Negative Bias?

#1 Posted by JusticeCat (113 posts) -

Woah! Just flicking through the wiki topic on this game which I have owned since it came out.. Reading through it's wiki the page has an incredible negative bias towards it. Isn't that what the review at the top of the page is for? It was my understanding that the page should be neutral with perhaps a 'critical reception' segment at the end. Maybe the lack of mainstream success for the title means a low amount of people working on its wiki, but it really annoyed me. I realise it's a community wiki and open to edits from anyone. Would this be a fair enough edit?

#2 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -
@JusticeCat: And this is where JusticeCat comes in, go in there and make that wiki page shine son, make your country proud!
#3 Edited by supermike6 (3557 posts) -

To me it looks more like it was written before the game was released, hence the "Known Information" section. Seems like a page that could use a re-write. 
 
EDIT: Also this: 

A demo of the beginning of the game was released for December 10th on PlayStation Network and December 24th for Xbox Live. This was probably a mistake, as it allowed players to experience the blandness of the gameplay without paying first.

Yeah, this page needs fixing.
#4 Edited by Azteck (7449 posts) -
@supermike6 said:


A demo of the beginning of the game was released for December 10th on PlayStation Network and December 24th for Xbox Live. This was probably a mistake, as it allowed players to experience the blandness of the gameplay without paying first.

Yeah, this page needs fixing.
That's part is uhh.. unfortunate.. 
 
Who am I kidding, writing that is just downright dumb.
#5 Posted by Gamer_152 (14070 posts) -

Yeah, the page has some really bad areas of negative bias. With the Hell location page also covering the details of the nine circles of hell, I also wonder if it's worth deleting them from this page or at least filing that stuff down.

Moderator
#6 Posted by Hailinel (24394 posts) -

It's unfortunate that some wiki editors feel it necessary to insert crass commentary and sarcasm into articles. Someone needs to fix this. Preferably someone who actually knows a thing or three about Dante's Inferno.

#7 Posted by JusticeCat (113 posts) -

Okay. Cool. I'm a relatively new member to Giant Bomb and wasn't sure what the norm was. I might give it a crack later.

#8 Posted by Dany (7887 posts) -

Be as objective as possible.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.