Talk:Rain World

9th Slugcat and new dlc?

I don't believe Inv/Enot are in any section. Info about The Watcher can be put on now and when it's released. Lotusmoth (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Source ideas

The great source dump for later:

References

Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 03:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

hi how i can help, i think this project is great!=) Mynameiskakaka? (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about anything specific, but I guess you can fix some issues with the prose if you find them? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hunter Creature Killing Requirement

Greetings Tarlby

I'm starting a brief discussion here because I don't want to revert your partial reversion without a consensus between us; I don't want to be edit warring. (that's my bad tho for not including a proper explanation when I reverted your edit)

To explain my reasoning for the reversion, although Hunter is indeed heavily encouraged to hunt and eat meat, it is not at all a requirement. This is mainly due to the existence of popcorn plants, which are located in many different spots across the map and give full hunger value to Hunter, but also due to the fact that blue fruit and other basic non-meat foods give 1/4 of their normal food value when eaten, which can allow players to sustain themselves with difficulty. It is completely possible to play through hunter without eating meat, and I believe this idea is also used as a community challenge on the Rain World Discord server. I mean, there's even a challenge to go from the top of the wall to the void sea in a single cycle, you'd be surprised on what you can do in this game.

Anyways, if I could get permission to revert your newest edit or further reasoning for that edit that'd be good, tho if you don't have time to respond in the next few days I'm just gonna revert your edit in 48 hours and leave my reasoning there(along with a link to this discussion). SapphireBandit (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for not edit warring @SapphireBandit. I personally prefer to keep it more concise as most players of the game probably won't even attempt trying to do a vegan run (also I didn't even know that was possible), though it's not too big of a problem. Add it in. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Aight, thanks for your help with the edits, have a good one! SapphireBandit (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

General Edits Discussion

Making this topic for discussion for any general disagreements between editors now and for the future to avoid reversions of reversions as well as stifling the need for creating new topics.

Making this for a change I made challenged by @Tarlby, specifically my edit:

"but expressed frustration and apathy towardscriticized its brutal difficulty, inconsistent save points, and imprecise controls."

I personally think that the phrase has a little bit of bias combined with a lack of clarity. For me it feels like it kinda goes out of its way to not say that Rain World was criticized, and instead just say that reviewers expressed a feeling they had, which I think would be an unfair treatment of a critical review. Don't get me wrong, Rain World is my second favorite game of all time, and I'm not the biggest fan of those original reviews, but I never wanna risk something being biased; in either case I think criticized would be a good word to summarize the negative input reviewers initially gave without any potential bias.

Other than that I just think that the edit I made for killing creatures "stabbinghitting" fits better as stabbing is generally defined as thrusting a pointed object at something while still holding it but the slugcat always throws their spears.

Anyways that's all, I don't wanna revert anything unless you agree but I am also nothing more than a single person, so feel free to disagree with my logic and add more input to this discussion. Though if you are alright with my reverting either of your reversions let me know. Thanks. SapphireBandit (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me that critics expressing frustration towards the game's difficulty is the criticism; I don't understand how it could be confusing, plus it adequately summarizes the reception section.

Regarding "stabbing or hitting", I propose that we both replace the word with "penetrating". I don't like "hitting" as it doesn't really represent how the spear does penetrate through the skin of a creature. "Stabbing" might give the wrong imagery that you pointed out (even if I don't agree with) it, but penetrating sounds good. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Tarlby I mean for me the big thing is that in the preceding sentence the praise for the game was never worded as "critics described the game's procedural animation as beautiful", it was just "critics praised the game's procedural animation". You yourself say that the sentence is specifically supposed to say that the criticism the critics had with the game was that they were frustrated with it, but I feel like that undermines their journalistic status. Not to say I don't have serious gripes with those reviews, but I feel like saying they expressed their feelings is kind of beating around the bush. I think the most accurate way to summarize how journalists initially reacted to the game was that they criticized its brutal difficulty, just as they praised its procedural animation; the article lead doesn't say how journalists "described the game's procedural animation as beautiful", it just says they "praised its procedural animation", so I think criticism part should be held to the same standard. I just kinda think that the extra description feels like its describing the means to the end, which is that journalists criticized the game, rather than just going for the end, and that just put me off a little because it felt as though the wording was avoiding directly saying that the game was criticized while not straying away from saying the game was praised.

Anyways for the stabbing or hitting edit I don't think that penetrating would work very well due to being overly descriptive and a little bit vague. I think hitting works well enough for describing scenarios in games such as this, i.e. "by hitting enemy vehicles with bullets" "you are forced to hit targets with special arrows" "solved by hitting enemy weak points with rocks". I agree that normally just hitting wouldn't be descriptive enough, but combined with that you are hitting them with spears, there's only really one plausible possibility left for the reader to interpret. I additionally think hit works especially well for contexts of aiming for weak points. I also think that the edit you made from "parts of them" to "appendages" may be inaccurate due to different predators having weak points in a variety of different places.

Also just letting you know if you want to challenge it I'm about to make an edit to the general section including these edits. Nothing to do with this situation, but while reading it I just noticed that the wording is really bad in some places and can be overly speculative.

Well uh yeah that's pretty much all, please feel free to add more to the discussion so we can reach a consensus. SapphireBandit (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I have no other way to explain my opposition to the lead change except that I just don't see the problem, nor do I understand how it would affect the neutrality of the article. I simply stylistically prefer the way it's currently written (which I wrote by the way), yet I'm also afraid of acting as a WP:FILIBUSTER by having no good reason to oppose and being disruptive in the process. Are you good with requesting a WP:Third opinion?

I'll concede by letting stabbing/penetrating be changed back to hitting, as it just doesn't matter too much. Note that appendages according to the Oxford dictionary is "a projecting part of an invertebrate or other living organism, with a distinct appearance or function." Some weak points I currently remember are the heads of scavengers, vultures, and the throats of lizards, all of which are considered appendages. I don't remember what other non-appendage weak points other enemies have, so please remind me.

P.S. Thanks for looking over this article. I have the most edits on this, surpassing the original editor that brought it to WP:GA status in the first place (Czar). Since not a lot of people care to edit this page, I often worry I'll turn into some sort of control freak, so it's nice to have another pair of eyes. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'd be good with requesting a third opinion, I agree that there isn't really any problem at all with the section, its just for me I feel like the wording is leaning a little bit in the game's favor; not really a part that is bad or needs to be removed, but more like something where I want to change it to be as unbiased as possible. Though don't worry about being a WP:FILIBUSTER, I'm only one person and it is completely fair to oppose an edit for smaller reasons such as decreasing the quality of an article.

Thanks for letting hitting slide, I do appreciate it. Anyways for the appendage stuff its just that since an appendage is scientifically defined as a part coming from an organism, things such as torsos are excluded from it, meaning it wouldn't work as most creatures can be damaged by spearing their main body. I propose changing the text to say "Players are mainly expected to evade predators but are able to kill them by hitting various weak points with spears." to make it shorter and more direct. (also yes I checked and a comma is no longer grammatically correct in the original edit I made to the sentence or the proposed one) Anyways if you have any changes you want to make to the proposed edit feel free to make them, but either way as long as you're fine with hitting and the replacement of appendages we could also just revert it back to be closer to its original wording.

I appreciate the thanks, Rain World is my favorite game and I'm happy to help out; though I gotta say looking at the history it is absolutely crazy how many contributions you have made, you've definitely done a really good job with this article. Don't worry about being a control freak though, if an edit doesn't have a consensus from Wikipedians then it's completely justified to challenge it. Anyways a few minutes before posting this I uploaded this dispute to the 3O board so I guess it's just about waiting for a resolution now, that's pretty much all, feel free to add your input to the other subjects at any time.

Also super excited for The Watcher, that's gonna be some crazy page updates huh. That's all. SapphireBandit (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to wait for the third opinion for now, but I'd like to note that I actually changed the sentence to "...but expressed significant frustration..." quite a while ago, but I don't think you ever noticed since you didn't include it in the third opinion.

The new sentence regarding weak points sounds great. I'll add it in. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Just updated the 3O to have the right quote, sorry for the incorrect one, I did notice the change but I forgot to add it when I was writing the quote. Anyways yeah other than that the new sentence is pretty good, in retrospect though I personally think "injure and kill them" would be a little better. I feel like injure would be good to specify that you don't necessarily just kill them, so I think and/or would be best to go in between the words but on the other hand the phrase is a little unprofessional. I'm gonna change it to just and for now but let me know if you have any objections or alternate proposals.

Other than that gonna keep checking for any minor discrepancies in the article, though you may see me depart for a bit because I'm probably not gonna be returning here until I'm done with The Watcher, don't wanna get spoiled haha. SapphireBandit (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Note that we should be calling days "cycles" so long as the sources explicitly say so. I purposefully omitted the mention of cycles until the plot since those sections are excluded from the OR policy. I can't check right now, but make sure the sources mention the cycles. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I checked the sources and IGN's article sourced at the end of the paragraph where cycle is now first used mentions cycles. Thank god Control+F exists. SapphireBandit (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I need some input on updating the last sentence of the first paragraph. There's a lot of assonance going on here.

"The slugcat traverses through the decaying remnants of an advanced ancient civilization and learns of its creations and culture."

Any thoughts? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that the sentence does definitely stand out due to assonance, for me I would just remove everything after the first and because pearl reading isn't really part of the main gameplay and premise, I would probably remove the entire sentence as it isn't really that summative of important details contained in the article, though if you want to keep it you could also change it to something like "The game's environments are composed of the decaying remnants of an industrialized ancient civilization", though I can't really say for sure what to use. SapphireBandit (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: It seems reasonable to explain the criticism of the critics instead of just saying critics criticized. I agree that critics expressing frustration towards the game's difficulty is the criticism. I hope this helps. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, looks like that settles it. Honestly was partly worried about the description because it's pretty close to how I would normally describe the initial reviews, so it feels pretty good to know it can be kept in without any worry. Sorry for the hassle Tarlby, and thanks for your help Nemov! SapphireBandit (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi, leaving some suggestions per request on my talk page:

• I haven't updated the article much since the initial release, so any large changes since 2017 would need elaboration. For example, the initial Reception was quite scathing. Has it mellowed out since, or have review sources explicitly commented on improvements/changes since initial release? If so, the article should both describe the reception at the state of release and show how the reception became what it is today. Downpour and The Watcher both haven't had too much attention that I've seen. So if there hasn't been much written about changes, the article should stay mostly the same (i.e., with coverage proportionate to its weight in reliable sources).
• Plot is super long. Should be perhaps a third of its total length, if not absorbed into the Gameplay section altogether (since this is a platformer and not a plot-driven game). WP:VGPLOT
• Unclear how the new DLC game modes are accessed
• Gameplay should be written for a general audience familiar with the concept of video games but with no knowledge of its jargon. It's not written that way currently.
• Development info on the DLC is missing, if there have been any interviews
• Reception section on DLC is short. Per above, would either need to decide to beef up the subsection if there are enough sources, or ultimately wrap the content into the larger Reception section.
• The "Downpour was well received by critics" is original research if not backed by a source or series of sources that assert this. I recommend WP:CRS for advice on writing a good reception section.
• What I originally wrote is almost a decade old now (wow...) but is generally close to FA prose save for my comments above. I'd feel confident it can get there, but the above notes will be a good deal of work.
• There are also some sources mentioned on this talk page to be incorporated into the text for FA breadth.
• An alternative to integrating the DLC into the existing sections is to create a section below the Reception that covers the DLCs as add-ons separate from the gameplay/development/reception of the core game.

czar 22:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The peer review mentions these notes as being addressed. Just wanted to add that I think there is a fair amount more that can be done on most of these points. I also recommend retaining the {{r}} reference format because (a) it's easier to navigate wikicode when the refs are list-defined and (b) standard etiquette is to keep existing ref formatting unless there is consensus otherwise. czar 21:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I moved the referencing format away from using {{r}} because I use visual editor. It makes that template much harder to use since I can't easily click the citation's link and look at the source without having to stop editing repeatedly which I don't like doing. I don't consider it worth it just switching it back again.

• The text about Downpour is all of the reception I've found through all pages of Google that exist. Same for The Watcher. I did my best fishing for text using those sources.
• I'm not sure how I would exactly cut the plot as I'm not too comfortable just removing it. The game does have a plot (much more so in Downpour) and I'm sure players are motivated to actually complete the plot, though I do concede that only one single source has talked about the narrative (without going into detail).
• Unclear how the new DLC game modes are accessed I don't know what you're asking for.
• I've tried making the gameplay section more simple. Could you point out some specific problems?
• There's been exactly one single interview on Downpour which I used.

Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Unclear how the new DLC game modes are accessed Whether the DLC add areas to the main game, using the player's progress, or whether they are accessed as separate campaigns independent of the main game
• If the Gameplay has changed since that which sources originally discussed, it should be properly re-sourced and updated. Some sentences have no direct citation and others have three or five (four is overkill for an uncontroversial point and the reader should be able to easily verify claims by looking at one or two directly relevant sources for each claim. Some concepts like a "campaign" are not defined. Or "choose the Monk and Hunter" (for what?) What is the goal of the arena and sandbox modes? The paragraph about there being different slugcat types is in a separate paragraph from the one listing the types. Read each Gameplay sentence aloud to someone that knows what video games are but hasn't played many. This is our general audience for FAC and they should be able to follow each sentence without having to ask basic questions for understanding.
• There are many online tools for paraphrasing and you can feed the Plot into any one of them to give a sense of what points should be generally reduced. The point is to cover the plot proportionate to how sources cover it.

czar 11:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Peer review

Rain World

Previous peer review

Hello fellow editors. I didn't really know what I was doing last time, but now, I (hopefully) do.

I am interested in whether this article has potential for passing an FAC and how it could be improved to the level of a Featured Article. Please note that I have never nominated an article for GA or FA before, though I have review a few GANs. This article happens to already be a GA because Czar authored it in 2017. Because of that, I might be clueless on a few things and would need some explanation.

Czar has already given some suggestions on the talk page that I did my best to deal with. I'll add this peer review to the FAC sidebar. Thanks yall. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 01:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added maintenance tags to the article. Some sections, like the plot sections needs more citations. TzarN64 (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Plot sections don't need citations. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Other FA games like Final Fantasy 7 do. TzarN64 (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

See The Longing. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Quick comment here (should be able to write some comments in my own section soon) but Tarlby, you are correct. Plot sections that are straightforward are assumed to be sourced to the game itself and do not require citations. However if the plot has material that is up to interpretation, it should generally include sources supporting a certain interpretation. WP:VGPLOT is the applicable guideline. I'm less familiar with this game but I would generally expect a plot section and even though according to your comments below critics really didn't cover the narrative, an overview of the game's setup and a short plot section on the story that a player would cover on an average playthrough seems sufficient. Fathoms Below (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm typing up a few comments btw, sorry that I've been unusually busy the last couple of days. Takes a bit of time for me to concentrate on content. Fathoms Below (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts as I read through this; some of these are nitpicky since this is aiming for FAC:

• General note, since you said you've never nominated an article before: FAC reviewers will get very deep into critiquing the phrasing/writing/grammar and small details. You should be prepared for that; it's not personal, everyone just really wants articles to be the very best they can be.
• "It released for" is odd phrasing; usually you'd say "It was released for" since it didn't release itself
• "expressed significant frustration and apathy towards its high difficulty, inconsistent checkpoints, and imprecise controls" - I'm not sure that "expressed significant apathy" really works here? I get reviewers got frustrated/upset/discouraged, and then just stopped caring as a result, but without the context it reads weird
• I know it just came out, but it reads off to have a long sentence of details for Downpour followed by "it exists" for The Watcher; they should be similar in detail
• The "screens shown individually" is called a flip-screen, which may be worth linking (had to find that link for Animal Well a few months ago)
• "When throwing an item, the slugcat will prioritize its right hand, and can swap the items' places." - I don't understand this sentence or the significance of the hand; can you carry two items at a time? Only two, or more? Is "carrying things" the inventory system, or is there an inventory as well?
• "the worm creature that directs the player towards nearby food and story-related events" - wait, so there is a story? Nothing in this section explains more than the setup; it sounds like there shouldn't be a plot section, but you may need a couple sentences to describe the shape of the story (like, what happens at the end of the game? Is there an end?). Actually, I see that there used to be a plot section but you removed it; I don't know if that was justified or not but I do see an awful lot of "story" in that version that's now just not mentioned at all, even obliquely.
• Like with the lede, you have two paragraphs on Downpour and one sentence on The Watcher. Needs expansion.
• "He had played few games with little industry experience" - "He had played few games and had little industry experience", but also, what is "little"?
• What exactly did James Therrien do? The dev section reads like Jakobsson was a solo developer, but there was also this other guy and it's not clear when he joined the project and why. Oh, you say what he did like 3 paragraphs later (though not when he joined); that first sentence needs to be up when you first mention him.
• "Primate wrote Rain World's soundtrack, handled the indie studio's business,[14] and designed levels, becoming his first experience in directly developing gameplay." - grammar: "Primate wrote... becoming his first experience". Should just be "and designed levels. It was his first experience directly developing gameplay."
• "Primate felt that "Arcade bleeps and bloops" - don't need to capitalize arcade
• I'm not doing a deep dive on copyediting (not least because I'm not great at it), but I'd expect people at FAC to criticize some of the sentence construction. For example, "Regarding the new game modes, Marrero intended for the Challenge mode to teach players the game's mechanics." - the first phrase isn't really needed, you can jump in without the "regarding" transition. Prior to nomination, I'd recommend taking a pass and doing your best to pare back individual sentences; there's a lot that isn't wrong, but is just unnecessary/additional wording that can be removed to leave a cleaner flow. Another example: "ported Rain World to the Nintendo Switch platform" - platform isn't needed. It's just one word, but they add up over the course of the article.
• Again, the Watcher dev section needs more detail
• "Paste Magazine and Eurogamer compared its savage, survival elements to Tokyo Jungle (2012)." - This seems out of place? This is a little summary paragraph, but this sentence seems over-specific to two reviews for that.
• Minor note: when quoting a sentence fragment at the end of the sentence, don't include the period inside the quote. 'throwing mechanics to a "bizarre legal document".', not 'throwing mechanics to a "bizarre legal document."' (MOS:LQ)
• The reception section as a whole is pretty long for me personally, though there's nothing in particular I'd take out; it may be worth working on to reduce wordiness though in case other reviewers also feel the same.
• as always, need more Watcher reception.
• I love all the free-use pictures/gifs! File:Rain World animation - Mimic (shortened and resized).gif needs to link to the original source gif, though, since that's the one with the ORES ticket attached
• You're guaranteed to get pushback about some of these youtube video cites, so have your defense ready for why they count as RSs

Hope this helps! --PresN 15:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Duly noted
• Done
• Removed the apathy part
• I assume you're talking about the DLCs mention in the lead. I did my best adding stuff from sources for what little I have for Watcher in the body, which I'll talk about more below.
• Linked
• Rephrased. Mentioning the throwing mechanics is significant since RPS went on a whole rant about how confusing the throwing mechanics are (a bizarre legal document).
• Czar encouraged me to either cut down or merge the plot to the gameplay section proportionate to how sources cover it. The most frustrating thing while searching through sources other than watching how critics slandered this game^[Humor] was how they didn't cover the story at all. Considering how none of them talked about it (except for the setup) than I believed the article should also have nothing covering it, except the setup. How exactly should I exactly explain the story then?
• There've been barely any sources covering The Watcher, even on day of release. The ones I do have barely have any meaningful content I could add regarding the actual gameplay, so unfortunately, I cannot see how I can expand further.
• Not sure how that could be confusing, but I've rephrased it to He had played few games without industry experience. Would that work?
• I'll have more time later to rework this aspect. I've added a new sentence to the beginning of the dev section for now.

Looks like I gotta go sleep and stuff. I'll come back to pass through the rest of this later. Thanks for all of this @PresN. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Finished your stuff regarding the James Therrien stuff.
• Done
• Done
• Duly noted. I'll try to deal with that.
• There've been barely any sources covering The Watcher, even on day of release. The ones I do have barely have any meaningful content especially regarding the development, so unfortunately, I cannot see how I can expand further.
• Not sure how I didn't think of this. Moved down.
• Dealt with that.
• I'll be thinking of that, though I'm generally afraid of violating the comprehensiveness criteria when removing anything.
• There is zero Watcher reception!
• I'll try to figure out how to do that. I don't edit Commons that much, lol.
• Duly noted. They should all be primary sources.

Questions:

• Should I say Paste Magazine or just Paste? I've seen other articles just say Paste, but I'm not sure if it'd be an improvement.
• Should the video citations (primary sources) be removed if there is already a secondary source? I've heard of this before, but I'm afraid of removing them if the article loses the status of being "well-researched".
• What do you think of the bottom link I put in Further Reading? The YouTube video is not a reliable source on its own, but has some original interview content by Jakobsson and Primate.
• Should I also italicize Rain World in quotes when they don't do so? E.g., Polygon doesn't italicize it in the quotebox I used of them.

Again, thank you for all of your help @PresN! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 23:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think that the plot section should be as long as the gameplay section, for sure, but "proportionate" isn't the same thing as "do not include". I do think you need to cover what the plot is, even if you don't go into elaborate detail.
• "He had played few games without industry experience" - this still says that the games didn't have industry experience, rather than that he didn't have industry experience.
• I understand that sourcing is an issue, but I do think it's a problem that there's a second DLC that's "bigger than the original game" but the article gives essentially no information about what's in it. If there's no dev info or reception then that's what it is (though I think in the initial paragraph of reception where you give overviews of how the base game and Downpour were received you should be explicit that The Watcher didn't get any reviews rather than just leaving it conspicuously missing.)
• It seems to just call itself Paste, and the article is at Paste (magazine), so, just Paste.
• I think it's fine to have video citations of interviews, as long as what you're citing is the devs' words
• I think it's fine to include or cite, as long as it's the devs' words that you're citing, not the discussion by the non-RS
• Yes, italicize Rain World in quotes even if the source doesn't. --PresN 13:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

  Should be mostly dealt with now. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Fathoms Below

• Do you need to wikilink to the term "cat" in the lead? People usually know what cats are. See MOS:OL
• "The slugcat traverses through the decaying remnants of an industrialized ancient civilization as it searches for its lost family." You could remove "decaying" and "lost" to tighten the prose. My first FA peer-review (located here had a reviewer link to relevant copyediting essays that might come in handy especially since you would be a first-time nominee and my first nom would have failed if I hadn't received some help with the prose from a friendly editor.
• In more recent FACs that I've done the reviewers suggested listing the proper names of relevant media in Italics for the sources. So all instances of Rain World and Rain World: Downpour should be italicized in the sources.
• Not sure if you've seen this other essay yet, but I'd securely recommend checking out User:TheJoebro64/How to write a dope video game article
• I think the material about the simulated ecosystem and the exact gameplay should be a part of the first paragraph of the lead, while the second paragraph should begin with "Rain World was in development for six years…"
• Is the term PC referring to Windows? The term could refer to Windows, macOS, or other systems so I think you should be more precise here
• "but expressed significant frustration towards its high difficulty…" Change to "but who criticized towards the difficulty; checkpoint system, and controls…"
• More coming later, this is just a small start. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unlinked
• Done, will read
• Done
• Will read
• Done, with some adjustments
• Two sources for Downpour and Watcher quite literally says "PC" and no other source clarifiies, so I'm not sure if I can make it more specific.
• Either the sleep deprivation is getting to me or you made a typo, so I put but criticized its difficulty, checkpoint system, and controls.

Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! PC seems fine I suppose. Working on some follow-up comments now. I'll focus on the Gameplay and Development sections, but a question before I move on: is an entire section dedicated to the plot really necessary? You could always combine it as a subsection of Gameplay, like what happened at the game Katana Zero where an entire section was instead integrated into gameplay under the subsection "Story and dialogue". Fathoms Below (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. I've made the plot a subsection now! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 04:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• I made some edits to the development section to remove a bit of redundancy such as the term "in-game world". Since this is the gameplay section, I think the reader would understand that the world is located in-game.
• If you're looking for an essay that might help a little with copyediting, maybe WP:REDEX would be useful?
• "penetrating other creatures is the only way it can receive food" I think you meant "piercing" the creatures with spears.
• "prone to freezing" Freezing in place due to shock? Due to ice? I think a bit of clarification may be needed there.
• Does the Watcher slug cat do anything special? If so that might be worth talking about.
• In development, I think you can remove the wikilink for graphic designer, I think most people will know what one of those is.
• Same as the above with some other commonly understood terms such as wikilinks for YouTube, exchange student, subway, and perhaps Internet forum?
• Since this will be your first FAC, someone will have to spot-check the sources to ensure text-source accuracy. I recommend going over most of the sources and making sure that everything is correctly cited. It's okay if a couple of errors slip through the cracks and are noticed at FAC, I've had a few mistakes happen to me before but I try to make sure that everything is fixed. Most first-time FAC nominators end up making a few mistakes. Fathoms Below (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the essay, copyedits, and sourcing advice. I've done all of your requests except for the Watcher one. TLDR: The sources don't talk about it. Of the sources I have, only PC Gamer has anything close to discussing their gimmicks: In Rain World: The Watcher, you become Nightcat, AKA The Watcher, a new and adorable slugcat with its own (new, adorable) gimmick—finding mysterious echoes of itself, which will require you to check out all kinds of new places on the map. I know exactly what they're talking about, since I played the game, but PCG speaks in such a cryptic way that they basically give no information for me to use. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Vacant0 was able to give some comments below, and in the meantime I'll look over the rest of the Development section, Release, and Reception. Fathoms Below (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Fathoms Below When do you think you can drop the rest of the comments? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 05:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  "The designer brushes recurring, cloned elements, such as plants and chains, onto the map, as well as combining and processing shadows" Does designer mean Jakobsson himself or the design program?

  "Although, while the creatures of Rain World are animals like the slugcat, the torrential rain was designed to represent "oblivion incarnate", a threat no creature could survive against." I don't think you need although.

  "totally biblical wrath-of-god vibe" You could also remove totally

  "Another major content update was planned for release later in 2017. The update slated to include the local multiplayer arena mode, featuring over 50 new rooms, and the Monk and Hunter, which make the game easier and harder, respectively." How about planned instead of slated

  "On March 28 of that year, a DLC was officially announced, to be published by Akupara Games" You could remove everything after published, as since Akupara was the new publisher from then on there is no need to mention who is publishing the DLC imo.

  "Reception on The Watcher is minimal, so this article does not cover it." You can remove this. Also, if it was well received according to the two sources, this sentence would contradict the earlier statement. Either the Watcher was well received or too minimal for it to be covered.

  "Some critics fondly recalled serendipitous in-game encounters as they learned the game environment's unwritten rules" Remove serendipitous and change to "the game’s unwritten rules" Fathoms Below (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Vacant0

I randomly stumbled upon this video game PR which seems to have been open for more than 2 months now. Considering that you plan on bringing this to FAC, here are some of my recommendations:

• The two videos in the Gameplay section do not have a caption. In this section, we generally have a gameplay image - but if you think that these two videos showcase the gameplay better, then I won't have any objections to keeping them in the article. Just make sure to add a caption that'll describe the videos the best.
• Italicise Downpour in the image in the Downloadable content section.
• Another thing that I've noticed is that there is an overuse of quotes, particularly box quotes. There's sandwiching in the Development and Reception sections. Some at FAC might ask you to remove box quotes from the article alltogether (I've seen this even at DYK and GAN), therefore I'd suggest to at least fix the sandwiching in those sections (remove one of the quotes in the Development and Reception sections).
• Some references use title case, some don't. You can either choose to change them all to title case via a simple script (User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter.js) or to sentence case manually. This is something that you should address now, otherwise someone will mention that at FAC.
• Regarding the reliability of references, most of them seem to be okay though I have a few objections - GameOctane (ref 8), GAU Studios (ref 29), Six One Indie (ref 31), Dubl day (ref 35), GAU Studios (ref 37), NobleGames (ref 42). Considering that these references all come from YouTube, the reliability of said videos is tied to the status of the video publishers on Wikipedia (e.g. if a video by IGN, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia, is used in an article, it can be kept because of IGN's status as a reliable source). Game Rant should be removed from the article because it is not a high-quality source.

I do not plan giving the article a read at PR, but once you get the article at FAC, make sure to ping me and you'll get a thorough prose review. I'd also suggest pinging the GA reviewer and other PR reviewers to see if they'd be willing to review the article again. If you encounter the lack of reviewers at FAC, I'd suggest asking editors on the WP:VG talk page or Discord. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for these points.

• I've added captions to both videos. The videos are freely licensed, so I'd prefer keeping them.
• Italicized.
• I've removed a few box quotes including the sandwich ones, but I've kept the others I feel add some worthy information.
• Thanks for the script. I'll switch the refs to title case.
• All of the citations you've mentioned (including Game Rant) are interviews and should be treated as primary sources.

I'll keep in mind you offer for later. Thank you! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I get it that they're interviews, but a source reviewer could still suggest removing them. I'd not recommend doing that now though. That's up to the source reviewer to decide. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)