Talk:Assassin's Creed Odyssey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I'm not really familiar with how talk pages work, but I'm hoping someone more qualified than I can add a section (or at least a paragraph) on the controversy re: the forced heterosexual relationship in the DLC and subsequent changes the developers made:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-25-ubisoft-is-replacing-assassins-creed-odysseys-controversial-dlc-ending-tomorrow

It is currently discussed in an odd place, in the last para under Gameplay. This article needs better balance (far too much plot, too little detail on dev, and reception), but this facet is covered. --Masem (t) 07:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No development

Origins and Valhalla feature development sections. Perhaps good to include one here. 85.148.213.144 (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

@Jasca Ducato: - I definitely disagree that the lead section needs to be this long. When I was rewriting the whole article, I was following the examples of Assassin's Creed Origins, which was already reviewed and passed the GA criteria. While Origins is still about the conflict between the assassins and the templars, this installment intentionally stayed away from it and we didn't need three rows just to describe the core idea about what assassins or templars are. The reception paragraph was similarly overly-detailed. OceanHok (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said that the lead section needs to be this long, only that the removal of plot-relevant information should be avoided. I actually agree that the introduction is too long, but all other articles covering entries in the Assassin's Creed series detail the nature of the Assassin-Templar conflict in their lede; this includes Assassin's Creed Origins, which you used as inspiration for you edit. As repetitive (or redundant?) as that might seem, we cannot assume that readers of these articles have the background knowledge necessary to warrant its exclusion from the lede. Also, your point regarding "[the] Assassins [are] not even in this game and Layla part accounts for like 0.5% off the game" is entirely subjective and could quite easily be argued to be wrong. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

In the context of Odyssey, that makes no sense because there are no assassins or hidden ones. There are no templars/Order of the Ancients either. Their inclusion in Origins makes sense because the conflict between the assassins and the templars actually play a big role in the story. This is not the background knowledge they need if they didn't even show up in the game. My original version only have "Odyssey is the first mainline Assassin's Creed title not to focus on the conflict between the Assassins and Templars", which I think is sufficient already. If you think it is really unclear maybe I can add that they are two opposing factions. It would also be ironic since I spent a large amount of time in the development section talking about how this game is not about the conflicts between the assassins and the templars, only to have it show up in the lead explaining in detail what this conflict is about. OceanHok (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the Layla part/modern-day segment is important to the game at all. The lead is all about summarizing, so not mentioning her in the lead is not a big deal if she doesn't play a significant role. OceanHok (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the fundamental problem with your edit; your assertion that "there are no Assassins or Hidden Ones [..] Templars/Order of the Ancients either" is incorrect. The Order of the Ancients do appear in-game (by mention in the base-game and as the principal adversairies of the Legacy of the First Blade DLC), as do the Assassins and Templars – in the modern-day sequences you arbitraily dismiss. Even if they did not, however, the fact that this entry is a part of the Assassin's Creed series means the descriptions are warranted. I haven't had time to review the edits you've made in the Development section, but if you have spent "a large amoutn(sic) of time in the development section talking about how this game is not about the conflicts between the assassin and templar" then I would be inclined to believe your edits are geared towards shifting the narrative of the article towards one that conveys your specific point of view. I.e. that this is not a 'true' Assassin's Creed game.

EDIT: Your comment that the modern-day segment "is not important to the game at all" in fact proves my point. This is less about making the article concise, and more about making it known that Odyssey isn't a true AC game. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what is the problem here. It is a main instalment in the series that doesn't follow the established formula. It is not my point of view. The developer explicitly said they want to stay away from the assassin-templar conflict, and reviewers also noticed this change. What I think is not relevant. We need to detail the conflict between Assassin and templars because this is an Assassin's Creed game? When does this become a formula that we need to follow? Even if the assassins and templars show up in the game, that do not mean that they are (1) important to the plot (2) essential to readers for understanding the plot. I don't mind you list out everything in detail in the plot section but this was not needed in the lead.

I am deeply concerned by the words you have chosen, in particularly how I was "shifting the narrative of the article towards one that conveys your specific point of view". The rewrite I did was based on what was described by reliable sources and no original research was involved. Your accusation here is unjust and unfair. OceanHok (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable lack of citations?

I noticed that in the beginning paragraphs there are no citations. Information about the publishing company, the game's features (in this instance, the notice of open world), and other information about the game in question. PerryPerryD (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEDECITE. Citations are not required in lede as long as sourced in body. --Masem (t) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, That clears up a lot of confusion PerryPerryD (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassin's Creed Odyssey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PerryPerryD (talk · contribs) 19:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am PerryPerryD, I will be reviewing this article thoroughly to the best of my ability, Due to the size of this article and high number of sources (Both are good things), I do request the help of other editors to speed up this process and catch anything I may have missed. Best of luck.

Just a quick personal note unrelated to this review. This will be my final GA Review for a while. With that being said, I will now begin. PerryPerryD 18:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations, Noting by the names attached to the citations alone, I can verify that they come from reliable sources, such as IGN and Gameinformer. I have seen reliable information come from these sources in the past, and I have good faith that they are accurate and equal weighted. I am going to re-read the article carefully, and check for conflicting information.

After carefully re-reading this article multiple times, I can verify that all claims are sourced properly with third party sources. I give a pass on citations.PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS,

These are general notes for the manual of style itself, Each note will describe a section of interest.

"They also need to equip the player character with armor, boots, helmets and gloves" I would advise changing this to "The player may also need to equip armor. boots, helmets, and gloves". PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-Fixed PerryPerryD 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In terms of weight, I am considering placing the review on a one week hold due to the dlc discussion in talk, However, other than that, the article is equally weighted and balanced.PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"The world of Greece was designed to be "colorful" and "vibrant," and each region was given a unique visual characteristic" If you are quoting someone, please say their name. i.e john smith said "the world of greece...". PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-Fixed. All that remains is the dlc discussion. PerryPerryD 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"(then codenamed "Project Stream")" Cite Please. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-Fixed PerryPerryD 19:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Loveridge believed that Odyssey had refined and streamlined elements from Origins, making it a more enjoyable experience." Please use quotations around words like "Enjoyable Experience" if they are used in a review to defer you from Loveridge to prevent balancing issues. PerryPerryD 18:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-Fixed PerryPerryD 18:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"In its week of release, Assassin's Creed Odyssey was the second best-selling retail game in the UK, only behind FIFA 18. " Not required for GA, but I would advise removing this detail due to WP:GAMECRUFT. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Self-Fixed PerryPerryD 19:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Due to the revisions in regards to dlc, due to the revisions being 3 and not 4, It does not count as edit-warring, however. With the dlc situation I will be putting the review on hold. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Structure, The structure of this article is in-line with the advised template. Pass. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Media, the article features screenshots of the game and in context images with the sections of the article. All images are not in copyright violation, so Pass. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as i can tell, Due weight was given to each section, and no clear bias is shown. Pass. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

With the issues i stated above, mainly the DLC issue, I am placing this article on a 7 day hold. Please try to fix these issues as much as you can. Thank you. PerryPerryD 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I intentionally signed every note here to allow an easy reply once said issue is fixed. PerryPerryD 16:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I have self fixed the issues listed, and the DLC situation appears to have been resolved. Therefor i see absolutely no reason to deny this article. Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)