Talk:Kameo

Bare links

I'll expand the bare links in due time—I'm working a tool that will automate some of the citation expansion process czar 06:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kameo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 08:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this one. AdrianGamer (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Several questions before I start the review:

• Your rewrite seems to have overwritten the entire page's edit history. Is that really ideal? I would really love to compare the old version and the new version to see how much have been improved.
• Does the game have a story? If it has, there should be a complete section talking about the story.
• Does your tool works? It seems that many of the citations still aren't complete. I can't wait to see how it works actually. It seems like a very handy tool to me.

— AdrianGamer (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking forward to the review. I covered the game's story proportional to its importance in reliable, secondary sources. It isn't ideal, but the draft and the old version had conflicting edit histories and the draft didn't share anything besides its artwork, in terms of attribution. You can find the old edit history here: Kameo: Elements of Power. I wrote a jury-rigged tool to automatically pull and expand the bare URLs, but last I checked the GA criteria requires that there be a Reference section and that references exist, not that they need to be in the same format or indeed formatted at all. (Of course, I plan to eventually get to that, but not a top priority, if you know what I mean.) czar 18:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• The game was published under Microsoft Game Studios label.
• The lead doesn't seem to be very proportional. Basic information, story, gameplay and development are put together in one single paragraph seems to be way too much.
• Reviewers found the story and Kameo's character lackluster, but largely liked the other characters and the core morphing concept. They had high praise for the orchestra score and other technical features, apart from the game's camera, and noted the game's short length. - Can be merged together with the previous sentence.

I revised this but didn't think it wise to merge because the first sentence compares characters and the second sentence compares technical elements

• including a free online cooperative mode upgrade - link cooperative

Already linked in the previous paragraph

• Microsoft's new focus on games for its Kinect peripheral. - Rare focused on Kinect, not Microsoft.

Microsoft owned Rare and directed most of its internal assets to work on Kinect

Rare is still a bit more accurate than simply "Microsoft", but Microsoft is still right.

• No gameplay screenshot?
• The player controls the player-character with the left analog stick, the game's camera view with the right thumbstick, and the character attacks and abilities with the controller's triggers - Controls are WP:GAMECRUFT

Basic descriptions of controls, especially when coming from sources, shouldn't be gamecruft, no? Gamecruft is when it attempts to explain anything more than the basics. Keep in mind that this console was introducing some audiences to games, so a source wouldn't have written about basic controls unless it was important to spell out.

I generally think that controls are something to be avoided since they may be a bit too detailed for the article and too complicated for readers who are unfamiliar with the console, but your explanation sounds fair.

• The game is structured such that new character abilities unlock just as their benefits are needed to solve a puzzle.[3] Thus the game's puzzles depend on combat more than logic. - Feel like something for the development section. It is talking about how they design these puzzles.

It's not talking about design choices, though—it's talking about how players progress through the game

• can travel faster than the elemental warriors - What do you mean by "travel faster"? It is a bit unclear.
• I think one of the problems with not having a story section is that it is a bit unclear when it comes to explain the gameplay section. For instance, I don't know about what Badlands is when I am reading the gameplay section.

The way it's phrased, I though one could assume that it's an overworld that connects the aforementioned areas

• IGN wrote that the game had received more IGN editor coverage during its development than "almost any other single game" - When did he say that? I honestly don't think this sentence is necessary.
• Phil Tossell described as "like Pokémon" - You can paraphrase that. This quote is a bit unnecessary.
• game at Electronic Entertainment Expo, an annual video game conference - which year?

Doesn't say

• the player would use a combination of Kameo's elemental warriors - their powers, not the warrior.

Not just their powers, though I would say the two are metonyms

• The cooperative mode was also added retroactively, which challenged the level design, which had already been finalized. - Needs rephrase. Try "The cooperative mode was also added retroactively, which challenged the finalized level design."
• But the biggest improvement was in the game's graphics and upgrades. - Don't start the sentence with a "but". This sentence sounds very subjective.

But there's nothing wrong with "But"

I thought generally speaking we shouldn't start a sentence with a "but".

• Around the time of Kameo's release, lead designer George Andreas said that the original Kameo idea of finding and using monsters carried through to the final product. He saw the concept as having evolved and focused over time, as any project would, - It don't really fit this paragraph. It should be moved to the part about Pokemon in the first paragraph.
• The project's biggest influences were ultimately Nintendo, Pokémon, and Resident Evil - ultimately is unnecessary. Shouldn't Pokemon be italicized?
• Years later, Andreas reappraised and said that the game should never have been released and remains a sore subject for him to discuss - Any particular reason?

I think the rest of the paragraph answers this

• and felt that there were enough ideas for a sequel within the new intellectual property if players were interested - Some sequel stuff.
• and was among several sound designers working on the game's sound effects and voiceovers. - unnecessary.
• Burke and Grant Kirkhope later returned to Prague to record the music for Viva Pinata. - Not about this game.
• Downloadable content should be placed above the reception section, similar to how other articles are formatted.

The DLC chronologically followed the reviews and, one could argue, also responded to the reception

• You don't really need to tell me Clayman comes from IGN every time you mention him. You only need to mention it once.

FAC reviewers want to see the reviewer's name every time because they're the author. But no one really cares about the author, so I think it's more important, as a courtesy, to name the website, whose opinion it represents. If you think it gets too much in some areas, let me know where.

• Dave Halverson agreed that the multiple character options to represent a rare breadth of player choice - don't need "to"
• Bramwell (Eurogamer), on the other hand, fought the controls and camera throughout the game. - How could a person "fought" the controls and camera? It seems a bit informal.

He felt that the controls worked against him—I think it's okay. Doesn't need to be so dry through and through. This is 25k of Kameo we're talking about...

• and Bramwell (Eurogamer) was even eager to be finished - Need to be rephrased. What did he want to finish? The game or the puzzle?
• had hopes for Kameo and Psychonauts to rekindle developer interest in the 3D platforming genre - wikilink Psychonauts
• —but ultimately wrote that Kameo was proof that Microsoft had received "exactly what they paid for" in its acquisition of Rare - Why did he say that?

I think it's vague on purpose, meant to be a wry aside that Microsoft overpaid for a company with poor, idiosyncratic output and got just that kind of product

• You can split a subsection talking about the cancelled sequel.

Is there a need? It's a short section

• but the cancelation was not confirmed until Microsoft Game Studios vice president Phil Spencer did so in 2013 - Microsoft Studios, not Microsoft Game Studios

Overall

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I believe that it needs a story section, for better arrangement, or for consistency with other articles. I still think that the url issues should be dealt with as soon as possible. When all the issues are fixed, the article is good to go! AdrianGamer (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the review. When you say the lede is too much, do you mean the lede is too long and needs things removed or that the first paragraph covers too much and should be split? If anything I'd paragraph break between the gameplay and the development, but I thought it worked better as a single paragraph. czar 07:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean to split the paragraph. It feels like it isn't arranged well if all information, talking about different things, get combined together in one massive paragraph. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• @AdrianGamer, thanks again for the thorough review. I think I've addressed everything (or otherwise minded the rest), if you'll take a look. URLs need to be cleaned up for FAC but they should be fine for the GA criteria. It's going to take me longer to go through now anyways since they were converted from bare refs... czar 01:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since most of the issues are fixed and the rationale provided above is reasonable, the article is good to go. Kameo is now a . Congratulations! Remember to fix the sources after this was promoted though. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kameo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160531174930/http://www.1up.com/news/rare-kameo-sequel-canceled to http://www.1up.com/news/rare-kameo-sequel-canceled

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Move article to "Kameo: Elements of Power"

The full name of the game is "Kameo: Elements of Power", yet the article is simply named "Kameo". Would it be possible for someone to move the article to its full name instead of a shortened version of its name? Naming this article like that would be the same as calling "Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus" simply "Sly Cooper (video game)", or calling "Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy" simply "Jak and Daxter (video game)"... --173.178.227.177 (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If there were no other Sly Cooper or Jak Daxter games, yes, we might move the title there. We go by the common name used most often in sources. As you can see by the sources used in the article, "Kameo" without the subtitle is the name that is the best combination of what is recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy). czar 04:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

New Development details

https://youtube.com/CK2PmwYm19Y

A dude who worked on this game interviewed a random youtuber about the development of Kameo MayDay2099 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)