Talk:Atari 50/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy to take this one on. Will post review comments shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Index

* This is an issue I think is directly relevant to the GAN.
  This is an issue I think is indirectly relevant, but worth addressing.
? This is just a personal preference or comment that could help.

General feedback

  Some informal tone and lengthy content could be copywritten into a more concise summary style. Definitely encourage more direct tone and paraphrasing quotations, but admit that this is not entirely within the purview of the GAN so long as it's well-written and accurate.

For instance - ...the team wanted to make new games for the compilation. Initially unsure on whether the new games should be, the different team members eventually just went off to create their own games based on their own interests and expertise. - can be summarized as The development team created new games for the compilation based on individual members' interests and expertise.

I've edited this one down.

Headline

? ...in an intuitive way is a bit evaluative and doesn't quite describe the user interface. It can probably be removed from the headline.

Agreed. I've tried to re-phrase it to get into the meat and potatoes of what is actually in it.

* The Verge called it an achievement in video game preservation. The Verge article states the game is an achievement, but the sentence is an implication of the overall review. Generally, unless it's an award or notable review in itself, a personal preference would be to avoid attributing significance to one review in the headline for neutrality.

Yeah agreed. I don't recall adding this (I may have! but don't remember!) Definitely agree, I think it got added a bit ago around the time when people were buzzing on social media about most games being unplayable with modern software legally. I'll just remove it for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Content

  The paragraph about the interactive timeline could be a little more descriptive about what periods or content are incorporated in the give categories. For instance, the "Birth of the Console" is about the 2600.

Oddly, not too many reviews go into detail about what is in some timeline. I've added one, and some of these timelines are not so cut and dry as the others. I've tried to make it clear though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  What specifically is different about Atari Reimagined games?

I go a bit more into it in the development section. Not sure where to balance it out here as they are all kind of different from each other. I've expanded on it a bit, does this help? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If the sources, primary or secondary don't really have much to say about them, that's too bad! That said, if you can describe the gameplay at all from any source, I'd do so, because unlike the other games, which have their own articles, the Reimagined additions are sort of the only real defining aspects of gameplay that can be detailed in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll see if I can go through them again, maybe the Atari 50 brief blips have a bit more information on them. When scouring through them, they aren't the main focus in the review. Even the Ars Technica article doesn't go really into them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Development

  Quite a few interview sources are suggested on the article's talk page. Whilst none of these are precisely highly reliable sources, they are valuable as primary interview sources, so if you take a look and think they add anything that might tie the development section together, it may help. Otherwise not a big deal. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I know there were a lot, but none were nearly as in-depth and a bit surface level compared to the Retro Gamer article, which went far more into the meat and potatoes of the development. Most of them seem to be repeating some bits from what I've read. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

? The opening sentence can probably be simplified as it doesn't have much flow - I think it might be the they felt part making it awkward.

Tried re-phrasing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

* Dave Rees the programming... should be changed to Programmer Dave Rees. ? Other developers with titles can probably be shortened to things like Editor Chris Kohler.

Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

? Yars' Revenge Reimainged was developed by Mike Mika. Neither here nor there, but unless the individual developers are notable, which developers created the Reimagined games is probably not particularly useful information secondary to what the reimaginings are like, in my opinion.

Well I misread that. I just added who developed the other games because I thought that's what you requested. Whups! I can remove it if you like, but I do feel like as they were made by individuals, it doesn't hurt to credit who made what. If you disagree, I'm happy to retake it out, no harm done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Reception

  There's a few more WP:VG/S reviews out there that aren't covered, that include PC Gamer [1] Edge (Feb 2023) and Retro Gamer (240). I think I may be able to find digital copies. Let me know if this would help.

I have the Retro Gamer, and there is an overview of the game, but no "review" per-se. I went through most reviews I found online, and only tried to include a decent variation for different systems. The PC Gamer review is fine, but is there anything specific (review-point, etc.) that should be included? Currently don't have access to the Edge one, so if there is anything there, I think that would help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the Edge article without committing copyright infringement, but the article's citation is: "Atari 50: The Anniversary Celebration". Edge. No. 380. February 2023. pp. 107–108. The review acknowledges the compilation is "lop-sided and unavoidably incomplete" and "uneven" in its depiction of the "sad decline" of Atari, noting the "licensing issues preventing the inclusion of several games of historical significance". The review however notes it "goes much farther than your average retro compilation", highlighting the "refreshingly candid" interviews, their "lively, engaging anecdotes" and the "quantity and quality" of the arcade section. The review assesses that the VCS games "hold up less well than their counterparts" and the "comparatively meagre" Lynx and Jaguar content on the compilation "offer mostly curiosity value". The review ends by praising the reimagined games. Overall, it states that the compilation is "uncommonly generous and thoughtfully assembled", whilst cautioning readers that the gaps in its history are "difficult to ignore...accept that you're not quite getting the full story, and it's hard not to admire what an achievement this is".

This is great! Thank you. I've included some of it in there, trying to pin point some more bits that could be expanded int the review section (which I feel like is already getting kind of big). Is there a credited author or overall rating from Edge? If so, did they mention what system they reviewed it on? If not, no worries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  ...complimented on... can be shortened to complimented.

Agreed. Done. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  As under MOS:EMPHASIS, you can use formatting to add apostrophes to an italicised title, such as for Centipede's.

Done with Centipede and Tempest. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

* releases to release's - missing apostrophe. Perhaps a better way of characterizing this section is that critics were mixed on the narrative representation of Atari's history in the game's timeline.

Fixed "releases's". I wouldn't say they were mixed on it, because most seem to be really excited about the format giving the games context, it was more so that some things aren't included. So that's maybe not the best way to phrase it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, had a re-read and yes, they're more opining on Atari's history, which isn't a critique, so you're right. On this, I've added a suggestion below as the reviews quoted do get quite particular into the history rather than the quality of the compilation as a whole. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

? You might also like to note that critics did discuss the compilation's omission of Atari's history in the 2000s, with Siliconera understanding that the compilation would be unable to present a "detached" history, but wished there was some discussion of Atari's activities in this period.

Good call. I've added that to the reception. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

? I wonder if rather than the "not aged well" focus, there is room to discuss the evaluation of the compilation's design in itself, not just how it Atari's narrative is depicted through its timeline? For instance, the Verge review praises the inclusion of multiple versions of a game, fast navigation, and the user-friendliness of save states.

It's getting kind of busy in the reception section, but I can add that! I did focus on the "datedness" factor that came in reviews, because that was probably the biggest comment I saw throughout the system. I've added some extra commentary from Webster (Verge).Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

* Both Gardner and Webster declared Atari 50 to be among the best compilation video game titles released. Massey is cited here too - although his review is very glowing, he does not state that the game is one of the best compilations ever released.

Yeah, I think this was a leftover citation that was expanded in the next sentence. I've removed it from the first sentence. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

* The Gardner Internet Archive link is broken. You may like to try this one.

Good catch. Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vrxces:, I've gone through your suggestion for now. I'm sure there are more. Andrzejbanas (talk)

Hi @Andrzejbanas:, I've added a few more comments, although not all are critical to satisfying a GAN. Other than the few sticking points, a citation check looked fine to me. Happy to finalise the GAN once the more pressing issues are resolved, with the other ideas and suggestions being a springboard to further refinement of the article. Happy to chat about any of it! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for digging out Edge magazine. Excited to add more print sources to the article. I think i've covered everything you requested now @Vrxces:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant - think that's in in terms of the feedback that actually relates to the GAN. Glad you are still looking at improving the article but it's at the GA standard now and will approve. Thanks for your quick reply to a lot of the feedback and all the best! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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.