Jump to content

Talk:Celeste (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PerryPerryD (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 21 December 2022 (→‎Good Article nomination: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmcne2. Peer reviewers: Cmcne2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination

@JJPublic, I don't think this article is ready for a Good Article (GA) nomination. There are unsourced paragraphs and entire sections that require expansion (esp. Reception). You'll want to make and discuss such edits before nominating. czar 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EchidnaLives, see above czar 08:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar Hello. What exactly are you referring to? I saw this but assumed it had been fixed, and Reception is completely fine now. I would love to get this game I love so much to GA, but if there are issues it would really help if you could tell me. (this is my first GAN.) Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Czar @EchidnaLives: I pretty much agree that the reception part is lacking information. I say this for sure as the GA editor for this article in zhwiki. At least, the article has no mention of the critics' acclaim on the game's precise control, the help mode, and the artstyle. MilkyDefer 12:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar @MilkyDefer I have just made a large change to the Reception part of the article. Could I get your opinions on the changes? Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer to leave the decision to Alexandra IDV and czar, who previously contributed to this article. I may give the reception part a pass, although the repeated use of quotations could get improved per Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. The game, too, is not without any critical comments, like how PCGamer hates the wind, and how Game Informer thinks about the game's lack-of-identity graphics and the annoying pseudo-speech. Receptions apart, the article is also lacking substantial information on development (eg. how the development team blends their own depression experience into the game's theme and story [1] [2]) that gurantees a fail in GA review. MilkyDefer 08:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice start! To get a sense of what a GA's Reception section should look like and include, see this list of recent successful video game nominations and the GA criteria. To have basic breadth, it needs to be a survey of the major reviews and it needs to cover those viewpoints neutrally (here's some advice on that). There is so much written about this game that the article cannot be said to cover that basic breadth right now. The Gameplay section needs to be sourced from reliable, secondary sources (such as these) and the Plot needs to be much shorter (it's a platformer, not known for its plot) to have due weight. And Milky's points as well. czar 08:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips. I'll work on this stuff now! echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I provide my version of plot summary (a direct translation from my zhwiki GA article) for your reference.

The game follows the protagonist Madeline, who suffers from panic and depression, and her attempt to climb to the top of Mount Celeste which is said to have the mysterious power to reflect one's true self. She met some other characters during her climb, including Theo who also wishes to climb to the top, Granny who lives in the mountain, and Mr. Oshiro the ghost who operates a hotel in the mountain. Madeline is also confronted by "Badeline", an alter ego of herself that is composed of her negative feelings, who tries to stop her from reaching the summit. Madeline and Theo successfully goes halfway through the mountain but Madeline is suddenly attacked by Badeline and drops to the bottom. At the bottom, Granny tells Madeline that she should try bracing and accepting her negative feelings, instead of trying to get rid of them. After the two apologize to each other, Madeline and Badeline recombine and successfully make their way to the summit. An epilogue shows Madeline celebrating her success with Badeline, Theo, Granny, Mr. Oshiro, and a strawberry pie. The size of the pie and the number of strawberries within it depend on how many collectible strawberries the player acquired throughout the game.

The game has two extra chapters. The first one is set one year after the main story, in which Madeline explores the core of Celeste Mountain. The second one is set after the death of Granny, in which Madeline tries to trace Granny's whereabouts in her dream, eventually accepting the fact.

Basically, events in Chapter 1 (city), 2 (ruins), 3 (hotel), 4 (ridge), 5 (temple) can be omitted. Just leaving a mention of characters is fine. ganbatte. MilkyDefer 14:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this. I'm a bit busy at the moment but will begin working on it soon. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar @MilkyDefer Hello! I've finally got around to working on the issues you brought up. Here's the relevant diffs: 1 (rewriting the plot), 2 (improving reception), 3 (adding a bit about the criticism, 4 (a bit of an improvement in development) and 5 (adding references to the gameplay section). While I am uncertain if it is ready for a GAN, I believe it is certainly getting close. What do you think? Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 07:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately I've caught covid. I need a week or two to recover. I'm unable to review for now. Please wait for czar's response. MilkyDefer 01:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MilkyDefer All good, hope you get better soon! echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. The Plot section is still too long and the Character section shouldn't exist. If it isn't noteworthy enough for reviewers to remark on its importance, it should be a fraction of its length, cut to the bare necessities of what a general reader would need. The Reception is really short for a game with this much coverage and it teeters on the edge of original research with blanket claims like "the mechanics and controls of Celeste were highly commended"—I suggest paring it to "Destructoid and GameSpot commended its controls" etc. Most of the topic sentences here have similar issues. But a GA review wouldn't fail outright with these improvements thus far. czar 05:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Czar for your feedback. I'll work on all the things you have brought up. Once I'm done, I may start the GA review, and get more feedback from that, but I'll see how it goes. Once again, thanks! echidnaLives - talk - edits 05:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to the article following your feedback, including removal of the Characters section, further improvement of reception (mostly fixing the topic sentences) and some reorganising, including swapping the positions of plot and gameplay, and creating a new paragraph in Gameplay for assist and variants mode. With these changes, I believe it is ready for a GAN. If you have any additional feedback, please let me know! I am also hoping to improve it further through the GAN process. Thanks to you both for all the feedback you have provided so far, I wouldn't of been able to improve it like this without your help, and hopefully I can learn from this and help promote more Video Game Good Articles, and possibly in the future, an FA. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved, but I would still improve it further to firmly meet the GA criteria before nominating it, as the nomination process is more meant to be a rubber stamp than a forum to work through issues. The Reception section in particular could use some bulking up both to represent the breadth of reviewer opinions and to read less like everyone praised everything. With a claim like "reviewers thought X", you'll want to cite more than two sources to show that it was actually a widespread opinion. I recommend including quotes within the footnote to demonstrate that, though not required. Also usually reviewers disagree on some things, which isn't reflected in the mostly laudatory current summary. czar 14:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this—@EchidnaLives, I'd recommend requesting a peer review or further talk page comments before rushing into a GA nomination. As CZAR said, the nomination process is a rubber stamp on an article that meets GA standards than it is a way to bring an article to GA standards. DecafPotato (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recommendation. I completely forgot peer review existed! I'll do that now. echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EchidnaLives, I've given the article a quick copyedit[understatement] to help it to GA status. Whaddoyou think? DecafPotato (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this doubled the article's length from 14kB to 33kB, so not quite a copyedit.

At first blush, the Reception is better (beefier) but, for example, saying that critics praised its depiction of anxiety/panic attacks (while only one source is cited as saying that) remains an issue. This stacked ref style doesn't help the reader. I'd suggest, at a minimum, writing out the publications or {{harvnb}} rather than listing a bunch of citations. (Even better would be to share quotes that back up the claim from each of those sources.)

And suffice it to say, since it's where most of that expansion went, the Development section goes into way too much detail for a general audience. While much of it is interesting, there are sections where two or three sentences can be collapsed into one or development trivia removed. I.e., that "Assist Mode" was once called "Cheat Mode", that "Assist Mode" took several days to develop—what is its importance? That it was added late in development, I can potentially see that fact's importance.

Same for the Plot section. It needed to be shorter, not longer. We don't need to know that the character Theo is "obsessed with his social media presence". These facts have no bearing on a general reader's understanding of the game, as reflected by not showing up as a theme in the Reception. Consider moving these details to another fan wiki and paring this down for a general readership.

Nice work, overall! czar 21:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I noticed immediately is that there are four screenshots from the game, as well as a screenshot of the prototype. Given that these are non-free images, most of them should be not included, particularly the two used in the Reception section. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those rare instances when the screenshots are indeed free use (not non-free)! The developer released them to Commons in 2018 so that one day they could be used for just this purpose (among others). czar 21:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, awesome! I do think that the content of the article is good, but I agree that now we need some editing to trim it down and tighten it up. @DecafPotato, not to be disparaging because this looks a lot better than it was before, but I think the biggest gap I've noticed, both here and on MK8DX, is judging which details are essential for a general audience versus those that trivial like that Czar pointed out. Just remember that while we want to comprehensive, not everything needs to be mentioned. :D ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely need fresh eyes to look over my work—when I write long things I kind of lose track of full cohesion. I’ll be home in a bit to help out. DecafPotato (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasO1989 and @Czar, after going through everything you said here:
  • For the record, this doubled the article's length from 14kB to 33kB, so not quite a copyedit That was the joke, lol.
  • Saying that critics praised its depiction of anxiety/panic attacks (while only one source is cited as saying that) remains an issue Yeah, that is an issue. There are sources that say it because I wouldn't have written it in the image caption if I didn't keep reading it in the reviews and a couple that I've checked do say it, I just need to track down all the sources and properly cite them.
  • This stacked ref style doesn't help the reader. I'd suggest, at a minimum, writing out the publications or harvnb rather than listing a bunch of citations. (Even better would be to share quotes that back up the claim from each of those sources.) I haven't encountered a problem with using stacked references before, as a way to not have it make the article more awkward by reading like: "A couple people said this thing[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]", instead reading like "A couple people said this thing[a]". I suppose I could list each source in the Efn, though that feels slightly redundant when you can just look at the references to see exactly who said each thing. I know we're already hiding this away in a note, but I think "A couple people said this thing[b] is even more clunky. As for quotes, eh? I think that might be a copyvio thing? These reviews aren't that long and quoting each one like 5+ times in addition to the ones quoted in prose feel kinda unnecessary.
  • The Development section goes into way too much detail for a general audience I don't doubt that at all, lol. As mentioned above, I sometimes lose track of stuff like that when I've been writing for a while, so if something feels unnecessary, it probably is, feel free to trim anything that feels unnecessary. A fresh set of eyes always helps to remove stuff like that.
  • That "Assist Mode" was once called "Cheat Mode", that "Assist Mode" took several days to develop—what is its importance? I think the fact that Assist Mode took several days to develop ties into the fact that it was added near the end of development, and the former name of the mode was included because I feel that it is important not because of the mode having a different name, but that the team specifically aimed to make it less "judgmental". Maybe the bit about Mario Odyssey could be removed, though.
  • Same for the Plot section. It needed to be shorter, not longer This is more a response to previous comments about the plot, but I think the two-paragraph summary (one for the base game, one for the postgame/Farewell) works well for the purposes of due weight, much better than the previous four-ish paragraphs. While the game isn't necessarily plot-focused, it is an important aspect frequently brought up in the Reception section, so I think the level of detail is appropriate.
  • We don't need to know that the character Theo is "obsessed with his social media presence". These facts have no bearing on a general reader's understanding of the game, as reflected by not showing up as a theme in the Reception While I agree with the rest of the character trimming done by ThomasO1989 in this edit, I think the social media obsession part is worth noting—it's a central part of his character and is noted in basically every source that mentions him.
  • Consider moving these details to another fan wiki and paring this down for a general readership. I know this may have been a bit too detailed, but the Celeste Wiki's Chapter 2 plot summary is 456 words long, compared to "In the next area, Madeline has a nightmare in which she encounters Badeline, who chases Madeline out of the area." (20 words) They aren't even comparable.
  • I do think that the content of the article is good, but I agree that now we need some editing to trim it down and tighten it up I completely agree. Hopefully this could get to GA/FA somewhat soon if we put our heads together.
Fake Notes/References

Notes

  1. ^ Supported by multiple sources:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
  2. ^ Supported by Person 1[15] Person 2,[16] etc. (I don't want to type this again)

References

  1. ^ Person 1
  2. ^ Person 2
  3. ^ Person 3
  4. ^ Person 4
  5. ^ Person 5
  6. ^ Person 6
  7. ^ Person 7
  8. ^ Person 1
  9. ^ Person 2
  10. ^ Person 3
  11. ^ Person 4
  12. ^ Person 5
  13. ^ Person 6
  14. ^ Person 7
  15. ^ Person 1,
  16. ^ Person 2
DecafPotato (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re: bullet #3, quotes within a footnote wouldn't be a copyvio issue. For example, see Noam Chomsky#Notes for how it would work. I agree that the single bundled ref[a] is better form than the multiple footnote ref[1][2][3][4] but the matter is what gets put inside the bundled ref; if it's just the same set of multiple footnotes, it doesn't help the reader apart from hiding the eyesore elsewhere. For what it's worth, WP has been evolving on this topic and I need to add some examples of bundled refs to WP:CRS eventually. czar 05:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DecafPotato Sorry for taking some time to look at this. Wow, thank you so much for rewriting it. The article is amazing and, when the few things above are addressed, I honestly think this could go beyond GA, possibly to Featured Article. I might try and help shorten and cut some parts a bit later, but this is great! echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To any major contributing editor, Dont forget to submit this aritlce to GA Submissions. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that goes beyond my expectation. That has made my Celeste look pale. MilkyDefer 09:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the names of Celeste's Developer and Publisher?

I am saying this because there have been many name changes and conflicting information on the internet.

On the official Celeste website, there is the logo of "Maddy Makes Games" on the bottom. It is included on Maddy Thorson's website with "Maddy Makes Games" on top as well. It is also included on EXOK Games' website, with its publisher being "Matt Makes Games, Inc." It's press kit last modified in 2018, its console releases, and its Epic Games Store release both say that the developer and publisher is "Matt Makes Games". On Steam, its developer is "Extremely OK Games, Ltd." with its publisher being "Matt Makes Games Inc." Finally, on itch.io, it is under the storefront "Maddy Makes Games".

I'm curious about which one would it be currently, as the current names on Wikipedia seem to be based on the press release. - John4Numbers (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Games often change "owners" as companies get gobbled up. On Wikipedia, we use what can be established (in reliable, secondary sources) as the developer/publisher at time of release, rather than the current owner. In this case it's complicated or potentially overruled by our Manual of Style guideline on gender identity, given the developer's gender transition and how it's reflected in the company's name. czar 21:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's something I honestly don't know how to handle. I think I'm leaning towards "Matt Makes Games" as the best choice, as all contemporary sources call the developer/publisher that. I would be fine switching it to "Extremely OK Games", as it's the developer listed in the game itself. I'm not sure about "Maddy Makes Games", though. I could only find two reliable sources list them as the game's developer, and the term "Maddy Makes Games" has never really been a thing. It was loosely applied in 2020 after Thorson changed her name, over a full year after EXOK succeeded the company, and, to my knowledge, has never been any sort of legal entity. As for MOS:DEADNAME, it seems like something that needs more discussion. I'm open to an RfC on the topic, as this is definitely something that warrants a wide discussion in my opinion, though I personally don't have strong feelings either way. Do we default to WP:COMMONNAME, in which case "Maddy Makes Games" has never been the common name, do we go with the name at time of publication, per other video games that have had their developer/publisher undergo a name change/change in ownership, though does that conflict with guidelines about using a transgender person's deadname? Can policies about people apply to companies, even if the company is named after them? Do we go with EXOK because that's the more common name that doesn't risk using a person's deadname? I've stuck to the "use the one from contemporary sources" route, though I've deliberately pretty much not used the name of the developer/publisher at all—it's only in the lead and top of the infobox, everywhere else uses things like "the developers" to avoid this whole mess. I have no clue where to even start tackling this problem as a whole, though, and I'm certainly open to an RfC to help, because GENDERID-related stuff on Wikipedia has been contentious and IMO this isn't a problem to be solved on the talk page of a relatively small indie game. DecafPotato (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that there is any potential for confusion in changing the primary publisher to either Maddy Makes Games or EXOK Games. It's important to be mindful of deadnaming, and I don't think people are so attached to the original developer name that they would be confused if it was changed. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, I’d prefer EXOK in that case. Maddy Makes Games first appeared more than a year after EXOK, and retrospective sources use EXOK mostly, while contemporary ones use the old name of the studio—a former name which needs to be included at least in a footnote because it was notable for Celeste specifically. DecafPotato (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that we add EXOC as the developer and create the footnote regarding Matt Makes Games. Publishing is a bit of a gray area, but I believe we should use the original name under which the game was published (Matt) and then add the footnote saying that the publisher's name was changed. The Night Watch (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celeste_(video_game)&oldid=1128709344"