# Talk:Cursed Mountain

This game was developed in Austria, not the UK. Why is it in the games made in UK category then?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.54.154.149 (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 

Why is this listed as Wii only if the Platforms section also lists PC? WHich one of the two is wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.37.159 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC) 
'tis wii exlusive. also, what nationality is the main character?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.9.232 (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 

Scottish, IIRC. Geoff B (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/marcaplayer013/page/n117
https://archive.org/details/edgespain31/page/n15

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cursed Mountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Gonna give this a thorough review. Stand by for comments and recommendations. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
This is well on its way to being a good article, with a few edits and easy fixes.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Written well overall. Some spelling errors and awkward phrasing and formatting that will take a bit of work. See below. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Sources are reliable and formatted properly. But there's a few statements where the sources don't seem to verify what's in the prose, particularly the gameplay section. It doesn't help that there are double (let alone triple) stacks of references,[][][] which are acceptable in small doses, but add clutter and reduce clarity. See below. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
This is an easy pass. Great, proportional coverage. Just to give the readers some hooks, it's worth calling out the studio's background as Rockstar Vienna (noted in your sources), as well as the experience of Bob Bates (also a legend, but glossed over in your sources.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Good overall, aside from a few small parts. I wouldn't use the word "gimmick" in an encyclopedic article, as it's a loaded term and potentially misleading. A more neutral fact-based description is always clearer.Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Looks stable and uncontroversial. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Clear and standard fair use rationale. Appropriate size and clear description, in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

More detailed notes on the writing and references:
Lead

The lead is strong and only needs a few fixes.
"The story"... is a bit of a run on sentence and could be broken into two clearer sentences.
Addressed, I hope.
remove "to progress", as it breaks up the flow and meaning.
Done.
"The action-oriented combat was a later addition based on tester feedback, though the motion control-based mechanics were always present." -- maybe reverse these two clauses to make the timeline more clear
Rewritten.
Consider rephrasing the part where you use the semi-colon -- it's awkward for flow here.
Done.
Gameplay

The second sentence of the first paragraph is a run-on sentence with a lot of semi-colons. Shorter sentences are usually more clear. While you're at it, see if you can pull apart the clutter of the triple reference.
I've rewritten it.
The first half of the second paragraph, there might be a reference issue. I see the puzzles and third eye verified to PALGN, but nothing visibly verified to the gametrailers reference. I don't see the size of layout of the environments discussed in either reference. This is another place where stacking the two references obscures more than it helps.
Did my best here.
I don't see the health-providing incense sticks in the sources. As a suggestion, you can use primary sources sparingly if it gives details about gameplay that are really important, but not covered by third parties. (Key word: sparingly.)
Did my best with ref rearranging and another review.
Also consider adjusting the references on the start of the third paragraph.
Adjusted.
"Once Eric hits the symbol, the player must then complete" -- "The player must hit the symbol, followed by completing..."
Done.
Synopsis

This is generally well written.
Break up that opening sentence into separate statements, as it starts to run on and feel confusing.
Done.
You introduce Paul in a way that's unclear who he is.
Introduced.
Consider adding a linebreak before the part "He finds the city of Lhando completely deserted..." to signal to readers where the premise is done, and the action begins.
Rewrote this bit.
"Menmo tries appeasing Palden Lhamo, but turns hostile and attacks Eric, accusing Frank of raping Palden Lhamo." This sentence is unclear. Aside from the unclear meaning of the word "rape" here, it's not clear why Menmo turns hostile or what Frank did. Even if "rape" is a direct quote here, it's devoid of context or clear meaning. Just use plain language and be literal for the reader.
Tried to rephrase it better. Took out specific "rape" mentions, replaced with "angering" and "violating" respectively.
Even though this is weaker writing, I did find the plot summary more clear some parts. Take a look and see if there's anything from here that might add to the clarity.
The original synopsis was a direct copy-paste of the one above. Or the other way round. To be honest, I found that one so confusing for me that I had to find a walkthrough with cutscenes and dialogue to understand the story. Did some edits, but on the whole this was as simplified and understandable as I could make it. Not sure how it can be fixed.
Development

The writing here is the strongest and clearest.
See my comment above about the word "gimmick". A more neutral term would be "mechanic". While you're at it, maybe switch out of the passive voice. e.g.: "the team decided the player should exorcise ghosts using motion control gestures, ..."
Fixed.
At the risk of being pedantic, the source doesn't say the design doc was a spreadsheet.
Fixed.
"The 1980s setting was chosen due to the lack of technology which would mitigate getting into trouble while climbing, reinforcing the sense of isolation" -- this buries the reasoning, and might be clearer inverted: "The 1980s setting was chosen to reinforce the sense of isolation, to deprive players of technology that could help in emergencies."
Done.
remove "... mountains in... ", just because it's implied, and makes the long sentence more readable.
Done.
Bob Bates does have enough clout that it would give context to call him "industry veteran Bob Bates". (Which the source notes -- what the source doesn't mention is that he's a writer from the early adventure game studio Infocom.)
Added "industry veteran".
It might also be worth mentioning that the studio includes veterans of Rockstar Vienna, as that gives readers another entry point. (Which comes up a few times in the sources.)
Done.
Perhaps move/rephrase the statement "This research took place during the pre-production period" to just before you start discussing the research, as this will give cues to the reader about the next few sentences about research.
Repositioned and rewritten.
"The voice recording was done"...
Done.
"The gestures used by to banish" --> "The gestures used to banish"
Done.
Again, there are less loaded terms than "gimmick".
Done.
Release

The sentences with the semicolon (the last sentence and the third sentence or so) could also be rephrased with plainer and simpler grammar. Try shorter sentences.
Fixed.
Reception

This section is also very well written.
A soft suggestion, maybe take the part about "praising its atmosphere and faulting its controls" and put it at the end of the first paragraph, as it flows really well into the second paragraph about atmosphere.
Done.
Nothing wrong with multiple sources saying similar things. Just to give cues to the reader that the same thought is continuing, add other transition words in this paragraph. ("Similarly", "Furthermore", "Echoing this", etc.) The choppiness is noticed in the second paragraph, and also the second-to-last paragraph.
Did my best here.
Resequence the atmosphere so the negative comments (GameTrailers) are at the end, just for flow. Consider taking a similar approach with the other paragraphs.
Again, did my best.
(The four citations about motion controls are fine -- this is a more appropriate use of back-to-back references.)
In the last paragraph, the 2013 makes it sound like the game was from 2013 (even though it's not). Just rephrase for a little more clarity.
Removed the specific date.
"His main complain was a lack of content and..." --> "His main complaints were a lack of content and..."
Fixed.
We can leave it there for now. In earnest, the article is very well written and these are minor fixes that will get us all the way there, if not very close. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: I've done my best with the feedback you gave. Part of the issue with the story is that it's deliberately kept a bit vague. Found the manual via Koch Media, so I was able to do some work in gameplay. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You're doing great. Sometimes less detail is actually more clear. The story section reads a lot better to me. The lingering ambiguity is why Menmo is helpful one second and violent the next -- is it because he's frustrated that the appeasement ritual isn't working? It's alright if the story isn't clear, and maybe this is the best we can do. Other than that, everything else in the story section is excellent now.
Sorted, I think.
The gameplay section reads better too and each piece is clearly verifiable now. The development section is great too, and it was already close.
There's still a few more small tweaks, after re-reading it.
There's an awkward sentence in the release section where the word "including" comes up almost back to back.
Sorted.
Now that you've inverted the opening paragraph of the reception, it would probably be clearer to use the proper noun "Cursed Mountain" first, and a pronoun like "it" or "the game" second. The section otherwise flows really well now.
Sorted.
Maybe mentioning Rockstar Vienna in the lead would give the lead more of a hook? This is subjective and just wanted you to consider it. The fate of the studio is mentioned, so it helps tell a bit of a story.
Getting this done needed some more rewriting.
That's basically it. Once you've wrapped those things this should be an easy pass. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: Hope I've addressed all the additional bits. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You absolutely have. Great work. Passed.  Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)