# Talk:Hotline Miami

I believe the quote taken is slightly harshly worded, other parts of the article too are quite contentious. This article could benefit from a word clean-up or something of the sort, just to keep it relatively tasteful and academically worded. It should adhere to wikipedia's profanity guidelines which I believe "fuck'em'up" doesn't. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Profanity
--216.123.214.122 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another quotation from Eurogamer which avoids the use of such harsh language, and replaced the unnecessarily offensive description with it.  I looked at the source for that quotation, and discovered that the actual wording was "f***-'em-up," which still felt unnecessarily harsh from something that wasn't even a review of the game.  I suppose my question now is whether or not including "Keyboard Drumset Fucking Werewolf" is offensive, since it is the title of a previously published game.  Also, I'm not 100% positive that I formatted my citation properly, but I feel confident that I accurately mimicked the previous citation.
Ittan (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the plot section should be significantly trimmed down; the level of detail here seems far beyond what is necessary for a Wikipedia article. I also think it's misleading to use the "Interpretation" in the heading. The alternate perspectives from the two playable characters are obviously inconsistent, but I think using the word interpretation is unwarranted.
Secondly, I'm not sure that the protagonist should be referred to as "Jacket". I realize that this makes explaining the plot easier, but I think it won't be necessary if the plot section is given a condensed rewrite. If someone can find a suitable reference that refers to the protagonist as Jacket, then maybe this would be acceptable.
Overall, I think the section should just state the outline/theme of the plot, and definitely not go beyond the level of narrative explanation found in the game, which is not much. I might eventually do a rewrite myself, if there are no objections to these suggestions. AlmightyDoctor (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you; the article in general needs a rewrite and referencing, plot needs trimming.  Feel free to rewrite any section. The1337gamer (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Decided to begin cleaning up the plot section a little bit.  I'm a little rusty and short on time so I didn't do more than the first section of plot.  I removed most references to the main character as "Jacket," and focused more on the basic narrative base.  Also, I'm sorry if I sign this incorrectly; as I have stated, it has been a while since I've done any edits on Wikipedia. Ittan (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I decided to just remove the "Interpretation" sections, but now the article looks a little thin.  I'm not sure what I could add, but I also feel that those sections got a little too in-depth and "spoiler-y."  I would not be opposed to possibly mentioning the existence of the game's dual-narrative, but I decided to remove it because it did feel like too much of a spoiler. Finding out that there was still more to the game after the credits rolled was one of the most enjoyable parts of the game, and I don't want that to be ruined for anyone who is just looking at this page for a brief overview of the title before purchasing it.  Cheers. Ittan (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the article still has too many details. I've played through the game once and the article contains (at the time of writing) detailed storylines if you collect all the puzzle letter pieces. It should be stopped there instead of going in-depth about what you get after that.
Potasmic (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure?  I thought this was just the empty cigarette pack.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.129.80 (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) 
I also didn't understand this object to be a photograph, and see no reason to assume that it was one. Someone should edit the line, but in what way, I'm not sure.AlmightyDoctor (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The item he drops, in my opinion, is pretty clearly some kind of paper, as it spins in the wind like a piece of paper, or photograph would. 204.107.221.1 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
for all we know it's his game boy, it's only a few pixels; we can't really tell what it is. 83.100.233.169 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, in the second game, Beard gave Jacket a photo of him. Although it's only a few pixels, I still think it's a fair bet that that was the photo of Beard. 2601:3C6:4204:2710:B1D4:DAED:293E:2C58 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought, but the Development section could be expanded with this source. I used it for the article on SimpleWiki. Post any thoughts below. Regards, George.Edward.C (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If there was a legacy section, I would add it there, but right now I'm not sure where to put this [1] - Suda51's next NMH game will include various indie games, including Hotline Miami, which was in collaboration with the various indie devs. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hotline Miami/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 22:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Comments as follows:

Prose:
Prose is generally kind of rough throughout. As an overall thing, I would take a look at every instance of would and see about removing it, e.g. Despite the game's challenging development, the developers would stayed in contact with other teams [...] Devolver Digital would contacted Dennaton, offering to publish the full game.  Past tense is a much more natural way to write an encyclopedia article, especially with events that don't recur and we aren't staying in the past to talk about anything else.
On a day in 1989,  redundant with the date given in the setting section.
If the whole Jacket-Biker thing is contradicted within the game itself, I'm not sure why it's necessary to bring it up in the plot section. It doesn't seem super-important to the summary.
While the developers did not want to have a large amount of dialog and cutscenes in the game, prioritizing gameplay first and foremost, the developers added the game's masked personas to try and push an anti-violence message and prevent real world massacres I think this needs more elaboration to explain how a bunch of shadowy masked figures push an anti-violence message.
The game was released for OS X on 19 March and 19 September 2013. It was released twice?
When asked about the possibility of an iOS port, the developers rejected the idea, further commenting that the controls would suck This is not encyclopedic.
Hotline Miami released to generally positive reviews. Metacritic calculated a score of 85 based on 51 reviews for the Windows version,[41] 87 based on 19 reviews on PlayStation 3,[42] and 85 based on 27 reviews on PlayStation Vita.[43] The exact numbers are in the side template, and the number of reviews is high enough that telling us the number isn't necessary. Just summarize the scores.
Reception needs work. You have multiple topics covered in the same paragraphs, and sentences that don't seem to relate to what came before (especially the quoted lines.) Tom Bramwell of Eurogamer praised all parts of the gameplay and the atmosphere and then the next paragraph starts talking about the atmosphere again, and then the end switches to the music and soundtrack, where it feels like it should be another paragraph.
Hotline Miami has been considered one of the greatest video games ever made, one of the most influential indie games ever made, and has amassed a cult following I think something like "one of the greatest video games ever made" needs something stronger than two publications listing it on a top 100 list.
Media:
The fair use rationales of all the non-free screenshots need work justifying their use per WP:NFCC. I don't think even if you tried beefing them up the rationales for File:Super Carnage (Hotline Miami, 2012).png or File:Hotline Miami Interrogation.png will fly (they're currently being used in a decorative way, and there's not critical commentary about them that requires their presence.)
References:
The setting/characters section I think goes beyond content that's probably just fine implicitly cited to the game itself and needs explicit sourcing, such as the Jacket name, that some of the characters are modeled after the developers, etc.
References inconsistently formatted; websites are sometimes wiki linked, sometimes not, sometimes accompanied by publishers, sometimes not.
Why is there no source for the character's name, and why is the explanation for the character's name not given when discussed in the gameplay section but only in the plot?
Youtube and non-text-based, longform content really need timestamps and/or quotes for verification purposes.
Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 26, 28, 48,  and 52.
Ref 2 doesn't seem to adequately cover the opening sentence (doesn't mention stages, or the premise and directives.)
Ref 3 doesn't seem to mention the Richard mask or where they are selected.
Ref 4 doesn't seem to cover the hidden animal masks or finding them on the bodies of previous killers, or that you start every stage unarmed on the perimeter.
Ref 5 doesn't adequately cover the information about enemy types or the execution mechanics.
Refs 6 and 7 are used to cite that Soderstrom worked on 150 prototypes, but it's clear from the language that it's a very rough estimate and shouldn't be given using precise figures in the Wikipedia article.
The two would go on to create a promotional game for the band Keyboard Drumset Fucking Werewolf the game was called Keyboard Drumset Fucking Werewolf, the band is named differently.
Ref 8 doesn't seem to adequately cover the GameMaker/Dennaton Games elements, nor the timeframe for the rename.
Ref 17 doesn't seem to mention the total kickstarter cost.
The text says the PS3 version was released on June 24, but the citation says "today" and has a date of June 26.
Given the issues with sourcing in the gameplay section especially and the prose issues, I'm failing the article at present.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hotline Miami/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Heya! I'll review this. Nub098765 (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright, time to do this.


### 1a: prose
Overall, the article is in excellent shape prose-wise. There are few issues I have it, and most of them are nitpicky, so feel free to ignore them.

The game is set in Miami in 1989, and primarily tells its story... — This structure feels a bit clunky. Perhaps it could benefit from a more streamlined beginning: Set in Miami in 1989, the game primarily tells its story...
Using a scrapped prototype developed by Söderström years prior as a basis... — The order of events feels unclear here. Maybe making it active could improve readability? Also, is "as a basis" necessary here? Isn't it implied, in a way? Perhaps it could be something like: Using a scrapped prototype Söderström developed years prior...
...followed by one for PlayStation 4 in August 2014. — "one" feels unnatural and possibly informal here. Maybe: ...followed by a PlayStation 4 port in August 2014.
Additional methods available to the player include knocking out enemies with a door, using them as a human shield for defense, or kicking them against the wall. — "Additional methods available to the player" seems a bit wordy. Maybe switch "available to the player" to "the player can use"? Also, isn't the "defense" aspect implied by the word "shield"?
...and is dedicated to identify their source. — Is it just me or is this a bit awkward to say? Wouldn't it be "identifying"? And even then, isn't there a smoother way of saying this, perhaps ...and is determined to trace their source.?
...ratcheting the players anxiety and increasing player focus, while also desensitizing them. — Desensitizing them to what? To the violence?
...as the player exits the building as the remains of enemies are scattered across the floor. — The double "as" structure feels unclear. I'm not sure how you could reword it without stepping into OR territory, and I'm fine with leaving it as-is, but it feels awkward, no?
Each of the game's masked personas serve a specific purpose in these encounters. – "Each" always makes the subject singular, so it should be "serves", I'm pretty sure.
All interrogate the player through their own ways, with Don Juan's dialog including lines such as "knowing oneself means acknowledging one’s actions", while Richard's dialog is more direct, asking questions like "do you like hurting other people?" — I understand the shortened use of "all", but it feels sorta awkward here. Also, I feel like a semicolon would work better than a ", with" here. Perhaps: {{green|Each interrogates the player uniquely; Don Juan’s dialogue includes lines like "knowing oneself means acknowledging one’s actions," while Richard is more direct, asking "do you like hurting other people?"
The differing behavior of the masked figures were noted by Luca Papale and Lorenzo Fazio to possibly represent a dissociative identity disorder in Jacket. — Passivity here makes the sentence feel a bit unnatural. Perhaps it could be restructured: Luca Papale and Lorenzo Fazio suggested that the contrasting behaviors of the masked figures may represent dissociative identity disorder in Jacket.
...both of which were considered to fall under "mask digital prosthesis"... → ...both seen as examples of "mask digital prosthesis"...
Following this, the two faced financial problems after the project's failure... — What does "following this" mean if not "after the project's failure"? Do these not mean the same thing?
While the game was originally intended to be a smaller project, it was expanded into a larger game with a longer development cycle after the team was contacted by Devolver Digital when Vlambeer sent them a demo could be simplified for flow: Although initially planned as a smaller project, the game expanded after Vlambeer shared a demo with Devolver Digital, who then offered to publish it.
...with Reeves describing as doing a "phenomenal job"... — Is there a missing word here or am I misreading it? Shouldn't there be an object, like "it"?
That's about all I have for this article, and most of them are slight nitpicks that don't affect the prose heavily at all. Great job. and sorry if this seems too comprehensive for GA status, I just want this article to be as well-written as possible


### 1b: formatting
Article is consistently well-formatted. No excessive whitespace. And mwah, pictures on the left. Great formatting, and amazing job on the consistent paragraph size!


### 2a: list of sources
There is a well-formatted list of sources present at the bottom of the page.


### 2b: reliability and referencing
Most all sources are reliable; those that aren't are primary sources or at least situationally reliable. There are also no unsourced passages throughout the article (sans the synopsis, which doesn't need citations).


### 2c: original research
To see if there is original research, I will conduct a spotcheck of sources. I will scour through about 1/5 of the listed references (about 22), and AGF on the others.

Ref 1a: , 1b: 
Ref 2a: , 2b: 
Ref 3a: , 3b: 
Ref 10: 
Ref 15a: , 15b: 
Ref 24: 
Ref 26: 
Ref 30: 
Ref 36: 
Ref 42a: , 42b: 
Ref 43a: , 43b: 
Ref 55: 
Ref 66: 
Ref 68: 
Ref 71: 
Ref 76: 
Ref 80: 
Ref 88: 
Ref 90: 
Ref 96: 
Ref 99: 
Ref 105: 
While there were some major paraphrasals, I saw no giant leaps in logic for any of these. It's not synthesis, just restating what's in the source more concisely—at least for most of these.


### 2d: plagiarism
Earwig detects a 21.6% similarity. All good here.


### 3a: main topics
Article addresses all of the prominent talking points of the subject. A quick Google search reveals no additional, crucial information to be added to the article.


### 3b: focus
Though >5000 words long, the article remains focused and concise throughout, speaking about one point in one sentence and transferring to another in the next for most topics.


### 4: neutral
The article is very neutral, always stating facts rather than opinions (unless it is of a critic). No words favoring the subject, and no words against the subject.


### 5: stable
No ongoing edit wars, no move discussions. Stable as my nana's house during an earthquake.


### 6a: illustrated
With 4 pieces of media in total, this article is well-illustrated for its length. The non-free images have in-depth rationales that correctly and strongly advocate for their inclusion in the article.


### 6b: relevant media
All media is relevant to the subject, with some illustrating specific talking points and others generally describing the section (say, the picture of Söderström). Illustrative captions are placed with the media.


### Verdict
Well-written article, @NegativeMP1:! The only "issues" I have with it are in its prose, which is already amazing as-is. Slight tweaks would make it even better, but this article is a masterclass in article-writing overall. Well done, and I hope to see these tweaks made—or replied to—soon! I'll place this review on hold to give you a chance to discuss these changes. Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for taking the time to review this article! This is by far the largest article I've written, and I'm surprised it didn't scare you off from its sheer length. I've addressed all of the issues you pointed out with the prose. As a side note, I think this article would qualify for the ongoing GAN backlog drive, which you're participating in. Just a reminder. λ NegativeMP1 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
So it is! Thanks for the heads-up—I had assumed only the first list was eligible. After another read-over, I see nothing glaringly wrong with this article. In other words, I think it’s ready for GA status. Well done, and I wish you luck in your future Wikipedia endeavors! Nub098765 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)