The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
... that it took almost six months to develop CT Special Forces: Back to Hell? Source: "Power-Advance: How long did it take you to make the game? And for the first opus? Christian Votava: We took a little over three months to develop the first opus, and almost six months for the sequel." Google Translated source
Sufficiently and recently expanded. It is neutral, at one point almost annoyingly so (something I could not resist addressing), and perfectly sourced. QPQ is done, and I like how constructive that review is. I do, however, feel that a more interesting hook could be produced from this article. Few people know how long it takes to produce run and gun video games, so few will find it interesting that it took developers six months to produce this one. I will try to think of a hook myself, but someone more knowledgeable would probably be better at it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Thanks for the reminder that there is such a thing as too neutral! I always am a bit paranoid when writing video game reception sections because they have a habit of being quite boring to write sometimes, and I'm always very keen on ensuring that everything is giving equal coverage. I'll keep it in mind for the future. For the hook -- that's a fair point. Proposed a couple of ALTs below, happy to keep milling around for some more if needed. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that the North American version of CT Special Forces: Back to Hell wasn't released until several months after the game's European launch? "... the original game hit the US several months after the sequel was already in the can over in the European market, so the version we were playing already felt dated. The aforementioned follow-up has finally reached these shores more than a half a year later..." [1]; Jeuxvideo release date information [2], US release date information [3]
ALT2: ... that the developers of CT Special Forces: Back to Hell responded to criticism of their previous game's password save system by making even more detailed passwords? "Power-Advance: Since the levels are longer, what type of backup did you choose for CT 2 (backup battery or system by codes)? Christian Votava: We decided to voluntarily double the size of the cartridge, and in return to keep our backup system by password, but this time, by level and not by world as in the first opus. The players have been heard!" [4] (in French)
Was the game not released in North America only a week shy of a whole year after its release in Europe? If so, I would go with something like:
If you agree with this hook, another editor would have to review it. Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: A week and a half, but saying a 'year' is broadly correct here. I prefer this hook over the others I've proposed, happy to wait for another person to check it out. Nomader (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
A kind request for the review of ALT3, so that we can finally promote Nomader's 13-year-long project! :D Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Overall: Approve ALT3. I wonder if there was some more interesting fact about the game but if not, I'll accept it. BorgQueen (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of which... isn't ALT2 slightly more interesting though? Is it just me? BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: For what it's worth, I found it absolutely hilarious when I read that as their approach and it's why I actually expanded this article in the first place, because I was gobsmacked when I read that in their interview. Leave it up to y'all to decide which one you like best! Nomader (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood it, Nomader. Were people annoyed that the password save system in the first game was too detailed? The article says that the developers "improved the game's password save system", which seems like an unsurprising response to the criticism of the password save system. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: It was definitely a criticism that the game had a password save system in the first place, not that it was too detailed. One review of the original ([5]) wrote: "Yes, CT Special Forces is a slightly no-frills GBA production, and the lack of a battery save is a bit of a downer considering that it takes a significantly long time to earn the right to continue in the game, something that should be a lot more frequent in handheld gaming." The improvement the developers made here was to have more detailed passwords more often so you wouldn't have to wait as long, instead of spending a tiny bit more to make saves work normally (which was already pretty standard by this time). Nomader (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Now that is hilarious! It flew over my head. In that case I too vote for ALT2. Could this be made clearer in the article and ALT2? E.g. "criticism of their game having a detailed password save system by making an even more detailed one"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: Ha I'm glad you like it! I fear that saying "having a detailed password system" for the first game is a bit too off-source, as the whole criticism was that it wasn't a battery save and they didn't pop enough (you'd have to play for *ages* to be able to be able to get any password to pop at all... in a game meant to be played on the go). It's why I kept the language the way that it is here -- which isn't as funny, but one would say is more accurate to the source. Nomader (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Nomader and Surtsicna: Just so the promoting editor/admin doesn't get confused, let's make it clear that we all prefer ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Agreed, I'm good with that! I think it's already been approved so we should be good for this to be promoted? (Noticed that it's been two weeks now since this comment so wanted to add this for anyone who's seeing it that it's the consensus of the discussion and I'm good here too!). Nomader (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Sufficiently and recently expanded. It is neutral, at one point almost annoyingly so (something I could not resist addressing), and perfectly sourced. QPQ is done, and I like how constructive that review is. I do, however, feel that a more interesting hook could be produced from this article. Few people know how long it takes to produce run and gun video games, so few will find it interesting that it took developers six months to produce this one. I will try to think of a hook myself, but someone more knowledgeable would probably be better at it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
A kind request for the review of ALT3, so that we can finally promote Nomader's 13-year-long project! :D Surtsicna (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Approve ALT3. I wonder if there was some more interesting fact about the game but if not, I'll accept it. BorgQueen (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
