Would some people please proofread and adjust
http://wiki.spiralknights.com/New_Player
Wiki attention needed
Mon, 11/01/2010 - 23:36
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:35
#2
> edit: Also, the tone on the
> edit: Also, the tone on the wiki should be on encyclopedic and neutral.
Why?
Seriously. Wikipedia has taken the stance that their product is an encyclopedia, and has that tone, but lots of other wikis do not.
If an "I'm talking to you" tone gives a better introduction, why not?
As for the official docs, they are ... scarce. Not very complete.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 00:53
#3
> If an "I'm talking to you"
> If an "I'm talking to you" tone gives a better introduction, why not?
It doesn't. For maximum helpfulness, things like wikis should be purely information with little personal tone so readers don't have to dig through extra fluff to find what they need. So says everything I've learned from Technical Writing classes.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 01:59
#4
It looks like you spent a lot
It looks like you spent a lot of time on this and that's great. Trying to add "flavor" text is wonderful too, especially when you're writing in a world that's not of your creation. That said, there's obvious bias in your writing, something that's not acceptable in an introduction to new players, much less a Wiki article. While I understand you wanting to make the article closer to the game-flavor, it's possible to do that and not betray your feelings on specific subjects.
From the point of view of the article I'd assume that YOU'RE assuming the player will be reading this as they're playing the intro. Am I correct in that? If not, you can disregard the next, just be aware that that is how it reads. If so then, well, it's confusing me. When people are learning they are more likely to absorb information if it's given out in bits and pieces. Think math flashcards as opposed to reading the entire chapter on quadratic equations. Does everyone learn well that way? Nope. But by and large, most people do. So I think trying to read the intro you wrote concurrent with the tutorials is going to be confusing to many people.
In addition, some of what you talk about just isn't necessary in a introduction. The point of a tutorial/intro is to get someone playing and interested and, most importantly, wanting to know MORE. While knowing in detail which controls do what, how to change them, and what you should consider changing them to was obviously something important to you, as part of an introduction it's just not necessary beyond the basics of "Click this to shoot". As part of a "Okay you've done the tutorial, now here's some other things you might want to know how to do" section, it'd be perfect.
Because the other big thing, in my opinion, was the sheer amount of the text you wanted someone to read. Lets face it, give the average person more than a paragraph (and I even see myself doing it sometimes) and they skim or skip over it entirely, especially when they're searching for information on how to get something done. Perhaps consider a different format? It would, unfortunately, lose something from your flavor text but I can't help but think something with a header, talking about some advanced options and instruction, followed by an index of sorts where you can click on topics like "Changing your keyboard controls" and such, might be a better way to encourage further reading.
All that said, I noticed a lot of the linked text you had doesn't actually have links and most of it should! While some of the not-links are described in the Official Intro, some, I don't believe, have pages at all. Maybe that's something you could work on, since you know your way around a wiki (I sure as heck don't)?
It's a very well-written piece, but I think you need to work with some of the people who've been more involved in the Wiki to this point, to bring it in line with the rest of the database.
Oh! and it's Vitapods, not "vitacaps" ;-)
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 05:22
#5
I began with the intention of
I began with the intention of reading your whole tutorial so that I could properly critique it like you asked. I lost interest when you were explaining what Cradle was, but I kept reading until I got to the part where you were directing the reader to try out every control scheme. At this point I noticed the size and position of the scrollbar. I gave up and skipped to the bottom.
I and others have explained in different posts why this is an ineffective method of teaching, so I won't bother again.
What I will say, though, is that this feels far too much like a fan-made guide (which it is), and doesn't belong on the official wiki. When written "in universe", it feels extremely unprofessional. The options menu is not something the character sees or is aware of, and the knights don't press buttons to attack. They pull triggers and actually swing blades. It's not your job to write fiction for someone else's work. The wiki is for reference. The tutorial is already in the game.
tl;dr No.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:19
#6
Maybe "New player
Maybe "New player walkthrough", or "Supplement to the new player in-game tutorial" is what this should be called?
@Shango: Yes, technical writing needs to be clear, concise, and detailed. The few offical pages (4? 6?) are most definately NOT detailed. They're just two paragraphs, and look more like marketing hook than any real information a player would need.
Neither is technical writing. I wasn't trying to do technical writing. Should I? (Serious question.)
@Quiva: Yes, it was written as a "read while playing". You're right that it might be overload. That's something to address in the re-write. Good point.
@Shroom:
> When written "in universe", it feels extremely unprofessional.
And this is something I've never understood. Why is "in-universe" considered bad?
I ran into this problem on Wikipedia. I was trying to document Gargoyles (the animated series), as it had one of the most complex and consistent time travel background stories I've seen, and certainly bigger than anything else in children/family TV. So, I was writing it up while the episodes were just going into repeat, and it was deleted for being in-universe. The examples given for what a good "about a story" should look like? Superman, which talked about the character history, the creation, etc, but NOTHING about what the stories were like. Compared to all the rest of articles on stories, and episode listings -- heck, compared to all the articles that go into the characters in the stories, and all of them are, as far as I can tell, in-universe. So I still don't understand exactly where the line is or what's wrong with it.
Most of what I was trying to add was already in there, but it was spread out over different parts of character background, individual episodes, etc -- not in one place, and not on the page that actually talked about the show.
Look at the official pages. From controls:
[quote]
As part of their training, all Spiral Knights receive instruction on proper movement and conduct during field operations. It is likely you are still a bit disoriented from the crash, however, so here is a quick primer on how to maneuver yourself here on Cradle.
[/quote]
Is that "in universe"? It addresses the player as "you", as though you are there on the planet.
> The options menu is not something the character sees or is aware of, and the knights don't press buttons to attack. They pull triggers and actually swing blades.
Yea, I had problems with this. I did mention the idea of a helmet display when I was talking about frame rates.
One of the points of bias is that the control system chosen by the Ringers stink. STINK. Move and shoot is an excellent tactic, and it's very supported by the game mechanics and design, but not by the default user interface.
I did take the idea that the first shooting/fighting area -- that place with three trees and 4 2x2's -- is a great place to test out combat controls. I still think it is. The problem is that the text in the tutorial messages is fixed -- it can't adjust as you change controls, so OOO wants you to have fixed, known controls. And one very important point: People get used to the first thing they use that they think is "normal", and then have trouble changing later. So I want new players to have a chance to experiment, try things and realize that it's not "normal" until they say "I can move and shoot".
Bias: Yes, I have bias. I'm an economist.
Besides the control issue, one thing that I'm looking forward to is a player driven economy.
As long as your game basis is "tradeable components, tradeable finished, bound when used", then a player economy is going to happen. It's just a matter of "Game supported, or strictly talking to your guild mates?". No real player shop support? Might as well be WoW at that point. There's nothing to distinguish SK from the rest of the hack-em-up, level-up, power-up games.
And yes, player economy will have a lot of issues to work out. If people can buy stuff, easily, then new players will have 3 and 4 star items on day one in Haven. If you have a good economy setup, then while your crafted gun might have a special powerup, there might only be 10 or 15 possible powerups -- and there might be 2 or 3 of each on sale. So suddenly your "rares" are no longer rares, they're just expensive. The energy cost for the shop to prepare them is like doubloons for tailor racks or paint, and will tend to keep the supply rate down. But they will still be supplied.
So if you've got zero-star stuff, and going into a dungeon, you want a challenge that is appropriate for zero-star -- you can't be grouped with three star folks.
So yea, there's a lot of issues. The central aspects of game design will need another look; the party grouping behavior probably needs changing; and all that before one line is written to support shops.
If we have a player economy, I'll be sending in money for the game.
If not, I'll probably stop playing. Been there, done that, meh.
Yea, I have bias.
===
Wiki help: Can someone fix the redirect on http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Mist_Energy
It's not redirecting properly, and I don't know how to fix it.
Also: Can someone look at "Cradle" (player, not official)? I've added to it, but I'm not sure that I've got the best layout there.
Also: "Items".
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:53
#7
your walkthrough is WAY too
your walkthrough is WAY too long, boring, and lacks formatting or section breaks for readability
the default control scheme is fine. it probably works great for 95% of players and the other 5% can change it as they please. just because you're too stubborn or stupid to adapt to something new doesn't mean other people are.
the wiki redirect is actually working fine, so you managed to get something right at least
if you're the kind of guy that fills wikipedia with synopses for every episode of a fifteen-year-old children's tv show that explains a lot
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 10:54
#8
The official new player pages
The official new player pages were one of the first pages to be created on the wiki. It's pretty safe to say they will go through a complete overhaul before official release.
The Spiral Knights wiki is a wiki, not a personal blog or a roleplaying forum. Your new player walkthrough isn't so much "in universe" as it is just you saying whatever comes to mind. Star Trek references and your desire for a certain type of economy have no place in the wiki.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:04
#9
just because you're too
just because you're too stubborn or stupid to adapt to something new doesn't mean other people are.
if you're the kind of guy that fills wikipedia with synopses for every episode of a fifteen-year-old children's tv show that explains a lot
Please. I'm sure we can keep this civilized. No need to be calling people stupid or making uncalled for insults over a wiki article.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:19
#10
Quote = "Cory": The official
Quote = "Cory":
The official policy is that YOU SHOULD ALL EDIT THE WIKI ALL THE TIME!
Seriously, the hope is that players totally make the wiki their own.
Unquote.
I agree that it's too long.
I agree that I've got bias showing.
EDIT: Long walkthroughs are NOT new. For example, "Cave Story" has at least two different very long fan made walkthroughs.
But to say "This is official documentation"? No. The official documentation starts with Official:, and as far as I can see is only (EDIT: ) 4 pages. The wiki is for us.
Some of the official docs is "in universe". Some is not.
> The Spiral Knights wiki is a wiki, not a personal blog or a roleplaying forum.
But a wiki is not an encyclopedia.
A wiki is a collection of documents that can be added to and edited by anyone.
Wikipedia.org is a wiki that has "encyclopedia" as a mantra.
TvTropes.org is a wiki that explicitly does not.
===
What do we want to be on the Spiral Knights wiki? It is up to us; people who say "It must be a certain way" are just as biased, and don't realize it.
Yes I'm biased. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
===
Lets proceed on the assumption that this new player intro is going to be re-written. The primary goal is to provide additional information for new players. I had major confusion and questions going through the game for the first time. I've now gotten answers, and want to address these points so that other new players will have answers.
I want to come up with good rationale for things that lack rationale. Game balance, I can see arguments for the alchemy machines to use crowns. Game rationale? None, other than to say "The knights that are in charge of building and maintaining the towns are taxing you". Guild creation? Same thing -- a tax to register your guild. (And actually, energy to create a guild is hard to justify for game balance; I think it hurts balance. As a "pay to play" feature, I can understand it.)
And what possible rationale can there be for the clockworks, and the strangers? Yes, it's "in universe", but my new player intro has two different people talking, providing two different possible rationales.
Does coming up with a rationale force it to be in-universe? I think so.
Is that bad? I don't think so.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:47
#11
> the wiki redirect is
> the wiki redirect is actually working fine, so you managed to get something right at least
It isn't. It's supposed to redirect to the mist energy section of the energy page, and is only going to the top of the page.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:49
#12
When you say "us" do you take
When you say "us" do you take into account how "we" want the Wiki to be?
If the goal of the Wiki is to provide information in a certain tone with unbiased information, there's not much you can do about it but to contribute in this way. I appreciate what you're trying to do personally, but going against the crowd in a situation like this will get you nowhere.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:53
#13
it DOES redirect to the mist
it DOES redirect to the mist energy section of the page
you can't actually tell in this instance unless your viewport is very narrow because you can't scroll past the BOTTOM of a document
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:54
#14
> When you say "us" do you
> When you say "us" do you take into account how "we" want the Wiki to be?
If your view is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore, all wikis must be encyclopedias", then you are biased as much as I am.
If your view is, "We've considered both views. We see the in-universe view on the official pages. We think that non-in-universe -- telling players behind the curtain of glass how to control their computer to move avatars on screen in a game -- is the best way", then fine.
So which is it? Have you considered both? Should the wiki just talk to the player behind the curtain?
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 11:59
#15
I'm not talking about my
I'm not talking about my views at all. What I'm saying is that you keep saying "us" as if you were speaking for the majority even though you clearly are not. The way the Wiki should be written is something that should be decided by majority, I'm sure we can agree on that.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 12:15
#16
> it DOES redirect to the
> it DOES redirect to the mist energy section of the page
Odd. Firefox, 3.6.12, on a mac, 10.5.8, it is at the top of the page with plenty of room to scroll down.
Tue, 11/02/2010 - 13:37
#17
>As long as your game basis
>As long as your game basis is "tradeable components, tradeable finished, bound when used", then a player economy is going to happen. It's just a matter of "Game supported, or strictly talking to your guild mates?". No real player shop support? Might as well be WoW at that point. There's nothing to distinguish SK from the rest of the hack-em-up, level-up, power-up games.
SPOILER: Spiral Knights is a hack-em-up, level-up, power-up game.
An auction house is planned. Player shops are not. (As far as we know.) It is far closer to WoW than to YPP. This is by design. It is intentional. That said, I think it goes without saying that there is a lot left to differentiate it.
>I want to come up with good rationale for things that lack rationale. Game balance, I can see arguments for the alchemy machines to use crowns. Game rationale? None, other than to say "The knights that are in charge of building and maintaining the towns are taxing you". Guild creation? Same thing -- a tax to register your guild. (And actually, energy to create a guild is hard to justify for game balance; I think it hurts balance. As a "pay to play" feature, I can understand it.)
That is not your job. You do not need to make up fiction for someone else's work. The wiki is intended for reference. Reference! For all we know, Three Rings already have rationale behind the Clockworks, the Strangers, and everything else. Energy, for example, is already explained in-game, in-universe. Once again, writing fiction for someone else's work is not your job. If you insist on it, keep it elsewhere.
>If your view is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore, all wikis must be encyclopedias", then you are biased as much as I am.
If your view is, "We've considered both views. We see the in-universe view on the official pages. We think that non-in-universe -- telling players behind the curtain of glass how to control their computer to move avatars on screen in a game -- is the best way", then fine.
So which is it? Have you considered both? Should the wiki just talk to the player behind the curtain?
First of all, there is no curtain of glass. There are us, the players, playing a video game. There is no in-game rationale for our keyboards, our monitor refresh rates, or our control schemes. Quite frankly, I hate it when games attempt to give in-universe explanations for blatantly out-of-universe things. It feels hokey. It's almost like a joke. It's impossible to suspend disbelief at that point. It really does feel unprofessional. Within the Spiral Knights universe, there are knights running around the Clockworks, swinging swords and firing guns. They don't see themselves in 3rd person.
Just for the record, nobody in this thread has said this wiki should be encyclopedic because Wikipedia is encyclopedic. That's an assumption you made. The reason this one should be encyclopedic is because it is (as I've said over and over) for reference.
And honestly, how many people launch a game for the first time, begin the tutorial, and then alt-tab and open up another tutorial? This goes way beyond redundancy.
I guess I should be constructive (quite honestly, telling you to delete it all feels constructive enough) somewhere in this post, so if you really want to contribute, divide your article into several topics (on different pages) so that players can refer specifically to the topic they need. There can be a page on controls (oh wait, there already is), a page on adjusting your graphical settings, a page on economy features (once they are added, not before), and other individual topics. Some things, like telling players to adjust their graphical settings to take in individual sights or your ridiculous speculation on holograms and such, have utterly no place anywhere on the wiki or in any tutorial.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 05:44
#18
@ BehindCurtai:
> Neither is
@ BehindCurtai:
> Neither is technical writing. I wasn't trying to do technical writing. Should I? (Serious question.)
Yes. Are you also trying to say technical writing isn't detailed? I disagree. It can be about as detailed as you want, as long as you break it up with headings accordingly.
@ Shroom:
I couldn't agree more with everything you said.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 05:52
#19
D is for Drama
I knew there was a reason I didn't read wiki related threads.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 07:24
#20
Weeell, it's not the wiki
Weeell, it's not the wiki that's causing the drama...
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 07:25
#21
Re: D is for Drama
>I knew there was a reason I didn't read [s]wiki[/s] BehindCurtai related threads.
Fixed.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 16:04
#22
I hope everybody likes my
I hope everybody likes my changes.
I feel like I added a lot to the article.
Wed, 11/03/2010 - 16:39
#23
It definitely adds a more
It definitely adds a more professional feel to the page.
I'm not really sure why another Intro guide would be necessary, when there's already this: http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Official:Introduction
edit: Also, the tone on the wiki should be on encyclopedic and neutral.