This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department) Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Christianity Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The expansion packs section is missing the recently released expansions. Rockguy32 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs help. I had to remove most of the article, since it was written specifically about DANCE Praise and nt GUITAR Praise. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons given in the Writing Style section below I think that the NPOV and advert notices should be removed from the Reception section. Asserting that this section was purposefully biased amounts to an attack on myself, since I wrote it. As I've already said I'll continue to add reviews as I see them. And if reviews with low scores are published they'll be included. Patrickice (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying that a section is biased is not an attack on you. All it says is that what is written might not be neutral, people aren't neutral but encyclopedias need to be. Like I consider a good game to be getting 8/10, and excellent game to getting 9/10. So I consider 7/10 to be a mediocre/ review, so the tone should be consitant with that. Also the mention of it exceeding demand exceeding supply is meaningless with out saying the supply. If I expect to sell 20 games and 100 games sell then demand has exceeded supply, doesn't mean the game is in high demand though. Sales figures would be very good for this section (you might have to contact the developer for that). If you move the information about the supply issues (are they still ongoing) to the bottom of the section it sound like you are saying "this product is sooooo awsome that we can't make enough of them" Also it might be good to mention how the game dose in it's demographic (Christians) vs. the general population. Also use bigger paragraphs as they feel less like bullet points of how good the game is, and more like an encylopedia. Anyway do that I an you have my support to remove those tags.Lotu (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I disagree as far as review scores go. On 1-10 scales, a 7 is still a "good" game. It may not be as "good" as an 8 9 or 10, but it's still good. A 5 or a 6 would denote a game that is closer to mediocre, and a 3 and a 4 would get into the bad territory. That's how these scales are constructed. And it's not really a matter of "perception" either, since you're changing in your mind what the writer intended. I think that the reception section could be tweaked, but a score of 7 is still a decent score. Even if you read the text of the review, it backs that up, suggesting that your idea of a 7 as mediocre is wrong. Again, I'm not saying the article isn't a bit POV-y, but I am saying that your idea of why it is is wrong. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• My main point is that I'm merely reporting what people are saying. Since the content in this section is comprised of reviews the content itself is necessarily going to be "biased". But I did not intentionally bias anything. While I like Lotu's suggestions, I don't think I can do anything more when it comes to supply and sales figures since Digital Praise is a privately held company and they have not released any numbers AFAIK. But my best guess is that sales are probably 1/10 of sales of an average game in the overall industry. Also, I agree with Rwiggum's discussion of game scoring.Patrickice (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the History I started the article using the Original Dance Praise article as a reference/template since much of the content would be similar. Yes, this article needs a lot of work. I left in the sections related to Dance Praise as a "to do list", but obviously I did not have time yesterday to finish. I apologize since this made things confusing but I did not think anyone else would contribute to this article so quickly.

Someone else also zapped my "notes to myself" on content I was planning on adding. But it's probably better to store them on the talk page, anyhow.

"Gamasutra article. Response from Christian game developers. Penny Arcade thoughts. Other articles."

Tech requirements: http://store.digitalpraise.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=135 Patrickice (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this article is written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia page. --Rabin 03:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give specific examples of how it "is written more like an advertisement"? Patrickice (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this really does read like an advertisement, but it might not have been intentionally an advertisement. It's hard to tell. The first thing is the 'features' segment. It reads exaclty like the back of a video game box. You know, 'look at how many great things you can do with this game!!!' The other thing is that all the reviews are positive. Also, the technical problems aren't technical problems. That would be like saying the facts that Diablo II (yeah, funny choice, huh?) can't be played on the Wii or with Wii controllers are technical problems. The reason why I don't think it could be intentinally an advertisement is because there are problems with my previous criticisms. For starters, there's nothing actually wrong with including the features because it's a good idea to include what you do in the game. I would get rid of the feature section and just add to the general description of the gameplay. Also, the fact that all the reviews are good is probably because most of the reviews probably are good. Perhaps not because the game actually is a good game, but because not a lot of people aren't actually reveiewing the game and the people who are reviewing it are from Christian and conservative publications, though clearly MTV doesn't fit that description. Gamespot and Metacritic both compile an average score of reviews from all kinds different publications. Gamespot didn't review the game and they didn't list any reviews from other sources and Metacritic didn't list the game at all. It's kind of sad because the people who made the game probably put their heart and some hard work into making this game and it isn't getting much attention. I'll bet the game is selling pretty well, though. By the way, I'm an agnostic, so there couldn't be a more unbiased source here! Haha. Cubsfanfromoc (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone should write a basic description of the gameplay, although I don't see a reason to get rid of the features list completely. I've added reviews as I see them. But from what I can tell those who hate the game either have not bothered to try it out or write a review. "I'll bet the game is selling pretty well" From what I've read the game is selling out and they're having trouble producing enough inventory for Christmas. But even then I imagine the numbers are fairly low in comparison to normal industry standards. Patrickice (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It Could just be the word 'features' that bothers me. I went out and checked out pages for other games and I'm not seeing a feature section. Though I am seeing plot and gameplay sections. The plot with this game is probably 'you play the guitar to Christian songs'. So, no need to worry about that. personally, I'd get rid of the features section, but this seems to be your project, so it's up to you to decide. You should take a look at the way they made the Assassin's Creed gameplay segment as a bit of an example. If you want to leave te features section as be that' probably absolutely fine. The more reviews you can find the better. Most pages with a 'reception' segment include first a few positive reviews, then a few negative reviews, and then if need be some more mediocre reviews. I've pretty much just seen good and mediocre reviews. From all that I've read about the game the consensus is that the game is a great for Christian parents who feel Guitar Hero has some themes that aren't suitable for their children and the game is suprisingly polished but doesn't have as much meat to it as the other guitar games, and it's a bit of a 'knockoff'. Though, a lot of games are knockoffs. Cubsfanfromoc (talk) 03:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I'm so involved in this discussion, this is my first time doing anything on Wikipedia other than reading articles, I have no desire to play any of the music games (I like playing guitar of the 'real' variaty) and I'm not a religous person. I just felt like helping out with this article. Hopefully you don't get too much flack from people upset about a Christian guitar game. Keep up the good work. Cubsfanfromoc (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. I'll see if I can find time to write a basic gameplay description. I did find one negative "review"--sort of: [1] Not sure if it should be included. Also, I noticed someone added a claim that the Reception section violates NPOV or at least is written like an advertisement. Considering I wrote that entire section I find that funny...it's just a bunch of quotes from reviews. Patrickice (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think the review section voilates NPOV because we're having trouble finding bad reviews. Also, while it is a negative review in a sense, I wouldn't use that review. He just mention the game as one of the Guitar Hero knock offs. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. Cubsfanfromoc (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search will show that only one of the reviewers was not a Christian or Conservative Christian source - MTV. This section is ridiculously biased. -Unregistered 12:52, 8 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.227.39 (talk)

You call the section "ridiculously biased" yet all I've done is search for ALL available reviews. I'm not hand-picking them; these are all I've managed to find. If you dig up a bad review then add it! And I'd agree that most of the reviews are fairly biased. I'd give the game a 6 or 7 out of 10 at most since the game IS fun but it's certainly not as good as Rock Band or Guitar Hero. Patrickice (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CAN I JUST STAY, IT IS NOT BIASED! IT IS JUST AS ALL THE REVIEWS WERE GOOD! CAN SOMETHING NOT BE UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED AS DECENT WITHOUT IT BEING CALLED BIAS? WRITE A BAD REVIEW, THEN YOU OUT IT ON. NOT BIASED!

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.79.170 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time attempting to find any bad reviews of Guitar Praise with no luck. I did find 2 more reviews, though:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/11/06/032202.php http://www.techtalkforfamilies.com/review/mac_os_x/review_guitar_praise_solid_rock_for_mac_windows

But considering people are already complaining about "bias" I did not add them yet. 68.205.157.176 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]