# Talk:Psycho Mantis

This review is transcluded from Talk:Psycho Mantis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. Look for more in the coming days. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's start going section by section.
Appearances
" Psycho Mantis first appears in Metal Gear Solid," -> i'd expand this into one good short sentence about who Psycho Mantis is. What's the most important thing for the reader to know? (e.g.: he's a terrorist, a boss, a psychic...)
" he is encountered midway through the game" -> this can then be clarified. Since this paragraph focuses on the one appearance, it would help an outside reader to say that up front. e.g.: "He appears halfway through the game in a dialog and battle sequence."
The rest of the first paragraph is really well written.
The second paragraph transitions out of the blue (going from his death to his childhood). The paragraph needs a beginning, to give the reader context. For example, how do we know about his childhood? Is this revealed in later games? Is this revealed by other characters?
"and his father hated him for it. After Mantis discovered it while reading his mind, Mantis burned his village to the ground out of fear." -> "Using his psychic power, Mantis discovers his father resents him for the death of his mother, and Mantis burns his village to the ground out of fear."
"Mantis attempts to perform the same show of his mental powers as in Metal Gear Solid, but finds his efforts thwarted due to the lack of a memory card in the PlayStation 3console the game is played on." -> this can probably be stated more clearly and succinctly.
Do we need to know the details about the organization, or can we just focus on his work with Skull Face?
" Rebenok teams up with the XOF, an organisation headed by the game's antagonist, Skull Face. Skull Face uses Rebenok to control the Sahelanthropus, a Metal Gear robot, which Skull Face plans to use to destroy all people who speak the English language." -> "He is manipulated by the game's main antagonist, Skull Face, who uses Rebenok to control a Metal Gear Robot with the goal of killing all English-speaking people in the world."
"Rebenok is later influenced by the rage of protagonist Venom Snake's ally, Eli, and switches allegiances to Eli, allowing Eli to gain control of Sahelanthropus." -> "Rebenok is later influenced by the rage of protagonist Venom Snake's ally, Eli, who earns Rebenok's allegiance and control over the robot."
Let's pause there. The prose is generally well-written. Most of these recommendations are meant to make the section more clear for the average reader. Sometimes giving them more detail, sometimes leaving out details that distract from the main point. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker Sorry for the late reply. I've made the prose changes, though I took some liberties in places to improve flow while working off your suggestions. Let me know if this currently reads alright.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's keep going with the development section. Just to get ahead of it, the reception and analysis section is pretty long. I'd consider adding a subheading or two, just to help organize it and make it less daunting for readers.
 Development
The first sentence here is a little confusing for an outside reader, only because they wouldn't know who Hideo Kojima is. It might benefit from an opening sentence, like "Psycho Mantis was first conceived by Metal Gear designer Hideo Kojima."
"(Metal Gear designer) Hideo Kojima was inspired to create Psycho Mantis after watching the 1978 film The Fury, leading the team use the film's depiction of psychic power as a reference."
The second sentence is a little long. See if you can shorten it, or break it into two.
"Mantis was designed by character designer Yoji Shinkawa." -> look for another word so you don't use design/designer twice
" portrayed" -> Is this strictly voice acting, or does it include motion capture or FMV? If it's just voice, then be specific.
"The scene with Mantis was adapted in several different ways in later adaptations of the game. " -> "Later adaptations of the game had to re-imagine interactions with Psycho Mantis that were designed for the Playstation hardware."
The rest of the paragraph is solid.
Let's pause there. I'd just restate that the reception section is pretty long compared to the average. I don't want to ask you to shorten it yet, because I think a lot of it is probably still good. It just needs better organization. For example, separating academic or technical analysis from popular reception. Or separating his legacy from more contemporaneous sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker made the requested changes to the dev section. I'm admittedly uncertain on the best way to split the Reception per your suggestions given how the sources discuss him, so if it's possible, would it be alright to discuss this after you go through Reception? I understand it's a bit hefty, but I'd prefer a second set of eyes on it in case there's optimal ways to split it that I've missed.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I've admittedly struggled with this too, when you have a character with a lot of commentary from a lot of different sources. Let me step back and look at the structure of the reception:
The first paragraph starts with awards, but starts to shift gears into more general comments about the character. It feels like a candidate for a paragraph split, but then again, the sources do seem to rank the character in other ways (50 boss fights, the 8th game villain). I might try to make that more clear, so the paragraph feels more like it's on a single topic.
The second paragraph seems to focus more on the details of the fight -- maybe specifically about the interactivity of games, and the fourth wall breaking sequence? That might be a clearer focus for this paragraph.
The third paragraph seems to continue that thought.
The fourth paragraph seems to continue that, in more of an academic sense.
The fifth paragraph is a single source, which seems like a lot of weight for one source.
The last paragraph is a split between additional appearances, and the reception of the character coming full circle from the directors. It's possible that the appearances belong in an earlier section? It would make sense to talk about where Psycho Mantis appears in other media there, because this isn't exactly reception.
Based on that, I have a few recommendations:
Try to create a paragraph that's strictly about awards. Name the award or ranking, and give a short reason why they thought it earned that award. You can cover each source in one sentence each, in most cases.
Any other praise can fit into a second paragraph, if you really need it. The feedback from the director/creator can probably come at the end this paragraph too.
Create a subsection that's just for analysis. And try to organize the analysis into more specific paragraphs. I'm not sure if that's multiple paragraphs for multiple different subtopics (I'm having trouble making that out), or if that's separating academic sources from more game design sources.
Some of these summaries of sources are just too long. One sentence per source is usually enough, sometimes two if they have said something really important that just can't be said in one sentence. Most of them do need to be shortened to really dive at the main point.
If it ever feels like it's too hard to summarize a source in one sentence, you can maybe get away with two. But try to make this the exception rather than the rule. A full paragraph about one source is definitely too much.
You might bend this guidance by using the same source in two different paragraphs. That assumes that there is more than one point being made, of course. But if you have a paragraph that says "sources have note A", and another paragraph that says "sources also commented on B", then it wouldn't be bad to use the same source in two different paragraphs.
As is, it feels like the sources are mostly making the same point -- that the fourth wall breaking sequence was a big milestone in gaming, and had a surprising effect on the player experience. The good news is that means that this point can be communicated in fewer words. Fewer words doesn't make the point less important. I know that feels like a lot of work, but it's mostly cut and paste (with extra emphasis on cut). Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker I'm a bit confused what you mean by awards, since none of these sources are really awarding him anything. The sources that rank him typically don't need rankings included, since the book doesn't have a set order of placements and numbers like eight or such don't really need to be mentioned due to being trivial. The bulk of these sources also aren't even "rankings" of any kind, so there's no real distinct "paragraph" that can be made out of this. I do just want to clarify this with you before I hit up the other points just so I have a concrete idea of what you want me to do.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
There is probably a better word than "awards". There's a few sources that discuss Psycho Mantis among its rankings:
100 Greatest Video Game Characters
Psycho Mantis is number 8
Eight moments that only work in video games
A few that might be borderline:
50 Years of Boss Fights
Big Boss of the Day
The memory card .03
Does that mean you could have a paragraph just about rankings? I think so. Is that the best way to organize it? I'm not 100% sure. But I think a good first step would be to separate the reception ("this is an iconic / amazing / popular character / moment / boss") from the analysis ("this is an example of applied game design / interactive storytelling / philosophy / psychology"), and try to cover each source in a sentence or two. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker rankings on lists and such have sort of been phased out of being mentioned since they aren't really "awards" per se and the "awards" in question are very trivial (Like, who cares he's number eight?). I'll see what I can do on splitting Reception and I'll try to follow your advice as best as I can but I do feel an "awards" section will just drag the overall quality of the section down.
Will try to hit this up later today once I have a bit of time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker I tried using your advice while taking some liberties with Reception to try and create a more structured Reception. I've done the following:
-I've kept the first paragraph mostly the same since it does its job well as acting as a baseline "summary" of sorts of Psycho Mantis's impact. I've merged the last paragraph into this one (To show later remarks and ways the character has been adapted in later mediums without interrupting the flow of the rest of the Reception) and additionally did minor cleanup here. The second paragraph was narrowed down to focusing on how Mantis's scene and role were received in terms of impact overall without straying into analytical territory. This is primarily the websites, though I shifted a few books here due to them covering Mantis in a similar manner.
-The first analysis paragraph focuses on how Psycho Mantis takes advantage of the player at this point in the game and the analysis surrounding it, while the second focuses more on the sources that discuss Mantis in terms of how he is able to reach through the fourth wall and how this affects the role of player vs game.
-I've done some overall cleanup and shortening, and removed bits that were superfluous or were overly complicated in terms of wording in ways that could be simplified.
Admittedly the above paragraph sorting is still entirely debatable, but I tried to keep subjects that were strongly associated with each other together while keeping an overall flow in terms of what was being discussed. I'm admittedly still unsure on a few things (Such as the placement of the former last paragraph) so let me know your thoughts.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The length and structure of this already looks a lot better, and in line with other articles. Let me give the re-organized section a review, to focus on the prose / clarity / readability.
Critical reception
"Despite Psycho Mantis's short amount of screentime in his original appearance, his appearance" -> "Psycho Mantis's brief appearance"
The sentence for "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" is really long and dense. Ideally you'd shorten it, but given that you've managed to get most other reviews down to a one sentence summary, it wouldn't be terrible to have two sentences here.
"IGN stated that Mantis "attacked players on all fronts," with his manipulation of Meryl preying on the feelings players developed for her at that point in the game." -> It's worth noting that IGN is doing this in the context of high praise. For example, "In IGN's ranking of gaming's greatest villains, the publication stated..."
" The number of fourth wall breaks, alongside their quality, was described" -> this needs an attribution. e.g.: Game journalist Rich Stanton. You might find that the quantity/quality comment can be simplified to make room for the attribution.
"A commercial advertising the Ford Focus aired in 2016, which parodied the scene where Mantis reads Snake's mind. Doug Stone reprised his role as Mantis for the commercial. A statuette of Psycho Mantis was also released in 2018." -> This isn't really reception and probably belongs in the appearances section.
" Manon Hume of Game Informer also expressed this sentiment" -> " Manon Hume of Game Informer also praised its inventiveness,"
"Brendan Main of The Escapist posited that Mantis's ability to unnerve the player with their save data was an experience that was not replicable outside of Metal Gear Solid itself, causing an uncertainty in the minds of players about their ability to properly control the game, and how it emphasized how decisions in the game were made by the will of the player, and not that of protagonist Solid Snake." -> this one is a little long too. Once again, since most are only one sentence, it wouldn't be the worst to turn this into two sentences.
" with the book Metagames: Games About Games additionally expressing" -> Just make this its own sentence. "The book ... additionally expressed..."
" His dissonance from other" -> once again, this needs attribution to the book and/or author
Analysis
"and thus made them question the game's own controls and mechanics, describing how "The game defamiliarizes players from the game itself." -> these two segments sort of say the same thing. Pick one, just to keep improve the length and readability. (Or, try both: "and thus "defamiliarizes players" from the game's controls and mechanics."
"Mantis's ability to make it appear as if the game had disconnected was described by the book Hideo Kojima: Progressive Game Design from Metal Gear to Death Stranding as showing how the developers of the game had control not only just over the game, but also the medium the game was being played in, comparing it to similar fourth-wall breaking scenes in the game's sequel, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty." -> This is another one that could be shortened, or broken into two sentences, if you felt it was important enough.
"due to it requiring players to seek out a solution in the real world in order to save Snake in the world of the game." -> "requiring the player to take action in the real world in order to save the game's protagonist."
" Others additionally analyzed" -> "Other scholars noted" or "Other academics noted"
Overall the section is a lot better! There is still some work to do, but I'm hoping we can get most of the way there with one more pass from the start, next time including the lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker made all the requested changes bar the bit on Psycho Mantis's promo. I'm not sure if it would go in Appearances, since it's not really an "appearance" of the character per se, and more of an example of the character's impact by showing how they have been utilized in media entirely disconnected from the original franchise. This is more of an uncertainty thing: do correct me if I'm wrong on that rationale. If you still feel it should be moved, let me know, but I did wish to double check in regards to that point in particular. Otherwise, let me know what else needs to be changed in regards to the article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
A figurine or an advertisement is still an appearance because it's authorized by the creators -- it would be the same thing with a comic book or a movie. I see your point, that those additional appearances are a reflection of how popular the character is. But that would also be true if they made "Metal Gear Flashback: The Psycho Mantis Saga". It's an appearance for sure.
Let's circle back for another full pass on the article.
Lead
Honest question: is "boss" jargon? I think "boss character" might make it more clear for the average, non-gamer reader.
I don't think it is, but I've clarified it regardless. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
" he is one of the many antagonists who helps main antagonist" -> "he helps the main antagonist"
Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
" Psycho Mantis is a psychic, and has numerous psychic powers he uses throughout the game. " -> this can be said in a word ("psychic") and could probably fit in another sentence.
Bit confused on what you wanted me to do here. I've tried rewording for clarity regardless. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This lead is missing really the most notable part of his appearance -- that he uses his psychic powers in a way that breaks the fourth wall. I understand that it comes up in the reception part of the lead too, but that's the first time it comes up, which limits my understanding as a reader.
Good catch. Let me know how you feel about the current wording. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"Despite his small first appearance," -> you can cut this -- the rest of the sentence explains that a lot of sources focus heavily on a single scene
Done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
" regards to the scene's immersive qualities " -> wouldn't this be more about breaking immersion? I'm not sure the right words, but I think we can get a little more specific.
I've tried clarifying it, but let me know if that needs changing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
" has been considered one of the most iconic moments" -> attribution helps, here.
Multiple sources beyond just the two that say it outright in Reception discuss this, so attributing to just one or two sources would be undue weight. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Body
"Psycho Mantis uses his psychic powers to mind control protagonist Solid Snake's ally Meryl Silverburgh, having her offer confessions of love to Snake to lower his guard." -> I think this needs to be clarified that Mantis hasn't physically appeared yet. "At first, protagonist Solid Snake receives romantic advances from his ally Meryl Silverburgh, only to discover that she is being psychically controlled by Psycho Mantis."
Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Another honest question: is "fourth wall" jargon? You and I know what it means, and I suppose someone can click through the blue link, but it might be nice to fit something simple in context. For example "and in doing so initiates a series of fourth wall breaking demonstrations" could become "and begins to talk directly to the player in a way that crosses the fourth wall of the game screen."
Tried clarifying. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"In-game dialogue reveals that," -> this is probably fine, but if we can get a little more specific (PM's allies, military intelligence officers, etc...)
I don't believe the sources clarify much further than that, since this in-universe info is covered in less depth than the scene that received a lot of analysis. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
" Mantis attempts to perform a similar fourth-wall breaking display as he did in Metal Gear Solid. Due to a lack of a memory card in the PlayStation 3 console the game is played on, Mantis is unable to demonstrate his psychic powers." -> "Mantis tries and fails to repeat the same trick in Metal Gear Solid due to the Playstation 3's lack of memory card."
Changed, though I made a few alterations for clarity. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"However, he becomes excited if the player is using a DualShock vibrating controller, allowing Psycho Mantis to manipulate the controller."
I feel this wording doesn't work as well, since it implies his excitement is what causes the controller to move, and not his psychic powers, making the wording confusing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"The novel adaptation of the game additionally changed the scene from the usual boss fight to a deep dive into Snake's character, with hallucinations being used against Snake to provide insights into his character." -> "In the novelization of the game, the boss fight is adapted into a series of hallucinations where Snake reckons with deeper realizations about his character."
Changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Nicholas David Bowman, as part of the book 100 Greatest Video Game Characters, described how Psycho Mantis's fourth wall breaking abilities deeply impacted the players in terms of not only Psycho Mantis's battle, but also in his interactions with the player, stating that... -> "In the book 100 Greatest Video Game Characters, Nicholas David Bowman describes how Psycho Mantis's boss battle crosses into direct engagement with the player, explaining that..."
"The number of fourth wall breaks, alongside their quality, was described by the book A Brief History Of Video Games: From Atari to Virtual Reality as making the battle "a bravura performance rather than a mere novelty" that emphasized its uniqueness in comparison to other games that existed." -> "A Brief History of Video Games noted how breaking the fourth wall was both varied and unique, making the battle "a bravura performance rather than a mere novelty"."
"Andy Kelly of TheGamer praised the battle with Mantis for its inventiveness and ingenuity, highlighting it as one of the scenes that helped make the original Metal Gear Solid an iconic game due to how it was able to effectively utilize its medium as a video game in a way few other pieces of media could.' -> "Andy Kelly of TheGamer praised the character as part what made Metal Gear Solid so iconic, describing how the Mantis battle utilized the video game medium in unique and inventive ways."
"Manon Hume of Game Informer also praised its inventiveness and how it effectively was able to make the player question their control over the game and its world." -> "Manon Hume of Game Informer also praised the battle as inventive, describing how it makes the player question their control over the game."
"The book Metagames: Games About Games additionally expressed how the breaking of the fourth wall emphasized the power of Psycho Mantis as a character, describing how the battle requiring the player's own input to complete was used to show the player's own weakness in comparison to Psycho Mantis." -> "Metagames: Games About Games highlighted how Psycho Mantis became far more powerful by breaking the fourth wall, using his control over the player's input to make them feel more vulnerable."
" even despite the battle's own lack of emotional weight in comparison to other scenes in the game." -> "more than other scenes with greater emotional weight."
Made above changes to Reception's prose. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The analysis section feels like it could start with a good summary or topic sentence, briefly referring to multiple sources. Something that signals what most of the sources will comment on.
Tried to clarify this, let me know thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"The book The Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games analyzed how Psycho Mantis's boss fight and ability to dodge controller inputs came at a point where the player was familiar with how Metal Gear Solid worked, describing how it "defamiliarizes players" from the game's controls and mechanics." -> "The Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games analyzed how Psycho Mantis's ability to dodge controller inputs exploited the player's comfort with the game, describing how it "defamiliarizes players" from the game's controls and mechanics."
"Mantis's ability to make it appear as if the game had disconnected was described by the book Hideo Kojima: Progressive Game Design from Metal Gear to Death Stranding as showing how the developers of the game had control not only just over the game, but also the medium the game was being played in." -> "The book Hideo Kojima: Progressive Game Design describes how the Mantis boss sequence gave the game developers control beyond just the game, to control over the game medium itself."
" with the book Once Upon a Pixel: Storytelling and Worldbuilding in Video Games additionally stating... " -> ". The book Once Upon a Pixel additionally states..."
"Once Upon a Pixel: Storytelling and Worldbuilding in Video Games described how the sequence was able to remind players of the fact that the world of Metal Gear Solid was in a video game, and that while they controlled Snake, they themselves would never amount to actually being Snake." -> "Once Upon a Pixel described how the sequence reminds players that Metal Gear Solid is a game, and that the player controls Snake without actually identifying as Snake."
I don't feel this one is wise, since that specific point is largely disconnected from the rest of the Analysis section and more difficult to define without putting undue weight on the source. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
"This was described as causing both identification and alienation in players simultaneously, with Mantis's actions being analyzed as part of a "circle" or "feedback loop" due to Mantis being able to "thrust" the player out of the loop they experienced while playing the game in Snake's shoes." -> "This creates conflicting feelings of identification and alienation, with Mantis's actions pushing the player out of the normal game flow they were experiencing as Snake."
Addressed most of the above prose suggestions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
That's one last long pass, but should finally get us close to GA, if not all the way. Thanks for your work on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: I've made edits. I have a few comments on a few points, so let me know if those need further clarification or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We are really close now. Just a few more comments to tighten up the lead, and a few points of clarification in the body.
Lead
"Psycho Mantis is a psychic, which allows him to use various abilities, such as mind control and mind-reading. Psycho Mantis demonstrates a fourth wall breaking sequence to display his psychic powers before engaging in combat with the game's protagonist, Solid Snake, though he is killed in the battle." -> "In a battle with the game's protagonist, Psycho Mantis uses his psychic powers to talks directly to the player of the game in a way that crosses the fourth wall of the game screen, playing tricks with the game's memory card and controller."
"The scene where Psycho Mantis reveals himself to Solid Snake has been praised by critics. ... Psycho Mantis's fourth-wall breaking scene has been considered one of the most iconic moments in video gaming history." -> "Game critics have praised Psycho Mantis and his fourth wall breaking interactions, calling the scene one of the most memorable game moments."
"The fourth wall breaking narratives have been the subject of significant analysis in regards to the scene's depiction of immersion and imersion-breaking qualities as well as how it demonstrates the relationship between Snake and the player." ->  "Further commentary has analyzed the scene for its impact the player's experience, particularly the player's relationship with the on-screen protagonist."
Body
"though some younger members of the staff disagreed with Kojima's decision" -> "which was controversial among younger members of the team." (disagreed starts to imply that they refused to do it)
"but also to the medium of video games themselves" -> "also to the video game medium" or "also to video games as a medium."
"by the book the book" -> small typo here
"with the book" -> just start this as a new sentence.
Thought I caught that one last time. Mistake on my part, fixed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
"The International Journal of Transmedia Literacy analyzed Psycho Mantis's rhetoric, finding that the shift from Psycho Mantis referring to Snake in his dialogue to referring to the player helped emphasize the player's importance in the narrative of the game, requiring the player to take action in the real world in order to save the game's protagonist." -. "The International Journal of Transmedia Literacy noted how Psycho Mantis shifts his attention from Snake to the player, emphasizing the player's importance in the game narrative, and requiring them to take action in the real world in order to save the game's protagonist."
"Others academics additionally analyzed that the interactivity with the video game console required to defeat Mantis helped serve a metanarrative role in the game, making the game more immersive for players overall due to their interaction with the game itself." -> "Others academics additionally noted the metanarrative impact of the boss sequence, making the game more immersive by requiring the player to interact directly with the game console."
Also link metanarrative.
I think that should be everything. Thanks for your patience with this one. This character is pretty complex, which is part of what makes him so notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker: Edits have been made. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel a little bad for dragging this out, but these are two quick but important fixes.
The last sentence in the lead is redundant. (You already say it in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead.)
"In-game dialogue reveals that, when Mantis was a child, his mother had died in childbirth while giving birth to him." -> knowing he was a child at childbirth is redundant and breaks the flow here, so let's just say "The player discovers more about Mantis through in-game dialog, learning that his mother died while giving birth to him."
These are the last two weird parts, and once these are resolved, I am happy to call this a Good Article. Thanks again for chipping away at this. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker both problems have been addressed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This is definitely good article quality now, and you've done great work. Thanks again.  Passed.  Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)