted to GA. I was the original reviewer of the GAN, and I believe I made a duff call. In gathering information for the main article for its GAN, I found that the information could be conveyed much better. Also the Development article has gaps in its content (that I should have picked up on), and as it stands seems superfluous. Pinging article creator @Czar, and others I've had discussions with on this subject (@PresN @TheJoebro64, @SnowFire, @Pokelego999). ProtoDrake (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Separate "development" articles are hardly ever justified, and I've never seen the need for this one. It would benefit from a decent trim anyway. Popcornfud (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I could see it argued that this might not be a GA due to heavy single-source reliance (This article is clearly heavily based on Spector's 2000 interview, and to a lesser extent Wawro's article also at Gamasutra / Game Developer), I'm not sure it should be outright deleted, given it was already written. Deus Ex is pretty notable, and this article would qualify as a valid summary-style spinoff of content that would clog up the main article (and so the "main article: Development of Deus Ex" header in Development at Deus Ex should probably be restored). It's the kind of thing that wasn't strictly speaking necessary to write, but deleting it... eh. It seems fine. Only Deus Ex super-fans will click on it anyway and it's harmless to provide the additional context here. SnowFire (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I've made my thoughts on this clear before but I definitely feel this is largely redundant to the main article. Basically all of the information here is at the main article now, and anything that isn't can be slotted in pretty neatly. I disagree with SIZESPLIT notions when most of the info is largely duplicative of what already exists neatly in the current one. A merge is definitely for the best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merging a Good Article with clear independent notability is Mergism run amok for the sake of it. If it were a tiny or half-finished article, I could see the argument, but Deus Ex is one of the most highly influential games in history. WP:NOTPAPER applies in this discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate that your position on the relevance and existence of articles isn't in line with mine and that's something that likely won't change, but if this article is kept, it DOES need rewriting and redoing because at the moment it relies on a small number of sources and is extremely verbose for the amount of actual information it contains. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The article being a GA implies it does not need a rewrite and is generally of high caliber, so I find this argument dubious at best. Again, while it could be merged, so could many articles. There is no convincing reason it must be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Believe me, as someone who has written and reviewed multiple FA and GAs, that little badge does not necessarily mean the writing is good. Popcornfud (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A GA badge doesn't make an article immune to criticism, especially given how long ago this particular article was declared a GA. GA criteria has changed a lot since 2014. Rosaece (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I do understand some of Zx's reasoning, I don't agree that a GA status automatically indicates something is high quality without a doubt. Drake's reasoning here is sound, and while I could see an argument for a spinoff development article (i.e. Doom), the important beats are already covered in the parent and to a lesser extent JC Denton.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very few games warrant a separate development article and this is no exception. I’m failing to see any information in this article that shouldn’t be in the main article. Rosaece (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A GA badge is not a shield against merging or deletion, and so is not relevant to this discussion. Ultimately, this article is mostly a text summary of a single (long, great) talk by Spector, and really shouldn’t be an article as written. Given that what should be done to fix it is essentially what ProtoDrake has done in the main game article, leaving this redundant, we should merge/redirect to there. --PresN 15:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per rationale brought by the fellow editors here. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]