# Talk:Aether (video game)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aether (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
At this point, the article needs quite a bit of work before it is ready for GA status.

I read through the article, but I have no idea what actually happens in the game. What sort of puzzles are these? How many per planet? How many planets? The article is definitely not comprehensive at this point.
Done now, though if more is needed please specify.
What is meant by the planet changing color? Does it change away from the pastel color, or does it change from black and white to pastel?
Attempted to rectify.
Is there sound involved? If so, is it a soundtrack? What sort of music?
Believe this is now covered.
Is the game targeted at children?
Doubtful, McMillen has been involved in creating a game which involves shooting at anthropomorphised female genitalia with a 'ship' which is a flying phallus. His latest game involves guiding a cube of raw meat around levels full of buzzsaws etc., making splatting noises and bleeding where it lands. There's nothing violent or sexualized about this particular game but I think it's just aimed at indie game fans rather than a childrens' title.
Has the game been reviewed by any magazines or respected names in video games? Many of the sources are from blog-style sites. Perhaps, if no magazines have covered it, it might be wise to wait until a little longer after the release to push for GA.
When you consider it took two guys 14 days to put together and takes @ 25 minutes to complete, the chance of a magazine actually giving it more than a passing mention is negligible, the chance of that particular magazine being picked up by me is even more so. Magazines have (finally) given more coverage to below-the-radar areas of gaming like the indie scene, non-AAA massively multiplayer games etc. But, that's focused around niche markets like old skool RPGs, turn-based strategy, 2D platformers and shooters etc. Stuff which the mainstream does not cater to. They're not going to devote any kind of wordage to such a small project. Despite appearances, Rock Paper Shotgun consists of the posts of 4 experienced games journalists (published in magazine journalists, not amateur hacks). Jay Is Games (see the talk page for sources about it) is respected and the reviewer here is one of the handful of regulars who post articles under the scrutiny of lead reviewer John Bardinelli and site manager Jay Bibby. Two more sources added include Wired (respected) and Play This Thing, the piece in question is written by the guy quoted in Edge magazine (magazines don't come more highly respected than Edge). In a nutshell, the ideal of magazine coverage is always highly unlikely for indie games, and the presence of sites like Jay Is Games actively discourages magazines and other websites from giving too much coverage beacuse it's already done.
The article needs a serious copyedit from someone who hasn't worked on it yet. I would recommend someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. The quality of prose is not GA level. One of the biggest problems is the frequency of sentences joined together with commas.
Two comrades from the VG project have proof-read, made corrections and suggestions, which I believe they have been dealt with. Between the four of us the article has improved considerably IMO. Someoneanother 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The image needs to be moved to comply with Wikipedia guidelines (not left-aligned under a level 2 header).
Shifted to right-alignment. Someoneanother 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I will place this nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time, I have taken an overly distal view of gameplay and hope to rectify that by implementing your suggestions. Someoneanother 16:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Plot and Walkthrough" section goes into far too much detail, and it is written in a very unencyclopedic tone. "You" should not be used, and the capitilized words are distracting. A brief summary of the section would be fine, but the summary should be added to the "Gameplay" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated the text and referenced it. Still waiting for a response to the request for a copy-edit, if you can highlight anything in particular which is letting the text down I'll have a go. Someoneanother 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Some concerns regarding the prose: joining sentences with commas (eg. "The player encounters characters who can be helped if a puzzle is solved, each planet except Earth has its own puzzle."), awkward prose (eg. the run-on sentence "The monster's tongue is used to propel them both through space and onto other planets, it must first be latched onto a cloud floating above the planet's surface, swinging around and latching onto the next cloud, until reaching space and repeating the process with stars and asteroids, before locating a different planet to explore."), grammar issues (eg. "has shrank" instead of "has shrunk"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Grammar problems I'm not so hot on. I have corrected the above, tweaked some more overly long sentences and added a little more info in reception. In terms of information the article is a heck of a lot better than when I nominated it, thanks to the anon's intervention. We can either wait for a copy-editor to appear or if there's anything else grammar-wise that's not right I'd be happy to alter it. Really do appreciate your time, you've been very busy on GANs. Someoneanother 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This article has come a long way, and I'm impressed at the work that has been put into it. There are a couple of hidden notes left in the article that give suggestions. If those can be dealt with (or if you can check to see if they've already been dealt with), I'll give the article another look and see if it's ready to be passed. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed those two amongst all the tags, believe they're now rectified. Someoneanother 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll be honest — when I began the review, I didn't see this article passing. You've done a great job of expanding it and responding to my (often picky) concerns. I can now read through the article and get a good sense of what the game is like. I believe that the article now meets all six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Congratulations!
If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review an article in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Well done! :) Giggy (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, the review would not be complete without thanking the editors who helped with copyediting and pointing out their concerns. You also played a huge role in getting this promoted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sincerest thanks for the amount of time you've put into this GAN GaryColemanFan, likewise Giggy and David Fuchs have been very generous and I'm grateful. Someoneanother 11:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"The game was created in 14 days, both developers expressed interest in seeing a version being released on the Wii game console through the WiiWare online service" - what's the relation between the two statements (before/after comma)?
David Fuchs fixed it. Someoneanother 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Might wanna move the image to the gameplay section and add some more detail the caption and FURG. And is the best you can get in terms of a useful image? (I dunno, I haven't played it, but I imagine you could do better based on the description... *shrugs*)
For you, I make the effort :D. Caption and FURG improved, very pleased with the new image. Someoneanother 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"By launching from the initial cloud using centrifugal force..." - the centrifugal force is fictitious; there's actually no such thing. You might be thinking of the centripedal force which basically attracts something towards the centre if it's moving in a circular path (eg. car around roundabout -- centripedal force attracts car towards centre of roundabout). (Though come to think of, I'm not sure if that's what you mean either, based on my reading of the gameplay mechanics.)
Me no understand the centrifugal bit, the creature is not attracted to the object being swung on like the centripedal force, the length of the tongue when it latches onto on object remains the constant distance between the monster and the object until it is released. I've reworded it a little and stepped back from the technical terms by using momentum. Does that solve the problem? Someoneanother 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine. Giggy (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
"The game was positively received by gaming blogs, the story was compared to The Little Prince, Antoine de Saint Exupéry's 1943 novella." - again, not really seeing connection
Fixed. Someoneanother 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
"Alec Meer of 'Rock, Paper, Shotgun'" - are those meant to be "quotation marks"? (If it's a website I don't think they should have them, so stating that it's a website wouldn't hurt if there's no article to link to)
The name of the site is Rock, Paper, Shotgun, the commas being there makes it difficult (see <) since websites aren't given italics. Clarified and commas removed. Someoneanother 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Is StaceyG a reliable source?
A writer at Slate (magazine) said "a big thanks to Jayisgames.com, the Internet's undisputed leader in casual gaming information and home to many, many people who know more about this stuff than I do." Edge (magazine), one of the most respected gaming publications period, ran a feature on flash games and interviewed the site's owner Jay Bibby and lead reviewer John Bardinelli. They also interviewed JiG contributor Patrick Dugan, who's also used in the article in his capacity on Play This Thing. JiG is built with posts from those two and a small number of additional contributors like Dugan whose work will be scrutinised by Bardinelli and Bibby, StaceyG's piece is part of that. Considering the subject matter I'd say that goes above and beyond the call of reliability and demonstrates that sources were carefully chosen. If more than that was necessary I'd say if my bricks are pinched I can't build a wall. ;) Someoneanother 15:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
"could have become "way lost" in the game if it had been longer" - I know what he means but it doesn't sound particularly encyclopediac. Even if it's a quote, surely you can find better quotes then that...?
Yes, that was a totally lame use of a source and I deserve a kick up the backside for it. Hopefully what I've replaced it with is more relevant. Someoneanother 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hope these help. Giggy (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They always do, very much appreciated Giggy. Someoneanother 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Some of the above were rendered moot by my edits, but I left some inline comments in the prose where I had my own questions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The same goes for you David, I dropped the ball with this nomination and some proof-reading was really needed. Someoneanother 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the gameguide/plot/walkthrough material is that there's no clear path. The information in the third paragraph of gameplay was added by another contributor as a plot/walkthrough, which I tried to rework by removing the gameguide, covering some information on each of the planets and citing. There is no plot as such. There's a beginning, some gameplay and misc speech bubbles from a handful of characters and personified moons etc., and there's the end. There is no way to cover what the misc. characters say without putting it into some context, which is what was intended by describing the planets. A separate plot section would imply that there is a traceable plotline rather than a beginning and an end with some.. other stuff in the middle. The only puzzle example is there to illustrate puzzles to the reader, rather than act as a gameguide. How's this is a solution:
Keep gameplay as the only section, but fold both 'game mechanics' paragraphs into one, move the beginning of the story from paragraph one into the last paragraph which would then consist of a beginning, middle and end. That would leave two reasonably sized paragraphs under gameplay with individual roles. If that's OK it would give me a chance to fix everything else. If anything from the plot aspect reads like gameguide (apart from the Gravida puzzle which will be in the other paragraph), could you give me an idea of what to do with it? It's not ideal but in this instance the game defies linear plot progression and is deliberately kept vague. Someoneanother 23:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Giggy (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... After playing for a while (ANd getting stuck in the core...) I found out that it wasn't the core saying "At least no one can hurt me here." "It's sad to be alone." , but rather a cat-like being similar to the ones on the surface of the planet. It seems to have isolated itself. ~Detective S  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.189.254 (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 

You're right, it's one of the tiny creatures scampering around there. I'll tweak the article to reflect that, thanks for flagging it up. Someoneanother 07:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the one face on Bibulon is clearly female, the other one male. My interpretation would be that the moons are the female face's children and the male face represents their stepfather. The children find it hard to accept him and therefore left the family (planet). The player reunites the family by bringing the children back home.--84.149.30.31 (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aether (video game). 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/20081017071335/http://www.crypticsea.com:80/index.html to http://www.crypticsea.com/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)