Talk:Tunic (video game)

Cleanup needed - Plot section

The section on plot has multiple issues; it lacks sources, needs copy-editing, and is factually incorrect regarding the plot summary. I will try to perform a cleanup in the next week or so, but by all means anyone who can improve this section, please do! SpuriousCorrelation 23:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Be aware plot sections on WP do not need referencing as it is assumed the work itself is that reference. --Masem (t) 00:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tunic (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 01:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll add this to my to-do list. Look for comments within a few days, if not end of the week. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll start with the article body. We can cover the lead once the main content is solid.

• Gameplay
• "which is divided into several large areas," -> I'd drop this. It doesn't add much and it mostly breaks the flow. (Or include it somewhere else.)
• "once a magic item has been found," Same comment as above.
• "Some actions, such as rolling, use up stamina, which refills after a few seconds, and cannot be performed when the stamina bar is empty." -> "Actions such as rolling are limited by the use of stamina, which refills after a few seconds."
• " fire projectiles, grab enemies with a lash, or slow down time" -> "fire projectiles, slow time, or grab enemies with a lash." (flow)
• ", scattered throughout the game world," This is another one of those obvious statements that can be removed, or said somewhere else if there's anything more detailed to add.
• "make attacks always go towards them" -> "(automatically) direct their attacks"
• "returns them once reached" -> "can be recovered on the next playthrough".
• Nitpicks aside, this is a really well-written section. Some of the sentences risk becoming a little long and complicated, but they're basically readable. Just something to watch for.
• Plot
• "expressed to the player through the experience of playing the game" -> "expressed through gameplay"
• "After collecting a weapon and shield, and ringing two magical bells, the fox enters a temple and enters a spiritual plane known as the Far Shore, where they encounter the spirit of a larger fox trapped in a crystal prison, referred to in the manual as the Heir. " -> break this into two shorter sentences
• "As they collect" -> "As the fox collects" (grammatically, it can make it sound like it's the heir)
• "Collecting enough pages of the manual" -> I think this is the first time I considered that the manual might be an in-game item. It would help to make this more clear at the top of the plot.
• This section is generally well-written. The part that's unclear is the ending. Does the game fully continue after the Heir kills the fox? Or is this a sort of false ending, which you can only overcome by collecting the pages? It would help to make it clear if there are multiple endings, as well as explaining roughly where the storyline branches off.

Let's pause there. The writing is really solid, and it's more just making sure the article has the right level of detail for the average reader. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Thanks! Okay, did all the grammar fixes and tried to rework things to a) make it more clear that the manual pages are actual items that you find and b) clarify the two endings. It's basically just that when you reach the Heir after you get your spirit back, you either fight (and once you win you get the game credits and ending cutscene) or else, if you have all of the manual pages, you don't fight, and you get the game credits and a different cutscene. The confusing bit to write out is that if you get ending 1, after the credits it pops up some boxes asking if you want to do a new game+ or if you want to continue from the last shrine (equivalent to reloading your last save). So you can (and almost certainly will) get ending 1, then rewind just a bit, then keep going until you get ending 2. But they're both "endings", it terminates the game, and ending 1 isn't a "false ending", just not a happy one. --PresN 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Both those things are a lot more clear now. Let's keep going:

• Development
• "without having a firm design" -> "without having a final design" or even "without knowing his creative direction"
• "both in combat and outside of it," -> Does this statement add anything?
• "parts of the game they thought they already knew" -> "previous parts of the game".
• "while a friend played the game" -> this also is less important, and might be cut to improve the flow of the sentence

• Done all above

• "Other major inspirations for the game were Monument Valley (2014) and Fez (2012). " -> this kind of overview sentence works well at the top of a paragraph, but in the middle it feels like it adds more clutter

• Split the paragraph, since it starts a second, distinct half of the "inspirations" chunk

• "following a similar mechanic in that game, " -> this is also implied and can be cut
• " Shouldice was joined on Secret Legend's development by Felix Kramer" -> " Shouldice was joined by Felix Kramer"
• "The pair composed the music to be primarily an "atmospheric" soundtrack that was connected to the world and exploration, rather than the fox, as the player did not know the fox's background or motivations and the pair did not want the music to define it for them." -> "Allowing the fox's personality to remain undefined, the pair of composers strived to make an "atmospheric" soundtrack that was more connected to the setting."
• "The game was finished over the next two years," -> Something about this confuses the timeline more than it clarifies it. I have to read back to understand where two years starts from, and you could easily just drop it.

• Done all above

• Does the team disagree on what made the game take so long, or are they more just multiple people providing multiple compatible perspectives?

• I read it as disagreeing; the source puts both quotes next to each other with "his teammates underline other reasons for the extended development", though they weren't actually interviewed together in one conversation.

• Reception
• The awards paragraph would fit better at the end of the section, especially since it flows nicely into the table. It might even deserve a subheading.

• Moved

• "without any hint of what to do next" -> another piece that can be cut, as you basically said it already

• Done

• " Destructoid's review concluded that the game had no major "missteps" in its gameplay or design, IGN concluded that it was "charming, multi-layered, and immensely rewarding to solve", and Game Informer concluded that the overall game was a game "brimming with genuine, triumphant discovery"" -> This feels less like a sentence and more like three separate ideas joined by commas. Is there a better way to handle this, or are the other comments from these reviewers enough?

• Eh, what I'm trying to do is have a "concluding" sentence about the reviewers' overall impression of the game, and those were examples the three main thrusts of the reviews' overall conclusions: focusing on the gameplay, focusing on the multi-layered puzzles, or focusing on the feeling of the game.

• Overall this section is really well written. I might re-organize the paragraphs, just because it feels a little "off" to lead with the game's aesthetics. I could be wrong. I just like the WP:PYRAMID style of writing where you start with more general comments, and then focus on the details later. For a game that would be general statements about the gameplay, if not the game overall.

• Swapped the gameplay and aesthetics chunks

The sources and other details are in good shape. You've done a great job with this article. This will easily reach GA with a few minor fixes. We'll give it one more pass next round, including the lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Replied inline. --PresN 19:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is in good shape. There's a few small tweaks that will help get this to GA.

• "as they journey" -> "on a journey"
• "Similarly," this word doesn't quite fit. I do see what you're trying to do about the game's overall approach to mystery building. It might be fine to leave it implied, unless you can find a more direct way of stating it from the body of the article.
• "first major project" -> "first major game" -- since project is too broad, and starts to repeat the language in the next sentence
• "and publisher Finji, which led to Tunic's announcement at E3 2017." -> this pulls the sentence into run-on land, and can probably be its own statement about publishing and announcing a release.
• "There are also golden platforms in each area, and kneeling on these transports the fox to a ghostly realm linking all of the platforms, allowing for quick traversal of the game world or access to unexplored areas." -> "Some areas also include a teleport mechanism in the form of a golden platform, which allows the fox to access a ghostly realm where they can exit through another golden platform in the world." (Trying to tighten this one up. But if it's not working for you, just try two separate sentences.)
• "given only in the manual in the constructed language. The manual, if the pages are collected and translated, is written towards the player as the reader." -> "given only as the fox player-character collects pages of a manual. This manual is written in a constructed language with the player as the reader."
• "This power was corrupted through overuse, causing the purple essence began to erode reality and loop time."

• Done all above

• The development section could use some subheadings, hopefully without too much re-organization. For example, several paragraphs focus on sources of inspiration. A release subheading might do some helpful work, too.

• Don't want to over-categorize, but gave it two subheadings at where seemed a natural breakpoint

• "He quickly decided that his experience as a programmer was not broad enough to create the commercial game he envisioned" -> this statement feels out of place, next to the statement about hiring an audio designer and composer. Did you mean to say that he realized he would need non-programmers to help complete the game? Or would this fit better later in the development story.

• Tried to fix it; it's partly because he phrased it oddly in the interview but it's also partially on me—I was trying to emphasize that he quit his job to make this game as a solo project, and within like 4 weeks he decided he needed to hire a sound person and a music person because "programmer" wasn't enough to make the game.

• "instead credit it to the small size of the team compared to the scale and complexity of the game" -> "instead felt that the scale and complexity of the game made it difficult for a smaller team to produce on time."

• Done

• "Destructoid's review concluded that the game had no major "missteps" in its gameplay or design, IGN concluded that it was "charming, multi-layered, and immensely rewarding to solve", and Game Informer concluded that the overall game was a game "brimming with genuine, triumphant discovery". -> This still feels more like three sentences joined together by commas than a single sentence about a single idea.

• Yeah, I'll just drop it, I think there's a reason this kind of "conclusion" sentence isn't a thing, and since there's a whole paragraph of awards after it now it's not like "people can get stuck at the end of the game" is the ending line any more.

That should be it. The references check out and the rest of the writing might even be excellent, even FA quality. These last fixes should get the article to GA quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker: Thanks! I'll sit on it for a bit, but the article came out better than I originally expected so I may take it to FAC later. --PresN 02:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The prose might be ready for FA quality. Either way, you did excellent work here, and I'm happy to call this a GA. Thanks again. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Not expected to decipher"

I just feel like this is not clear enough to be just stated with no source. Yes, there are two endings in the game and for neither do you need to decipher the language, but there are many puzzles in the game that lead toward the third pseudo-ending that do require you to decipher the language. These difficult puzzles constitute a fairly large part of the game, and though you could argue they are some sort of ARG that the developers did not expect many people to solve (or any to solve on their own) assuming this seems a stretch. The simple fact is there are many puzzles implemented in the game which require deciphering the constructed language. RestaurantMarsupial (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)