Grimoire now has a Wikipedia article!

[Lady_Error]

Anyone familiar with the Wikipedia faggotry, feel free to contribute.

 

[Luckmann]

Yeah fuck open source knowledge, better go to some random blog or even better, Alex Jones- that's how you get quality information!
"Cultural Marxism"

Nobody would call Alex Jones an objective source of knowledge. Wikipedia pretends to be, but isn't. Alex Jones and others don't. That's the difference.

I only speak the truth, but anyone who would claim me as an objective source of information akin to what an encyclopedia should be would be an idiot.

 

[Sigourn]

Where did we start pretending reviews have to be objective?

By definition, a review CANNOT be objective. If you want an "objective" review on Grimoire, what you will get is a description instead: it has this amount of dungeons, this amount of skills, these skills do this, you can control this amount of party members, etc. without any judgement being passed on those elements (are the dungeons good? are the skills too many or too few? are all of them useful? is the amount of members just right or too many?).

That said: listing only negative reviews is being dishonest.

 

[Sigourn]

The sentences should have read:

GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn described Grimoire as unfinished, cheaply made and broken, while criticising the absence of voice acting in dialogues and the lack of a German translation. In summary, he stated that "Grimoire deserves no pity just because it's an indie game", awarding a score of 30/100. However, he also mentioned that the game may receive another review once the manual comes out and the game balance has been adjusted.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer wrote that he failed to make a proper review because of the game's "grind, the desperately cumbersome user interface or the sound that makes me want to throw my speakers into the sea", and cited updates making savegames unusable. While noting that Grimoire "successfully creates the illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets", Meer came to the conclusion that the core design elements of the game were "monstrously wrong-headed" and comparable to mental torture.

"There's little doubt that Grimoire fills a niche that hasn't been filled in a while, and I know I'm part of the demographic he's aiming for. In my old age, though, I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore." (Lady Error's was just fine here)

 

[Jimmious]

Yeah fuck open source knowledge, better go to some random blog or even better, Alex Jones- that's how you get quality information!
"Cultural Marxism"

Nobody would call Alex Jones an objective source of knowledge. Wikipedia pretends to be, but isn't. Alex Jones and others don't. That's the difference.

I only speak the truth, but anyone who would claim me as an objective source of information akin to what an encyclopedia should be would be an idiot.

Nobody? Are you sure? I wish that was the truth.
As for wikipedia, let me repeat myself: An open source medium is bound to have problems with people doing whatever they want. But wikipedia is not only "news" that are debatable. It's an amazing knowledge database on every subject imaginable. If from all that content 0.1% is bullshit, I can live with that.
Of course that doesn't mean that one should cite wikipedia as if it's the truth. Sources are always the most important part

 

[Infinitron]

The talk page war continues:

Let's compare the Gamestar review versions:

HoratioS: GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn described Grimoire as unfinished, cheaply made and broken, while criticising the absence of voice acting in dialogues and the lack of a German translation. In summary, he stated that "Grimoire deserves no pity just because it's an indie game", awarding a score of 30/100.

LadyError: GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn harshly criticized the game and stated that "Grimoire deserves no pity just because it's an indie game", awarding a score of 30/100. However, he also mentioned that the game may receive another review once the manual comes out and the game balance has been adjusted.

Your version focuses on negative quotes and remarks and leaves out information - the second sentence in my summary. Your version is not neutral.

The RPS review versions compared:

HoratioS: Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer posted an article covering his attempt to write a review, which he said failed due to the game's "grind, the desperately cumbersome user interface or the sound that makes me want to throw my speakers into the sea".[2] Due to the difficulty in taking screenshots, the article was partially illustrated with promotional images, and the game had to be restarted due to updates making savegames unusable. The article, while noting that Grimoire successfully created the illusion of a large game world, came to the conclusion that the core design elements of the game were "monstrously wrong-headed", "hateful", and comparable to mental torture.[2]

LadyError: Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer posted an article in which he noted that while Grimoire "successfully creates the illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets", the core design elements of the game were "monstrously wrong-headed".

Your version focuses on overly long negative quotes instead of a neutral summary. You changed the reviewers only positive remark from "illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets" to "illusion of a large game world". Again your version is not neutral.

Motherboard review versions:

HoratioS: Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson's concluded that "I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore."[3]

LadyError: Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson's concluded that "There's little doubt that Grimoire fills a niche that hasn't been filled in a while, and I know I'm part of the demographic he's aiming for. In my old age, though, I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore."

You misrepresent the reviewer's conclusion by cutting away anything that may sound positive. Again, your version is not neutral.

Also, you have included this unsourced claim at the end:

"One point touched on by many publications covering the game was the lack of any manual or documentation included, which, combined with an interface considered to be obtuse, led to many reviewers having difficulty figuring out how to play the game.[citation needed]"

Which publications are you talking about? Either provide sources in addition to the ones above or this section needs to be deleted. LadyError (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

As a third party view, this was said on HoratioS's talk page:

"Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Grimoire: Heralds of the Winged Exemplar seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)" LadyError (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello LadyError, you cite WP:RS in an attempt to show that John Walker is not a reliable source. Can you expand on your reasoning? In general, it is good form to cite the precise guideline which you think supports your point.

In my opinion, this statement from WP:NEWSORG - "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author" - is enough to justify the inclusion of the opinion of John Walker commenting on the Grimoire review in his capacity as the widely respected senior editor of Rock, Paper, Shotgun.

Tackling your comments on my representation of each review:

- In the Gamestar summary, I attempted to give information representative of the article itself. Your version cites only the game balance and the lack of a manual as targets of criticism, even though these two subjects are only mentioned in passing in the original review and are only relevant to the question of whether the reviewer would consider writing another review. Instead, the review goes to great lengths to detail the various ways in which the reviewer considers the game to be unfinished, cheaply made and outright broken. (If you wish, we can discuss the specific lines of the original review that refer to these points.) Since these are the focal points of the reviewer's criticism, I consider them important enough for inclusion in a summary. It is appropriate that a reader should be confronted with a list of negative criticisms when reading the summary of a review that awards 30/100 points.

As for the other line you wished to retain: "However, he also mentioned that the game may receive another review once the manual comes out and the game balance has been adjusted." I cannot find this information anywhere in the cited source. Can you quote the exact line where the reviewer makes this statement?

- In the Rock Paper Shotgun summary, I once again listed the concrete criticisms levelled against the game by its reviewer. The reviewer's key areas of praise and criticism constitute essential information for any summary. When more reviews become available, these claims will be collated by claim rather than by site, as outlined in WP:VGG: "Stack similar claims." Wikipedia encourages the listing of specific claims to inform the reader.

You are taking issue with my paraphrase of the words: "successfully creates the illusion of an enormous world filled with mysteries and secrets." If you were to produce a paraphrase that reflected the original line more accurately, I would be happy to see it incorporated into our collaborative article.

- In the Motherboard summary, I came to the conclusion that the original quote was too long and could be truncated without losing relevant information, thereby alleviating the overquotation problem of this section. If you were to produce a paraphrase that reflected the original line more accurately, I would be happy to see it incorporated into our collaborative article.

- The unsourced claim at the end of the article was originally created by Hazarasp when he created the article. Please contact him to clarify whether this line can be sourced. If he cannot source it, I would support its deletion.

The comment by Oshwah also applied to another claim originally made by Hazarasp. The original line by Hazarasp was "which failed due to inaccessibility and frequent bugs and crashes"[1]. The article was subsequently vandalized, and the line read "which failed due to him being incredibly casual"[2]. I then reverted the change to the previous version [3] by Hazarasp, which was then deleted by Oshwah. I will invite Oshwah to make a statement whether his deletion constitutes a third party view on your allegations of bias. I wish you a pleasant and productive day. HoratioS (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This Horatio guy is a snake.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

It's very hard to impossible to outjew a Wikipedia editor if you're not in the game yourself. Yes, even for you, Infinitron.

Cut your losses.

 

[Absinthe]

Anyone familiar with the Wikipedia faggotry, feel free to contribute.

The trouble with that is that most people familiar with Wikipedia faggotry have good reason not to touch Wikipedia again. It's usually better to make your own site than waste time arguing on Wikipedia. Unless you have aspirations of becoming a politician and need some practice in spinning high-sounding justifications for biased decisions and abusing rules, regulations, and influential connections to get things done your way, I would not waste time there.

 

[Kz3r0]

This is 2017

Not anymore.

 

[Iznaliu]

They were Nu-Bioware games so it doesn't matter.

They need to stand on their own (lack of) merits. It's almost like you secretly like them if you have to put them down that way.

The trouble with that is that most people familiar with Wikipedia faggotry have good reason not to touch Wikipedia again. It's usually better to make your own site than waste time arguing on Wikipedia. Unless you have aspirations of becoming a politician and need some practice in spinning high-sounding justifications for biased decisions and abusing rules, regulations, and influential connections to get things done your way, I would not waste time there.

The issue is that people won't read some random site. They will read Wikipedia.

 

[Absinthe]

People do read random sites. They did it all the time before wikipedia, and they still do it now. Google has a way of connecting people with random, relevant sites.

 

[gestalt11]

It's very hard to impossible to outjew a Wikipedia editor if you're not in the game yourself. Yes, even for you, Infinitron.

Cut your losses.

Listen to this man.

 

[Iznaliu]

Google has a way of connecting people with random, relevant sites

I thought Google was apparently bad for firing Damore?

 

[Absinthe]

I'm not casting judgments on google at the moment. I'm just pointing out that people use google (or whatever search engine) and it links them to random sites that are relevant. Also, I haven't followed google drama enough to know what you're talking about. If you want a reason to avoid using google services, I'd sooner focus on google's data-mining practices.

 

[Wehraboo]

Nobody would call Alex Jones an objective source of knowledge. Wikipedia pretends to be, but isn't. Alex Jones and others don't. That's the difference.

I only speak the truth, but anyone who would claim me as an objective source of information akin to what an encyclopedia should be would be an idiot.

Wikipedia is a fucking encyclopedia, not a news source. Since Alec Meer is not a full time writer and he wrote one piece for a shitrag with no standing it is a baldfaced lie to put his review up there as if it is a serious piece, especially when in the same breath the RPG codex, probably the biggest RPG discussion zone on the net by a factor of ten, is a fringe site giving an amateur review. His review is little better than a blog hit piece, and RPG codex is a prestigious magazine.

You can't really blame wikipedia itself for this nonsense, but this is the kind of thing that is endemic to wikipedia and would be very hard to deal with even if they wanted to (which they don't).

Now if they were honest like rightpedia or rationalpedia then you would realize oh some of this shit may have a bit of slant due to political crap (and it would also be more incumbent on them to make sure there is no slander because it makes the right/left as a whole look bad). But leftshit sjws are inherently dishonest and will flood in everywhere and do everything they can to defame 'enemies' and to promote themselves and Alec Meer is a prime example of this outright faggotry.

 

[Fowyr]

I don't care. This is 2017. Deus Ex is a 2000 videogame and I will judge it accordingly. Grimoire was released in 2017 and I wll judge it accordingly: I don't give a shit if it was "meant to be released 20 years ago", truth is it was released this year and that's how I will judge it.

Yep, and it's best CRPG of 2017.

Also it's hilarious that felipepepe's review is removed from article. His errors aside, at least he finished the game instead of playing it for two minutes like these cucks.

 

[Lady_Error]

Since Alec Meer is not a full time writer and he wrote one piece for a shitrag with no standing it is a baldfaced lie to put his review up there as if it is a serious piece, especially when in the same breath the RPG codex, probably the biggest RPG discussion zone on the net by a factor of ten, is a fringe site giving an amateur review. His review is little better than a blog hit piece, and RPG codex is a prestigious magazine.

The thing is Alec Meer's RPS review is not even that negative, it's only that scumbag on Wikipedia who quoted only the negative parts.

Here is the RPS conclusion:

I admire the size of this thing, the vision of it, the dedication. The labour of love is clear, and I have no doubt that it is going to absolutely delight those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best for decades. But I think of 600, 300, 100, even 20 more hours of my life spent this way, this glacial churn, and I cannot accept such a fate.

I’m glad Grimoire’s real after all this time, I’m glad it’s done what it set out to do 20 years ago, and I acknowledge entirely that its development began in a very different age of game design, that it has all been handled by just one man and, as such, certain expectations are entirely unfair.

Neither that or my curiosity about what it will throw at me next means that I can abide the grind, the desperately cumbersome user interface or the sound that makes me want to throw my speakers into the sea. I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...n-the-making-is-a-crazily-tough-nut-to-crack/

 

[Severian Silk]

I'm not casting judgments on google at the moment. I'm just pointing out that people use google (or whatever search engine) and it links them to random sites that are relevant. Also, I haven't followed google drama enough to know what you're talking about. If you want a reason to avoid using google services, I'd sooner focus on google's data-mining practices.

Mostly, Google just links to Wikipedia.

 

[Absinthe]

It's usually the top link, yes, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing people ever look at. Look, if you want to spend your time editing wikipedia and getting suckered in that mess, go ahead. I just don't recommend it. When it comes to Wikipedia faggotry, personally, I'm so familiar with it that I'm not contributing there again. Haven't really touched it for 10 years now. I'm not nearly slavic enough to put up with that kind of insane bureaucracy where everyone secretly hates everyone not on their side and if you're not in the right circles you're generally fucked once the dick-waving/contribution-measuring/clout contest sets in, which nearly all arguments veer towards in the end. Funnily enough I can probably navigate the wikipedia rules & regulations well enough to get shit done my way now, but I have no inclination to waste time on wikipedia arguing shit with passive-aggressive cunts obsessed with point-scoring, rules-twisting, and dick-measuring when I could just make my own site instead and never deal with those cunts who will probably undo your changes once you're not looking because the biggest pricks are obsessive, tenacious bastards like that. Once you get suckered into arguments you will find yourself wasting something like 10x as much time arguing than contributing on WP and if it's wikipedia drama you've gotten yourself into, easily much more than that. You might find yourself not spending any time doing anything at all constructive, being suckered into a never-ending escalating loop of politely-worded shit-flinging, word-spinning, and rules-twisting instead until some higher-up (usually connected to one of the parties, sometimes with a layer of plausible deniability, sometimes obviously biased but no one outranks him enough to stop him) lays down their law and settles it. Remember to have your own circlejerk so you can act as character witnesses for each other when on wikipedia. It really helps, especially if you've got admins in your circlejerk.

Wikipedia is one of the reasons why I prefer to give people shit directly on the internet instead of waste time on garbage fake politeness that serves no purpose than to drag out an argument and give idiots an inflated sense of self-worth. Take my advice and don't get invested in that faggotry. Small edits are fine but anything contentious is a waste of fucking time.

 

[Iznaliu]

Now if they were honest like rightpedia or rationalpedia then you would realize oh some of this shit may have a bit of slant due to political crap (and it would also be more incumbent on them to make sure there is no slander because it makes the right/left as a whole look bad). But leftshit sjws are inherently dishonest and will flood in everywhere and do everything they can to defame 'enemies' and to promote themselves and Alec Meer is a prime example of this outright faggotry.

This is what I mean when I say that the Codex has no idea of what goes on outside its walls.

 

[Lady_Error]

This Horatio guy is a snake.

Well, it has been discovered that he created his account on Wikipedia 18 minutes after this thread was posted here, so he is definitely a Codex regular. Your guess is as good as mine who of the many people wronged by Cleve over the years he might be.

Spoiler

Robert Sirotek?

 

[Infinitron]

This Horatio guy is a snake.

Well, it has been discovered that he created his account on Wikipedia 18 minutes after this thread was posted here, so he is definitely a Codex regular. Your guess is as good as mine who of the many people wronged by Cleve over the years he might be.

Spoiler

Robert Sirotek?

It's very hard to impossible to outjew a Wikipedia editor if you're not in the game yourself. Yes, even for you, Infinitron.

Cut your losses.

Listen to this man.

It may even be somebody in this thread.

 

[Drog Black Tooth]

Mystary intensifies.

 

[Infinitron]

More from the talk page:

1. I support deleting the unsourced claim at the end of the article which was originally created by Hazarasp. On this I agree with you, HoratioS.

2. Anyone who compares your summary of the Rock Paper Shotgun review to the actual review will find that you cite only the criiticisms, while omitting the various key areas of praise throughout the article. This does not fairly represent the RPS review.

The conclusion of the RPS review shows key areas of praise you omitted:

"I admire the size of this thing, the vision of it, the dedication. The labour of love is clear, and I have no doubt that it is going to absolutely delight those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best for decades. But I think of 600, 300, 100, even 20 more hours of my life spent this way, this glacial churn, and I cannot accept such a fate. I’m glad Grimoire’s real after all this time, I’m glad it’s done what it set out to do 20 years ago, and I acknowledge entirely that its development began in a very different age of game design, that it has all been handled by just one man and, as such, certain expectations are entirely unfair. Neither that or my curiosity about what it will throw at me next means that I can abide the grind, the desperately cumbersome user interface or the sound that makes me want to throw my speakers into the sea. I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not."

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...n-the-making-is-a-crazily-tough-nut-to-crack/

A neutral summary of this review's conclusion should be:

Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer states in an article that he admires the size of the the game and the dedication behind it, noting that "the labour of love is clear". While acknowledging that Grimoire will "absolutely delight" fans of older RPG's, Alec Meer also harshly criticizes the slow combat, the "desperately cumbersome" user interface and the sound. His conclusion: "I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not." Senior editor John Walker wrote a comment to the article, stating that some players who claimed to be enjoying Grimoire were being dishonest.

3. The Gamestar review in German has this conclusion:

"Grafik und Sound mal außen vor - mit Balancing-Anpassungen, dem Hinzufügen der fehlenden Features, einer brauchbaren Anleitung und Anpassungen an der Benutzeroberfläche könnte Grimoire ein richtig gutes Rollenspiel der alten Schule sein. In seinem jetzigen Zustand ist es unfertig, kaputt, benutzerfeindlich und wird zum Vollpreis angeboten."

(In English: "Aside from the graphics and sound - with some adjustement of the balance, addition of missing features, a manual and adjustments to the user interface, Grimoire could become a really good oldschool RPG. In its current state, it is unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price.")

http://www.gamestar.de/artikel/grim...o-masochismus-fuer-37-euro,3318816,fazit.html

Your summary misrepresents this review by citing only the criticisms and leaving out key areas of information. A neutral summary of this review's conclusion would be:

GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticized the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but noted that with some adjustements to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG". In summary, he states that currently the game is "unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price", awarding a score of 30/100.

4. Let's look at the conclusion at the end of the Motherboard article:

"There's little doubt that Grimoire fills a niche that hasn't been filled in a while, and I know I'm part of the demographic he's aiming for. In my old age, though, I've realized I don't have time for this kind of punishment anymore. "Greatest RPG of them all?" Eh, I'll stick with The Witcher 3."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ent-20-years-ago-the-greatest-rpg-of-them-all

A neutral summary of this review should include all relevant points made by the reviewer, not just that he doesn't "have time for this kind of punishment anymore." A neutral short summary of this review should be:

Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson's concluded that even though Grimoire fills a niche that has not been filled for a while, personally he does not "have time for this kind of punishment anymore."

5. In summary, here is my proposal for the Reception section:

Reception

GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticizes the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but notes that with some adjustements to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG". In summary, he states that currently the game is "unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price", awarding a score of 30/100.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun writer Alec Meer states in an article that he admires the size of the the game and the dedication behind it, noting that "the labour of love is clear". While acknowledging that Grimoire will "absolutely delight" fans of older RPG's, Alec Meer also harshly criticizes the slow combat, the "desperately cumbersome" user interface and the sound. His conclusion: "I like Grimoire in many ways, but again, I would need to truly, madly, deeply love it in order to endure all that. I’m afraid that I do not." Senior editor John Walker wrote a comment to the article, stating that some players who claimed to be enjoying Grimoire were being dishonest.

Writing for Motherboard, Leif Johnson concludes that even though Grimoire fills a niche that has not been filled for a while, personally he does not "have time for this kind of punishment anymore."

LadyError (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Warm greetings to you, LadyError. Have you spoken with Hazarasp about the unsourced claim at the end of the article? It would be a show of goodwill to give him a chance to supply a source before moving forward with its deletion.

- As regards the Rock Paper Shotgun article, I warmly repeat my invitation to you to consult WP:VGG. It is helpful and appropriate to list the specific claims made by each writer, so that they may eventually be collated by claim rather than by publication as more reviews become available. As such, it is appropriate to note that Mr. Meer considers the game to be a form of "torture", which may later be merged with Mr. Johnson describing the game as a form of "punishment". Exactly those quotes which point a path towards an emerging critical consenus are most precious to our collaborative effort. They should not be deleted.

It is my understanding that you have decided to paraphrase Mr. Meer's words: "I have no doubt that it is going to absolutely delight those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best for decades," as follows: "While acknowledging that Grimoire will "absolutely delight" fans of older RPG's, ...". I am truly sorry to confront you so bluntly over this matter, but I believe that your paraphrase is lacking in accuracy compared to the original quote. The quote says nothing about "fans of older RPGs"; in my interpretation, Mr. Meer specifically refers to long-term fans ("for decades") who not only like older games, but who expressly and explicitly prefer them to newer games ("those who have flown the flag of The Olden Days Did It Best"). Mr. Meer's comment should also not be framed as an "acknowledgement" as if it were a factual truth that all people who prefer old games would be delighted by Grimoire. That is not a proven fact, but merely a posit by Mr. Meer. A more accurate paraphrase in my mind would be "While claiming that Grimoire would "absolutely delight" those who believe that the best video games were made decades ago, ..." I will note that Mr. Meer does not strictly mention video games at all in his quote, and that it might perhaps be better to directly quote the entire sentence and remedy the overquotation problem of this section by paraphrasing another quote.

- Since you have not mentioned Mr. Penzhorn's supposed promise of a re-review in your revised summary of his review, I will be bold enough to presume that you agree to deleting this sentence from your original edit. I warmly invite anybody else who might be able to supply a source for this statement to come forward before we move ahead with its deletion.

You translate "mit Balancing-Anpassungen" as "with some adjustment to the balance". Where does the "some" come from? And would "adjustments" in the plural not perhaps be a more perfect way of translating "Anpassungen", which is also a plural word? And in my view, "userfeindlich" is better translated as "hostile to users" ("feindlich" meaning "hostile") rather than "user-unfriendly" (which would have been "user-unfreundlich" in the original German). Being "unfriendly" is not the same thing as being downright "hostile"; your proposed version might make Mr. Perzhorn's words seem more lenient than they appear in the original German. Perhaps similarly, you translate "dem Hinzufügen der fehlenden Features" as "addition of missing features," omitting the article "der" (meaning "the") from your translation. Your error was doubtlessly innocent in nature, but it rather distorts the meaning of Mr. Penzhorn's remark; adding "missing features" can mean adding two features out of twenty that are missing. Adding "the missing features" can generally be taken to mean adding every single missing feature. In the interest of citing specific claims, it would also be useful to note specifically which features Mr. Penzhorn expects to be added, as listed in the body of his review.

That any mention of these missing features alleged by Mr. Penzhorn is omitted from your summary of his remarks puzzles and bemuses me. May I be so forward as to ask about your reasoning for that omission? Your own translation of the review's summary, put forward just one paragraph earlier, makes it clear that Mr. Penzhorn expects these features to be implemented:

"Aside from the graphics and sound - with some adjustement of the balance, addition of missing features, a manual and adjustments to the user interface, Grimoire could become a really good oldschool RPG. In its current state, it is unfinished, broken, user-unfriendly and is being offered at full price."

Your summary of these these elements:

"GameStar reviewer Sascha Penzhorn criticized the outdated graphics and sound of the game, but noted that with some adjustements to the user interface and the game balance, Grimoire could become "a really good oldschool RPG"."

Where did the criticism of the game's sounds the lack of a manual and the missing features go? This line is already a paraphrase, so there is no need to be mindful of overquotation. I would courteously encourage you to revise this passage with a conscientious eye.

Along the same lines, we are bound by our duty as Wikipedia contributors to highlight those points that are common to each reviewer's reception of Grimoire. Because Mr. Meer, Mr. Penzhorn, and Mr. Johnson all explicitly criticise Grimoire's sound, lack of a manual, graphics, overall technical quality, and difficulty, and come away with an impression of having been "tortured" or having "endured" a "punishment", these areas ought to be mentioned in any article that attempts to render a fair and balanced representation of the game's reception. Furthermore, both Mr. Penzhorn and Mr. Johnson describe the game as unfinished, and both Mr. Meer and Mr. Penzhorn criticise the game's balance and point out that none of the party members seem to have any sort of personality. Because these claims were made by two or three different experts writing independently of each other, they are of particular value to our encyclopedic purpose.

I feel that any good summary of Grimoire's reception at this stage needs to list at least the most important of these intersubjective criticisms to fulfill its purpose. If we can find a positive remark that was shared by several reviewers (perhaps about the game's appeal to hardcore fans) it could also earn an elevated position within the reception section, though we must be mindful that our summary does not create a more positive impression of the game than is supported by the articles themselves. Since each of the three writers describes his gameplay experience as a form of suffering or torture, we ought not to imply that any of them enjoyed playing the game.

The criticisms of the game's sound and graphics can perhaps be summarized as "low production values", which would leave us with an initial sentence along the lines of "The first articles after Grimoire's release criticised the game's lack of a manual as well as its perceived low production values, poor technical quality, and high difficulty," followed by a summary of each reviewer's more idiosyncratic remarks. Does that sound acceptable to you?

With only the best of wishes, HoratioS (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved[edit]
I'm not going to bother reading this wall of text but I'll point out some things:

• I added the overquotation tag to the article because this revision is horribly written: [4]. It is excessive cherry picking of short quotes that are taken out of context and lean towards giving the section a negative point of view. Good articles and receptions sections are written through decent paraphrasing, not copying a list of quotes in. From our guidelines: Minimize direct quotations. Prefer paraphrase whenever possible, both for Wikipedia's emphasis on minimizing use of copyrighted content and to massage the essence of the source into what best suits the section. Almost all reviewer sentiments can be rephrased without using the source's exact words/phrases. Use quotations only to illustrate that which cannot be said better than the source. Reception sections that consist purely of quotations are treated as copyright violations. (WP:VG/GL)
• Quoting John Walker from the comment section of the RPS article is really just scrapping the bottom of the barrel. There's plenty of material to work with in the article. We shouldn't be giving undue weight to a comment responding to other user comments, even if it was made by a staff writer. Stick to the critique in the published article.
• Finally, for you lot at Codex because it doesn't look like most of you have figured it out. HoratioS is obviously one of your own trolling you to instigate a negative reaction towards Wikipedia, which they have evidently succeeded at given all the outrage in the Codex thread. Account was created 18 minutes after the thread posted on Codex: Special:CentralAuth/HoratioS. First edit calls Codex an alt-right website: [5], follows up by calling Codex review amateur: [6], and I can point more stuff in the other edits. Even the overly friendly and formal tone of their talk page comments is bordering on trollish. Regardless of whether deny it, I've seen this behaviour plenty of times before. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you guys are being baited by one of your own.

If you guys can't reach a happy medium without pushing some agenda or without the intention of trying to create drama, then I'll just rewrite properly myself when I have spare time. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments on the edits made by HoratioS[edit]
We have now three editors who see bias and lack of neutrality in the edits made by HoratioS in this article. His long replies here lack constructive proposals and instead seem to focus on nitpicking while ignoring the problem of bias and lack of neutrality in his edits.

LadyError (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I have add, I am impressed by HoratioS in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia policies and how quickly he can cite them. I am just confused by the fact that HoratioS is a new account that has only edits of this page in its history. HoratioS, do you have another account and if so, why aren't you just posting with your regular account?

LadyError (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The1337gamer:

 

[Lady_Error]

Site is ran by a racist moderator. Avoid at all costs.

Zep--

View attachment 8289

[citation provided]

Zep--

Of course it is bad. It's administered by a shilling, dick sucking racist.

Zep--

I had Zep on ignore and just realized that he thinks I run Wikipedia. Ever since he was banned from the Grimoire Wiki for a week, he's been spamming Hitlers on all my posts within minutes.

That Thai food has not been good for your brain, Zeppo.