ToME: the Tales of Maj'Eyal

Wow!

Much better!

I'll be pretty busy for at least a week, so if people want things done faster, jump in.

leycec wrote: But don't take it from me. After all, I'm merely a researcher. Straight from the horse's mouth: "We want Wikipedia to be around at least a hundred years from now, if it does not turn into something even more significant. Everything about Wikipedia is engineered towards that end.. We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

I stand justly corrected! I guess my description was based on how Wikipedia mods behave, rather than how they're *meant* to behave ;)

Regarding the article, I think the whole game lore bit needs removed. It's text lifted straight from te4.org and has no relevance in the Wikipedia article. Sticking to straight facts about the game from the outside rather than details of in-game knowledge. These are more easily referenced and make the article look more professional. And this is coming from the person that wrote that text - I don't think it suits Wikipedia.

More adjustments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Tales_of_Maj%27Eyal

More work done. Can we improve on it in any way?

I'm getting worried that there will come a point that there will be so many declined it will get declined out of hand.

A few comments, probably nothing that will change whether it gets accepted:

The first paragraph under "Gameplay" (which is the first subheading) starts by explaining the engine. Why? Consider using the applicable headings and subheadings in the Dragon Age: Origins article, and a single heading later in the article to cover the engine capabilities.

Weasel-words ahoy - contemporary, seamlessly, almost completely, highly flexible, nine or more, 21 or more, numerous, varying degrees, deep and complex.

What does "almost completely iconified" mean, anyway?

"Character development within ToME depends mostly on player choices, and there are too many options to pursue during one game session." Sounds awkwardly conversational.

The whole game lore section sounds off, like Grey said. Way too in-universe. A plot synopsis is probably OK, but low-priority.

The addons & modules section sounds strange. It's also rife with awkward passive voice. It could probably be condensed down to a sentence describing the game engine. Also, I'm not sure what "game overlay" means. Do you mean "module?" Is "overlay" some sort of computer science term?

The community blurb is silly and could probably go. Is there a length guideline for acceptance?

I'll note that most other roguelikes on Wikipedia have notability/reference challenges. I wouldn't take the frequent rejections too personally.

I agree with pretty much everything bricks said. I've taken a hatchet to the draft article and streamlined it greatly.

As it currently stands, almost all the references are in the first section, and the "awards" section. In between, there's a whole bunch of unsupported statements (well, not quite as many now that I've chopped out a lot of the fat). I'm not sure if that's entirely a bad thing, but it does look a bit peculiar.

Maybe what we really need is just more time for people to write more reviews and articles about ToME, so that we can reference them. A few more really high-profile articles like the PC Gamer one would be ideal, I think.

I've just read through the TVTropes page for ToME - it's awesome! I don't know who did most of it, but it's very well-written and makes good references to the lore :) It's great to see the lore all so accurately interpreted!

Grey wrote:I've just read through the TVTropes page for ToME - it's awesome! I don't know who did most of it, but it's very well-written and makes good references to the lore It's great to see the lore all so accurately interpreted!

That was a pretty great read, agreed!

I've tweaked the Wikipedia article a little and added notes (with references!) to the 7DRL challenge entrants using the T-Engine.

I suggest that the whole Community section be removed. It is not notable in any way. The third paragraph of the Gameplay section should also be removed, as it's not particularly relevant. Overall I think the shorter the article the better.

I keep meaning to really have a hack at this...



My professional life keeps intervening! I'll try again next week!

Bump!
Don't forget this!

And it's on Desura now! That's surely a solid reference?

Desura is not a dead tree product, which is pretty much what they require. It does not matter how obviously relevant something is, if someone didn't kill a plant and carve words into its dead remains about it, then their crazy standards say it doesn't exist.

Oh, don't be so defeatist :-) Also someone is writing a book on roguelikes at the moment - I'm sure ToME will get a worthy mention!

Actually, what is needed is mention at websites with strong editorial integrity. I think the PCGamer piece fills this purpose, but that 1-2 more sources are needed.