# Talk:Ninja Theory

{{edit semi-protected}}
An edit needs to be made to the currently blank 'New IP' area because the name of the game has been released, as well as details. http://www.hellblade.com/
Riversoblivion (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}
Please remove the line, "This announcement was later referred to as the "blunder of the century" by many fans of the series, as several of the changes enacted by Ninja Theory guaranteed the game's failure, both commercially and critically." because this is both a false over-generalization of fan reaction and misinformation, as DmC has been neither commercially released nor reviewed by critics.
Neonpremesis (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed, WP:BRD - discuss below if necessary. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi
In the Games developed section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja_Theory#Games_developed), Hellblade is dated to 2016 and should be updated to 2017 : the game has been delayed to 2017
Source : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-11-30-hellblade-senuas-sacrifice-delayed-until-next-year
Thanks
Val ValentinWFP (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Already done — Train2104 (t • c) 16:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Date:
Change "Hellblade, having a three-year development cycle, was a critical success when it launched in August 2018" to "Hellblade, having a three-year development cycle, was a critical success when it launched in August 2017"
(third to last sentence in fourth paragraph under section "Independent AAA (2013-present)")
Incorrect spelling:
Change "Accpording to Antoniades, Fightback proved to be a learning experience for the studio as the studio explored the "games as service" models, mobile technology, touch screen controls, and realized the competitive nature of the mobile games market." to "According to Antoniades, Fightback proved to be a learning experience for the studio as the studio explored the "games as service" models, mobile technology, touch screen controls, and realized the competitive nature of the mobile games market." (last sentence of first paragraph under section "Independent AAA (2013-present)" StayGoId (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your first request was  Done by me and your second request was  Already done. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninja Theory/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll do this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
Given there are multiple places called Cambridge, perhaps writing "Cambridge, England" (or United Kingdom, as done in #History) would be better.
The project was not a commercial success → The game failed to be a commercial success. This way we don't have "project" being repeated within 2 words.
You mention the success (or lack thereof) of every game mentioned besides DmC. How about and DmC: Devil May Cry, a [successful/unsuccessful/well received/etc] game whose design was highly controversial...


### History
Tameem Antoniades is linked in the caption but nowhere else. His article redirects back here, so the link should be removed.
Write "United Kingdom" instead of "UK".
had three staff but had no money → had three staff but no money
highly stylized. What does this mean? Does this mean gamers preferred realistic games over magic or sci-fi? I'm not quite sure.
licensed version of Unreal Engine. Do we need to say it was licensed? Without their own technology, the team used Unreal Engine
unprofitable, the team needed. "the team" is used quite often. Change this instance to "they" or "Ninja Theory".
small budget, the team did not and mental illness and psychosis, the team consulted professional. Same as above.


### Philosophy
less risky. Not sure about this phrase. Is it possible to reword it?
Merge the last two sentences of the first paragraph. They discuss the same idea.
helped enhance the game as an experience → helped enhance the experience


### Games developed
I went ahead and capitalised "as" here.
I'm not sure if the company names should be in italics. Neither names are ever in italics anywhere else.


### References
None of the references have correct publisher parameters.
Ref 11 needs IGN to be under |work or |website rather than |publisher.
Rock, Paper, Shotgun needs to be linked in ref35.
Gameindustry.biz is a redirect, but I don't see any harm in linking it either.
None of the references are archived. Optional, but it's always nice to have GAs with archived links.


### Miscellaneous comments
I've left a message on the talk page of the admin who protected the page with a request to unprotect it. However, they haven't edited in a month so if I don't get a response I may unprotect it myself to see if any vandalism follows. This will have no bearing on the GA review, just thought I'd let the lead contributor know. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


### Overall review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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 lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail:  (Passed)
@AdrianGamer: Fantastic work with this article. I managed to find a few errors, which I've pointed out above. Once those are fixed I see no reason to not pass this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: - Thanks for the review! I think I have fixed most of the issues you have raised. Let me know if I have missed any. I will archive the sources when I have time later. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@AdrianGamer: Great! I went through and changed American English to British English (per the talk). As having references archived is not an actual criterion, there is no reason to not pass this now. I will add the publisher parameters myself in just a moment. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Add " RaulForGlory (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@RaulForGlory: You haven't actually requested any changes be made. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 12:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the Philosophy section, referring to Antoniades's interview in which he talks about the company's strategy, it's said: "Hellblade's permadeath system and its lack of heads up display were cited as examples." OK, but the permadeath's system is a bluff, it doesn't actually exist. Antoniades was just sustaining the bluff at that point. Shouldn't this be pointed out? Otherwise it looks like Wikipedia is buying into the bluff, which an encyclopedia should definitely not do. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)