Talk:Everhood

Copy vio

Hi, I don't know why there was a copy-vio tag on the article. I wrote everything and it was cited from the articles in question. I'm leaning more towards that site pulling the information from Wikipedia. As there was no comment here. I'm not sure why the article was moved to draft as it had several citations to independent articles cover it. I've restored the information claimed for copy-vio, as visitng that site, there is barely any content on it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I am just an editor passing through, but from the look of this it seems to be a Wikipedia-to-external copy as Andrzejbanas says, instead of the other way around. Also I don't see where the text "Everhood was described by Screen Rant as..." appears on the external site (the lead appears in a box on the right with a link to Wikipedia, so that's clearly not copyvio). — Goszei (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

On closer inspection, the sentence "The player must avoid waves..." is copied directly from the Screenrant source, but my observation on the lead still stands. — Goszei (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed that sentence. The article was a start status previously and I don't really see any other reason why it's in drafts. I've contacted the user who placed it here and have got no response so I'll be submitting it for review shortly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The topic passes WP:GNG and I didn't see anything that would be obvious copyvio, so I accepted the draft. As far as AFC is concerned, this passes the publishing criteria. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

long section wow

the plot's summary has enough text for a "not reading allat" edit. per mos:plotlength most lore heavy feature things (mostly movies) have a soft limit of 700 words for them. treating that as a thing to be followed, the current one would be around 700 words too long

for that, i arbitrarily decided to make a draft for a slightly less long version. look at it here wowie

would appreciate input for improvements on that, or a reason to keep it as is cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 19:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

got tired of waiting, removed the length juice

holy fr*ck that was a lot of characters down the drain cogsan _{• (give me attention) • (see my deeds)} 20:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Everhood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 06:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Just to get ahead of it, I want your thoughts on the reception section; there are many reviews for this game, but I wasn't sure how to go about covering each and every one (besides the score table), so it's more of a summary right now than a disparate collection of opinions. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Reply before going into the prose, the usual advice is WP:RECEPTION. The usual process is to summarize each source individually, then thematically group them and summarize each grouping. From the couple I spotchecked, it looks areas of commentary are roughly game design/gameplay quality, music and story, polish/technical quality, and relation to Undertale. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:59, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's been over a week, so I'm sorry about my delayed responsiveness, but I'm planning to fill out the reception section based on your advice within the next two days! Please bug me about it if I haven't, today is just busier than I expected. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I've also been out of town. I've been meaning to try to help incorporate more of the reviews in the reviews box into the prose; but no rush! ~ A412 ^talk! 15:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There's more now. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This passes the GA bar for now. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

References

Spotcheck

• [6] - Fine.
• [9] - Fine.
• [10] - I had to fix the URL. The game started development in 2018 - source does not mention 2018?
  • This is kind of mentioned in [18] (Yang 2021) and implied by [20], an announcement in December 2018 that stated that the demo (which released in August) took "4-5 months to develop". That's if you assume development starts with the demo. --RR
• [14] - Initially, the player must survive for the entire length of the song to progress, but later-game battles loop until the enemy's health is drained by deflecting their attacks - Source supports that players deflect notes, but not the detail that the battles go from the length of the song to looping
  • I thought for sure this was in the PSX Brasil source [16] but can't find it; might have been the way I was reading the translation (in where they describe "going back to the beginning" after losing a battle). Commented out this part for the time being. It is part of the game. --RR
• [17] - Fine.
• [25] - Fine.
• [29] - Fine.
• [36] - Fine.

Reliable sources

• [32] - DayOne, formerly XboxEra, is unreliable per WP:VG/S.
  • Replaced with RPG Site. --RR

Images

• Infobox: Fine, on Commons as PD, under TOO. I don't know that I agree - it's stylized text, and not just a font, but it was also uploaded by a Commons user with 170k edits, so maybe they know TOO better than me.
  • I was wondering about that too, but TOO goes pretty far. User:OmegaFallon hasn't had any deletion requests on their logo uploads, only out-of-scope photographs. --RR
• Gameplay: Fine, fair use rationale fine.

Prose

Lead

• Logo is a bit WP:CAPOBVIOUS, I don't think we need a caption here
  • Removed. --RR
• Lead is missing any summary of gameplay. Suggestion: Everhood is an adventure role-playing game with a battle system based on rhythm games. Enemies feature unique theme music and time their attacks to match; the player must dodge and deflect these attacks to defeat them. Could also include more about the 5-lane grid and the Guitar Hero comparison, but that might be too much for the lead.
  • I've made an effort to integrate the gameplay description into the brief plot in the intro. --RR
• Everhood has been met with positive reception for its gameplay, presentation, and musical score. - I'd include a few words about what critics found less good.
  • Noted --RR

Plot

• General comment: Without knowing the plot, it seems like we spend three paragraphs on the introduction of the game, compress the rest of the story into a few sentences of "they go around doing things", then spend four paragraphs on the endings.
  • The plot section is already more than 700 words, so it's not ideal with regards to MOS:PLOT. There is very little to be gained by going in depth on the events that happen between the incinerator and the endings; the most prominent ending is where most of the emotional content of the game is anyway. There were previous revisions that went more in depth on this content (in particular this one) but they do not read as an improvement in my opinion. Maybe it could be expanded upon if the setting is removed, since much of that is explained in the plot anyway. --RR
    • I see what you mean. I actually meant it the other way, in that we seem to cover the endings in a lot of detail and was wondering if it should be trimmed, but I see that this is the trimmed version and I hear you that that's where most of the story is.

Gameplay

• General comment: We explain the structure of battles, but not the overarching structure of the game.
  • Added some about the adventure RPG structure and exploration/minigames/questing. --RR
• Given that it self describes as an adventure RPG, I don't think we need to attribute that description.
• Similar to Guitar Hero, the battlefield consists of five lanes that the player can move between freely - The comparison is a bit weird, because there's not a player character moving around in Guitar Hero. Suggestion: The battlefield consists of five lanes, resembling the interface of Guitar Hero. Red can move left and right between these lanes. (I think this is right? It doesn't look like the player can move vertically?)
  • On further reading, I'll propose a larger reorganization of this and the next couple sentences: The battlefield resembles the interface of Guitar Hero, consisting of five vertical lanes on which attacks timed to the song's beat move downwards. Unlike standard rhythm games, the player controls Red, who moves left and right between the lanes and is meant to dodge the enemy's attacks rather than hitting them. Each enemy has a unique song as its battle theme. Initially, the player must survive for the entire length of the song, but after acquiring Red's stolen arm, the player can absorb attacks and fire them back at the enemy, and later-game battles continue until the enemy's health is drained by deflecting their attacks.
    • I rewrote it slightly differently. --RR

Development

• General comment: Many many instances of WP:THEGAME here. I didn't want to make a bunch of tiny suggestions so I boldly removed some of them.
• and development of a full release based on the demo was announced in December of that year - I think we can assume the full release continues the work from the demo, and development of a full release was announced in December of that year
  • If you say so, I was being overly cautious here. --RR
• The demo was described as taking 4-5 months to create -> The demo took 4-5 months to create
  • Done --RR
• with the main theme - that the journey is "something [that] we should cherish", according to Nordgren - This lacks a verb.
  • Oops. Reworded and split that sentence. --RR

Reception

• As I mentioned above, I think the main improvement to this section would be to separate and thematically group the various axes around which critics commented in the first paragraph. I'll finish out the review and then see if I can expand this paragraph.
  • Just so I can reference this later:

Not in prose yet:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210314215227/https://hardcoregamer.com/2021/03/14/review-everhood/400416/

https://www.jeuxvideo.com/test/1511734/everhood-bien-plus-qu-un-simple-heritier-d-undertale.htm

Not used in depth yet:

https://rpgamer.com/review/everhood-review - "high battle quality"

https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/switch-eshop/everhood - "good music"

https://www.rpgfan.com/review/everhood/ - "good music"

https://screenrant.com/everhood-game-review/ "some reviewers"

-- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Rerelease and sequel

• The PlayStation versions received scores of 7 and 8/10. Issues raised were the potentially overwhelming visuals and lack of differences between difficulty levels - Can we include this in the reception section instead?
  • Done, but it is a bit awkward since it's about a version that isn't introduced until the latter section. --RR

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.