The edits so far on this page look like they were just copied straight from the PR department at GPG... how appropriate is it for the tone of the article to be so biased?

I'm sorry if the article looks like a PR document to you, but I can assure you that I did not copy it from anywhere. This being my first article it may not have been as good as I'd hoped, but just throwing accusation of bias out there doesn't help me. If you have something specific to point out please do and I will consider it, or you can simply edit the places you think are biased and leave the decision up to the moderators.

The problem with the wiki article is that it is being written in the first person, you say "I" multiple times in the article. This isn't a huge problem, but it makes it harder to trust the article and it doesn't come off as professional. Also, it reads a bit like a strategy guide and not enough like a basic overview meant to give people a good idea of the game

Hmm... Right you are. I'll have a re-look at the entire thing once I can make live edits and see where I can improve it unless someone else beats me to it.

Do you work in publicity? If not, you should.

Anyway, since I last read it, the tone is a lot better.

Yeah I was looking at this and thought instantly that it was lifted verbatim from another site. Google returns no such results, however, and so by process of elimination it must be legit. I comment you, Cook, for writing of this quality. I'm glad a talented writer took on the task of doling out a description for this amazing game.

Actually.. what's up there now (sans the Soundtrack section) is my handiwork..

I tried to keep with the spirit of what Cook66 had written, but chunks of it was lifted or plagiarized from wikipedia and other parts had a lot of personal usage that's better off in reviews "Lastly, I can't forget to mention.." etc. I've got both pages saved (wikipedia vs what had been there) at the moment on my home computer, but I can't upload them until I'm home (on vacation >