# Talk:Descent 3

Judging by other games of mid-importance, low-importance and high-importance, D3 is mid-important.  It is a significant sequel to a genre-defining game; it is definitely more important than low-important; and I'd consider it less important than some of the other games that are mid-important (for example Doom 3). --85.180.161.107 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, okay, but you could put your comments underneath the infobox, you know...oh, and we use Level 2 headlines here, as in == Subject ==... -- Altiris Exeunt 10:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The game is low important. It got decent reviews but other than that, it doesn't have much impact on the game industry --Mika1h (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody remember details about the 'In Your Face' program Interplay ran at the time? Basically, you'd register and send in your photo (or some drawing) and a nickname, and they included them on the CD. (long time before we had Xbox Live Vision or what that thing's called) Here's a link to the picture pages on the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20021222171535/www.interplay.com/descent3/players/pics001.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steltek (talk • contribs) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

Just want to point out for those that may be like me searching..., that the female voice/song on the Descent 3 (1999) game's intro movie (which is about 10 seconds) can also be heard on the song Prologue by Dieselboy on the album The Dungeonmaster's Guide (Disc 1) of 2004
YoURANGUlarTANgent (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Descent 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good game and at a first glance a neat article. I'll take up the review. I mainly focus on copyediting issues - I'll have a read through now and will leave some initial comments within a few hours. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll be glad to wait. Thanks! --Niwi3 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

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

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
It is well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Yes, well referenced.
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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I want to say that the prose of this article is excellent - there is actually very little to be done here but for the sake of a review I have spotted some minor copy editing issues that are in the article. 


### Initial comments
#### Lead
The lead complies per WP:LEAD and meet the GA criteria.


#### Gameplay
The prose flows very nicely here and all of the references are in check - I see no issues (or copyediting issues) here!


#### Plot
"the Material Defender is rescued by an organization known as the Red Acropolis Research Team" - just like the  Post Terran Mining Corporation (PTMC), it would be good to use the initials (RART) if possible to indicate the Red Acropolis Research team in future sentences.
Done --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
"a large anti-terrorist and police group" - are they both the same thing? Anti-terrorist doesn't seem to make any sense by itself...
I agree, anti-terrorist seems a bit redundant and unnecessary, so I removed it. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


#### Development and release
" one of the biggest complaints of Descent II was the fact that it was considered too "tunnely"" - just to clarify a little, was it the gamers who complained about Descent II's environments or was it actual criticism by game critics?
By both, I think, though it is not specified in the source. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


#### Expansion pack
The beginning of this section was written in present tense and the rest is written in past tense. Since the whole article (and the rest of this section is written in past tense as both the game and expansion back was released in 1999, some of this section needs to be corrected:
"Descent 3 features an official expansion pack developed by Outrage" and "It also includes the game's level editor." should both be corrected!
I have to disagree here. The game still features an expansion pack and the expansion still includes the game's level editor. Just because the game was released in 1999 it does not necessarily mean that these sentences should be in past tense. By that logic, the article should start like this: "Descent 3 was a first-person shooter...", which is wrong; Descent 3 is still a first-person shooter :) --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I completely agree with you! I must have been tired when I wrote that. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


### On hold
This is an excellent article - nearly everything complies per the GA criteria and the prose is focused on the subject and flows nicely. The only minor problems I have found with this article were a few copyediting issues that just needs clarifying and an issue with the Expansion Pack section. Other than that the article is nearly flawless; all references are in check and are in the right place. I will put this article on hold for seven days and once those minor issues are addressed I will happy to give this article its deserved GA status! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time reviewing the article, really appreciated! I think I have addressed the issues you brought up. If the article still needs more work, please feel free to let me know. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
Thank you for addressing those points so swiftly and well done on building this article! The whole article now definitely complies per the GA criteria and apart from those minor copyediting issues the article would have been flawless. This sounds like an interesting trilogy of games, well done for building this up to GA standard! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Marketing section, I added: "A Bink Video executable trailer for the game was included on CD-ROMs for other Interplay games, such as Baldur's Gate", which was then deleted for being "fluff". Since this is the official trailer and it has a certain level of polish, I think it deserves a mention. Who's with me on this? (Here is the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHFazkfmBE4)Serpinium (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that supports it (not a youtube video uploaded by a random user), then I think we can add it. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that in the Plot section, all of the references simply cite a particular section of Descent 3 (e.g. "Outrage Entertainment (1999-06-17). Descent 3. Interplay Productions. Scene: Opening. Level/area: Chapter 1 - Missing Persons."). Couldn't I cite the Baldur's Gate CD-ROM itself in that way?Serpinium (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
These are primary sources and they are OK for plot sections, but not for marketing. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't find anything on the Net, so I guess there's nothing more to do.Serpinium (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I disagree with some of your reverts.
"the lead summarizes the article so everything that is present in the lead must also be present in the body of the article"
There is truth to this, but I've looked at other sequel game articles, and it doesn't seem like standard practice to copy over info like that. For example, in the article Dead Space 2, protagonist Isaac is not introduced and reading the article on Dead Space 1 is mandatory for understanding the plot.
"it's an "alien virus", see reference 10"
Yeah... That doesn't mean it isn't a computer virus. In the intro to D3, the Director says it's "nanotechnology" that can "reprogram" a robot. Surely that's closer to a computer virus than a biological agent.Serpinium (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference between this and the Dead Space 2 article is that this one is a good article, and as a good article it must meet the good article criteria. Also, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. As for the virus, it's a bit unclear whether it's a biological virus or a computer virus, so that's why I think the term "virus", which is more generic, is more appropriate. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It only affects robots, so it can't be a biological virus. And remember, it was "deactivated" at the end of Descent 3, indicating that it can accept electronic transmissions. And although "virus" alone is nice and generic, the link is for the article on biological viruses.Serpinium (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, looks pretty good now. I have an issue with this line though: "clearing PTMC's robots infected by an alien virus on orders of the PTMC." Why add "on orders of the PTMC"? We already know he works for them. Unless it refers to the virus, which it shouldn't since at this point in the game the conspiracy hasn't been revealed yet. --Serpinium (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, seems a bit redundant. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Some bigger concerns too: we need to unify the Releases information across the three Descent pages. Descent uses a Releases section with subsections, while Descent II has a box in a Releases section and this has a single paragraph under a section labeled "Expansion Pack". --Serpinium (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Descent 3 article is perfectly fine as is (it's a good article). The problem is the other two articles, whose list of releases should be converted to prose (see WP:PROSE). So if you want to change something, it should be in the other two articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and done that. They're still not perfect, so I might come back for meatier edits in some time. --Serpinium (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

https://archive.org/stream/PC-Player-German-Magazine-2000-01/PC_Player_2000_01#page/n17

https://web.archive.org/web/20001212031100/http://www.avault.com:80/news/displaynews.asp?story=10151999-21526