Talk:Maniac Mansion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Maniac Mansion Deluxe: I'm pretty sure this wasn't adopted as official, in fact I believe a cease and decist was issued. --86.144.166.188 01:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Your dead right. I have removed the offending statement. (Unless someone can point me to a reference of course.) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Exploding Hamster: According to this source (http://members.fortunecity.com/harang/faq.txt) you can explode the hamster in all North American copies of the game; it was never removed. I think it's true, but we might want more confirmation before changing the Wiki article. Funke 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Could do with disambiguating with the TV series (which I had no idea existed till this afternoon). Has anyone seen it? I suggest moving this to "Maniac Mansion (game)" and creating a "Maniac Mansion (TV series)" and a "Maniac Mansion" page that points at both. --AW

My google searches indicate that the series was based on the game, not vice versa. In any case, I would have no problem with treating them both in the same article. --Brion

Actually, the game was supposed to be based off the TV series. It was released just a little bit after the TV series. However, apart from the character Fred and his laborartory, the two have almost nothing to do with each other plot-wise. I happen to like both, however. -- Cozan

No, the game was released around 1986, while the tv series aired in 1990. Pictureuploader 10:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to amend appropriately in that case? I didn't look into the series much, just assumed the game was based on it since that's how these things normally happen :) --AW

I saw one episode of the TV series briefly, it was rather weird as I remember it. It ended with a character maniacally laughing "Hahaha, I wasn't in this episode!" Strange stuff...

---

"An interesting notation: Maniac Mansion, although the many fantasy or sci-fi elements, is the only of Lucasfilm games that occurs in the real world, and doesn't belong to the future (Full Throttle), another known universe (Indiana Jones), or an alternate version of reality (Sam and MAx, Monkey Island)."

Huh? What makes the world of Maniac Mansion any more (or less) real than the world of Zak McKracken (one features intelligent tentacles and a sentient meteor, the other aliens operating on Earth and ruins on Mars), or the near-to-immediate future of The Dig (hardly any science fiction until you get abducted)? And who says that Full Throttle takes place in the future (rather than an alternate version of the present or even the past)? Anym

I agree. Maniac Mansion has enough sci-fi elements to classify it as an alternate version of reality. I'm going to remove this paragraph.

Rzrscm 10:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you, but Full Throttle depicts futuristic automobiles. Specifically, ones that hover. Seth Arlington (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoagie and Laverne

I have seen a screenshot with all the characters of a console version of MM, and includes two sprites that look like Hoagie and Laverne. I guess this is a version made after Day of the Tentacle, and added these characters to improve continuity between the chapters. I think we should mention this remake, but I don't know any more details. Pictureuploader 22:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a real or official screenshot. Lucasfilm/LucasArts never remade the game after Day of the Tentacle, nor is there any fan remake that includes those characters.

Rzrscm 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

References

If somebody wants to see the reference about Wendy I posted, it shows in print.google.com: [1] IvanDíaz 10:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I put the citation needed tag in the wrong place. It should have been after "It has been said after the fact that she was based on singer/songwriter/pianist Tori Amos, who at the time had been the lead singer of a failed heavy metal band called Y Kant Tori Read; one of the game designers came across the record and had no idea she would one day become famous." I have corrected it. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This interview: [2] says "Razor was inspired by Winnick’s girlfriend". --217.140.198.235 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! I added it. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The talk show host on the "Book Deal" ending is not Johnny Carson, it's David Letterman.

ONE Way to Lose?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a second way to lose this game? At the end, when the mansion has two minutes before the nuclear explosion, after two minutes pass, the house really DOES explode, and you get a message saying "The house and everyone within a 5 mile radius have been destroyed in a massive nuclear meltdown", followed by a message telling you to load or restart the game. 70.21.240.217 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. --Kizor 21:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This also happens if the wrong code is entered into the security door as copy protection (this is disabled in versions like the one bundled with day of the tentacle)--131.111.213.41 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few ways to lose in the game. Turning the power off and leaving it that way, emptying the pool and leaving it that way, pressing the button at the bottom of the pool, etc... --Powerlord 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Razor and Y Kant Tori Read

[[Image:Ykanttoriread.jpg|thumb|Cover of ''Y Kant Tori Read'']] The article still suggests ("some sources say") that Razor's looks may have been inspired by the album cover art of Y Kant Tori Read. This is unlikely, because the game was released for the first time as early as October 1987 and the album was released in June 1988. --Hautala 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Removed. Thanks. --Kizor 11:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Maniac Mansion Deluxe

Maniac Mansion Deluxe is technically illegal, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, let alone linked to. Rzrscm 09:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it wasn't created and well recieved by the fan community. I think a mention is worth having, if not a link to it. Just because it's illegal to make and download doesn't mean it's illegal to talk about it. I mean, seriously. --Lendorien 17:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Character Links

There's a couple of links on character's names. Aside from Bernard, these links are kind-of useless. Razor points right at the Maniac Mansion page, Syd points to a disambiguation page for 'Syds'; none of whom are in the game;, and most of the links are redded out.

I can remove the links? JimmmyThePiep 16:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wendy Wells?

Do you have a source for that last name? --Hautala 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Rescue on Fractalus / Behind Jaggi Lines

There's a telescope in the game, and if aimed the wrong way will show the window pounding angry alien from Rescue on Fractalus / Behind Jaggi Lines.

This is also included in the Maniac Mansion version that is included with Day of The Tentacle, so a game includes an older game with a reference to an older still game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.92.80 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

1981

Oh, my goodness. For crying out loud 1981 was Maniac Mansion!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.18.56.90 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cite a reliable source to prove it. A definitive source, LucasArts itself, says 1987.

"LucasArts Game History". LucasArts Official Website. Retrieved 2007-06-27.

--Powerlord 04:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

making the game unsolvable or killing a character

Wouldn't it be nice to mention the ways to kill a character or to make the game unsolvable?

e.g. like killing by: radioactive water, pool, ed

or make it unsolvable by - using the Paint Remover on something else - using up all money in the Telscope without turning it to the right point

--Flexman 14:38, 26 May 2008 (CET)

This isn't a walkthrough. Rzrscm (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to maniac mansion song.. why shouldn't it be posted?

As a fan of the game, this song is just classic. I could see removing the link if there wasn't actually a song about the game on the other end.. but there is.. so let it be heard! Here is the "offending" link.. check it out. www.myspace.com/swampswamp and listen to their song Maniac Mansion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.2.199 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

this song is not even on their myspace anymore!!! thanks for getting my hopes up and wasting my time!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.70.129 (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The cover art was NOT done by Steve Purcell...

Straight from IHoM...Right here...http://www.mixnmojo.com/features/read.php?article=maniacmansion&page=2

"The game's cover art was drawn by Ken Macklin, while Steve Purcell was responsible for the excellent painting of the Edison family that graces the back of the box of the "Enhanced" releases of the game. Purcell keeps the original painting framed in his house!"

So, I'd appreciate it if people would stop changing the caption under the cover art with the claim that Steve Purcell is responsible for it.

rzrscm (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what happened in the edit by me that caused that information to reappear, I merely meant to remove the no-longer applicable template from the top, but somehow managed to revert some parts of the article to an earlier version. I've only just noticed. -- Sabre (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I kind of figured something like that happened based on the edit summary. rzrscm (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible collaboration drive

Further information: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 86 § Heads up for classic game articles

I noted there that I have some sources which may greatly help out with expansion, improvement, and overall quality increases. One of the problems is that I have not really played this game back in the day. Right now, I have all relevant 1990 issues of Nintendo Power (including the July/August 1990 issue, in which the game was featured on the cover), which was when the NES version was released.

The Amiga Magazine Rack also has much stuff from computer gaming magazines on Maniac Mansion. You should be able to click on the sources and be able to access those pages.

I also have all copies of The Games Machine and CRASH, and I still need to look there to see if the game is mentioned.

Finally, I'm quite sure, after the last time of trawling through my back issues of Retro Gamer, I have seen the game mentioned frequently there, as it has been a fairly popular computer game title in the UK. I will need to look at those. There is also the upcoming Game Developers' Conference (as mentioned on the WT:VG page), which may bring out some more stuff on this.

For those who wish to start any expansion effort, let me know, and I can try and provide copies of those print sources which cannot be accessed online (like with CRASH, Retro Gamer, Nintendo Power, etc.). –MuZemike 18:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edge did a Making Of feature, which is also online. I have one done by GamesTM and kept track of a few miscellaneous bits here and there. I'm eager to work on the article as it was one of the more memorable games from my youth. But I'm not sure when I'll have the time. :-\ If anyone else starts working on the article, let me know too and I'll work it into my schedule. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC))

I wasn't that taken by the game when I (briefly) played it, but I'd be interested due to its significance to gaming history, and to LucasArts' later work. Our coverage of LucasArts is very poor right now, and this would be a great starting point. If Guyinblack or someone else was up for it, I'd be willing to throw my weight behind a collaboration. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, there was a preview in the July/August 1990 issue of Nintendo Power:

"Maniac Mansion". Nintendo Power (14): 62–63. July–August 1990.

Here was the coverage in the September/October 1990 issue, where it was featured on the cover:

"Maniac Mansion". Nintendo Power (16): 14–19. September–October 1990.

–MuZemike 22:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Three maybes sounds like enough to me. :-D I'll make some time for the collaboration.

We might want to check with User:S@bre, as he's worked with articles like this before. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

That's true. He's apparently been pretty busy in real life, though, so I don't know if he'd have the time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done some basic restructuring of the article to give us a starting point. When everyone's ready, I'll begin by hitting the Reception section hard, and then moving up to Development if necessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I spent yesterday and today researching the development and will (hopefully) start on it later today. I'll be hopping between this and a few other Wiki things I have going, so feel free to start at your convenience. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

Impressive work so far. I'll begin working on Reception as soon as I can; I have to gather and read the review material, first. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some manual links from Replacementdocs to verify Gameplay information:

• NES version
• NES version - bulletin board
• C64 version
• Apple II version
• Atari ST version

–MuZemike 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the July-August 1990 preview (temporary URL only). –MuZemike 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the NES conversion and other ports, the main development section is done. A fresh pair of eyes would be good to make sure it flows, uses proper grammar/spelling, etc. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I can do that. Sorry I've taken so long on the Reception section; I'm going to implement actual descriptions of those reviews today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No rush. Real life always trumps wiki life as I always say. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I got a couple of paragraphs in there. We'll probably have two or three more, by the time I'm done. I haven't had a chance to take a screenshot yet, but I'll do it tonight or tomorrow. Are we shooting for FA with this, or just GA? I don't recall it being brought up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

With what there is out there, I don't see much a reason not to shoot for FA; I think there is enough which that is possible. I would concentrate on getting a good gameplay image that best describes the gameplay to readers (it's harder said than done, and it may need commentary from others, just as I did with Ninja Gaiden.

Also, the article is still in development; the lead, gameplay, and possible plot (if anymore) can be expanded and tightened up (verifiability-wise); that is going to make a difference right there. Hence, I would say at the very least we're aiming for GA, but I think FA is certainly within grasp, given the sources out there. –MuZemike 08:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. About the image; I've had to learn the ins-and-outs of informative gameplay screenshots over the years, so I don't think I'll have a problem. I think I'll be able to take it today. I'm pretty terrible with rationales, though, so it'd be great if someone else could handle that when the time comes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally more-or-less finished with Reception. I think I might be able to dig up a few NES reviews—and it could use some coverage of awards—but it's done besides that. Development is pretty solid content-wise, and I'm half-way through copyediting it. Most of the Ports section can probably be removed, though, and that Crowford blog source probably won't cut it at FAC; however, I found this, which is almost the same thing. I'm not particularly qualified to work on the Plot section, so I'll head up to Gameplay once I'm finished with Development. If Guyinblack can handle the Plot stuff when he returns, we should be good to go for GAN. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The blog should be fine per WP:SPS. But we could use either it or the Wired.com one, depending on how close the text in the two are. The Edge and gamesTM go into the NES version some, so that section will be sourced. I'll try to work on it later today and get to the plot sometime after it. Once that's done I'll give the article a sweep for whatever else I can find. Hopefully the GDC retrospective will be done in time for FAC. Things are looking great guys. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

Amazing work, GiB. As for the NES version reviews, I was going to handle them as soon as I got access to this, this, this and a few others I found; however, what you did is solid enough to make it a non-issue. I might expand it further once I get those sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do. I think some reception to that specific version will balance the subsection we have in the development section. I figured there was enough content for a separate paragraph, but wasn't sure. Thankfully MuZemike sent me some Nintendo Power info to expand things.

Also, I found some interviews with Gilbert at IGN that could probably round out the development. After looking at the plot section, I think it could be combined into the gameplay. The story can be summed up in two sentences and the only thing of real note are that the character do different things, which relates to gameplay. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

That's true. I'll combine the two sections today, and delete the extraneous info. I'll also try to incorporate some of that IGN stuff into the Development section. And, finally, I will get that screenshot I've been talking about. It may take me a few days to get the NES reviews, however. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. No rush. I'm going to shift gears to other things. Let me know when you're done and I'll give the article a copy edit. Hopefully some time off will give me a pair of fresh eyes. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Gameplay is basically done. I've got a few more tweaks to make, and a couple of citations to add, but I think the article is ready for GAN. Anyone agree? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to work on copyediting and other MoS-related stuff. It may be a good idea to wait until I'm just about done before nominating for GAN; at the least we will know the article is ready, and we also wouldn't be wasting the GA reviewers' time :) –MuZemike 07:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll finish up a few of my other Wikipedia projects in the meantime. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

After doing a copyedit sweep of the article (please watch next time the comma usage on and, but, or or when they're not being used as coordinating conjunctions; I found many errors on that). I'm going to go ahead and nominate for GAN. –MuZemike 07:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That was fun. :-D And went much quicker than I expected.

With this article waiting for review, do you guys have another project you'd like to collaborate on? At least to start research. Elite (video game) and Prince of Persia (1989 video game) were mentioned in past discussions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Well, it's similar (in both importance and gameplay) to Elite, but M.U.L.E. is one I've been eyeing on for a while, and I have a few sources gathered for that. –MuZemike 18:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

M.U.L.E. slightly interests me, but I don't think I'd be up for working on its article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't think I have any sources for that game. Maybe some tidbits here and there, but I'd have to really dig, something I don't have too much time for right now. So I doubt I'd be much help with it. Any other ideas? Outside the two above, I've been eyeing PaRappa the Rapper and Tetris. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Those might also be a bit difficult to source, since they're Japanese and Russian, respectively. To build a really deep article, translations would probably be necessary. Oh, and sorry about the brief above message; I had to run out the door. I was going to say that PoP '89 and Elite were definite interests of mine. I'm trying to allocate more time to my Looking Glass Studios games GT/FT, though, so another major collaboration is pretty low on my list. However, due to my infinite fascination with those two games, I'd carve time out of my other projects to collaborate on one of them. But if you guys want to work on something else without me, that's cool; I really need to put some more time into the LGS stuff. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I already have English sources for Tetris's development, and the Russian reception was apparently underground with it being distributed as pirated software. It didn't get coverage until it went worldwide, is also documented in English. I think the real difficult part to it would be the legacy and impact.

On a side note, maybe after I finish the Pac-Man list we can work on getting the LGS list to FL. Something to keep in mind I guess. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

Hey, that sounds cool. I was planning on saving that list for last (after finishing the 12 other articles in the topic), but it'd be nice to get it out of the way. I'll have to read up about FLs in the next week or two so I know what to do. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If you guys end up collaborating on any other of the LucasArts adventure games, let me know. I'd be game to jump in. I clearly need to have a chat with you guys at some point about how to getting reviews for these golden oldies, you've had much more success here than I had with Sam & Max Hit the Road. -- Sabre (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to find time for that. Anyone else want to work on another LucasArts adventure game? Any ideas on which one we'd do? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be game to work on Day of the Tentacle. I could whip up a development section pretty quick after working on this game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

I could do that. It'll be harder to find reception material than it was for this, but I think I could pull something together. What do you say, Sabre? Interested? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to do much for about another week or so due to other off-wiki commitments, but I'm up for DotT (start without me). -- Sabre (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start gathering reception material as soon as possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'll start researching development. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

Microwave Hampster

"Presenting the remains of the microwaved hamster to the pet's owner, Weird Ed, results in the player being killed by him."

I believe this may be partially wrong. IIRC, you could give him the hampster with a certain character (Dave?), then claim his father did it. Or maybe you put it back in the cage...24.182.163.100 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost 100% certain that you can't...But I'll try it when I get home. rzrscm (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Image cleanup

I think File:ManiacMn.png can probably go, as it is not really serving any practical purpose in the article, especially with regards to the non-free content criteria. I also think we could use a better image of File:C64 Maniac Mansion.png, i.e. an image that is showing a little more action or something that describes the gameplay more to readers. –MuZemike 07:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'll boot the game up in an emulator in the next few days and try to take a better screenshot. Hopefully, one that shows multiple characters on-screen, some items in the inventory, and a puzzle of some sort. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

AllGame has screenshots: PC version, NES version. MobyGames too. Maybe be something equally suitable in those. Something else to consider if you do take a screenshot, maybe include something in the original that was removed in the NES version. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Maybe the statue? I'll have to re-read that section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I inserted a new screenshot into the article. I picked the "DISCO SUCKS!" poster as the censored element, mainly because the Green Tentacle's room was the most visually interesting censored area I could find. Also, because the Tentacle says something any time you switch to a character inside that room, it was easy to line up a good shot that included dialogue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it'd be great if someone could clean up my rationale. It's horrible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. I'll get back to work on the rest of the article today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm assessing this as C class for the moment. The only issues holding the article back are the citation needed tags and the one external link in the prose. Once those are fixed go ahead and bump this up to B. --Teancum (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We're still working on it; I was kind of hoping for B, but I understand why C at the moment, and I know we have a ways to go here. We still have to provide sources for the Plot and Gameplay sections, which shouldn't be hard due to the sources I provided above. –MuZemike 08:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is {{expand Finnish}} necessary anymore?

I don't know if the {{Expand Finnish}} notice is necessary on the top of the talk page, even though that's an FA over there; it seems like our English-language version is now starting to sport just as much content as the Finnish counterpart, and any other small expansions can be more easily found by checking all the interwiki links on the article itself. Thoughts? –MuZemike 07:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan of the Finnish sources doesn't seem like they could add anything that isn't already covered. Removing the template sounds like the thing to do. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

GA Review

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

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Issues found

• The box art could use {{Vgboxart fur}}, but the current rationale is quite strong so I doubt it'll be challenged in the future
• There are a few instances of misordered refs. They should be numerically ordered where possible

• After "would need a scripting language to create the game they had envisioned."
• After "allowed the developer to easily port Maniac Mansion to other platforms."
• After "and provided further coverage later in the year."

Still looking over the prose. Give me ~24 hours.

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I thought that there was a bot for automatically ordering refs. I haven't seen it around in awhile, so maybe it broke down. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Pass - I didn't find anything else. I don't have any time to do all of the legwork for passing the article at the moment (leaving for home) but I can do it later this evening. Nice work! --Teancum (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks! I hope we can take it through FAC without too much trouble. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Next steps

Now that the article has passed GA, what's the plan? Peer review and then FAC? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We could also request an A-Class assessment, which would need two reviewers on the article to pass. That may help put more scrutiny on the article before it goes up for FAC. –MuZemike 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Do you think we should do a peer review first, or just nominate it for A-Class right now? I've never gone through the A-Class process before, so I don't know how difficult it is. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think only one is necessary. I agree that an A-class review would scrutinize things more, but the article can sit awhile before two reviewers chime in. Regardless, I think it should improve our chances at FAC better than a standard peer review. I started the discussion and posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

A-class assessment

JimmyBlackwing, MuZemike, and I request an A-class assessment of this article. We'd like to take it to FAC eventually, and would appreciate any comments that would help that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC))

development section

I'm not sure if I should comment here or make a separate section (feel free to move it, perhaps _above_ the A-assessment request?); I'm not judging A-quality, just giving feedback in general (on issues that I can't "boldly" and quickly fix right now): There are some technically inaccurate use of terms in the "development" section: A script is a "program" you write in a scripting language. You then use a compiler or (more usually in the case of scripting languages) an interpreter to turn that into machine (computer-executable) code. An engine is something a developer can use that will eventually "drive" (to stay in the metaphor) the game. An interpreter of a scripting language can be part of a game engine (as is the case for the Unreal engine as well as the SCUMM engine). When you build an engine that you want to include scripting capabilities, you either pick an existing language (as e. g. Crytek did with Lua) or you invent your own, as in this case. When I have more time I will fix it myself (though I guess in the time it took me to write this comment, I could have done it myself, sry :-) Nczempin (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Let me know if the terminology is correctly used. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC))

slightly better, but still needs work. I'll do it. Nczempin (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I went through the references, and it turns out your version is much better than I thought when I hadn't looked at them. I currently have three issues with that section: 1) The creation of a "compiler for the engine". This is quoted from the source. But it confuses me, especially because of the sentence that follows "But the game was so content intensive, without some kind of a scripting language you would just spend forever coding these things in assembly language." Did he write a compiler for the scripting language (as I mentioned before, this is very unusual, at least in 1987) or for some other part of the engine (but which part?), or for some other language aside from the scripting language? The "but" is what trips me. It would make sense if it said "Yeah, the game was...", but not "But". Now if I'm confused, it is likely that someone who knows nothing about compilers, engines or scripts, will be even more confused. So my proposal is to rephrase some of the section not using "compiler for the engine" without losing the main meaning or OR (interpreting "what he must have meant"). 2) The last sentence in the section, "It allowed the developers to easily manipulate onscreen objects and game logic", is only the first part of the reference, and that may make it lose some meaning. I'll try and think of a better way to keep it short without losing meaning, probably by abstracting it. It's not so much that they could control these things, but that they could do so [while still] using a high-level language 3) No mention is made of Aric Wilmunder, who is mentioned in the next-gen reference, as well as both the SCUMM WP page and the SCUMMVM SCUMM page (http://wiki.scummvm.org/index.php/SCUMM). Not sure how to work him in. Nczempin (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilmunder used to be in there, but I removed him after reading this interview. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, somehow I missed this bit "Aric and Brad's contribution came in when we did the PC ports of the engine." I made the changes I proposed, and the section is now "more correct". Please check if it is still readable, and change if necessary. I have some other issues, but they are smaller in comparison, and it is now 2:43 over here. Good night :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nczempin (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks good. It is more clear but still flows well. If it'll help, here is the quote from the GamesTM feature.

"'After I started programming, I realised that I was not going to be able to make a game as complex as Maniac Mansion without a good scripting language, and so SCUMM was born,'" says Gilbert. SCUMM stood for 'Script Utility Creation [sic] for Maniac Mansion' and, in Gilbert's words, was a 'system that could be used on many games, cutting down the time it took to make them.'"

Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

The quote I give above talks about PC ports, not home computer conversion (Commodore 64 is a home computer). It is highly likely that the PC version came much later than the events described in the section, perhaps someone can dig up a release date. That said, I don't think the info who helped with a port is significant enough to be included in this section. -- Nczempin (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

game's opening/beginning

"The game's opening shows a meteor that crashes near the mansion twenty years earlier; it took control of the family and caused Dr. Fred to begin performing human experiments and plotting to take over the world. The game begins with..." 1) first the game opens, then it begins? This wording is confusing. 2) the tense "crashes ... earlier ... took ..." seems inconsistent. My guess is that we watch some kind of video (or animation; is it pre-rendered or just something that happens with the game graphics?) that is (turns out to be? my guess is we don't realize this immediately; classic movie cliché) a flashback to twenty years ago. Try to phrase this part more clearly. I haven't played the game (or if I did, it is a very long time ago) and won't (before the article reaches FA), so I can hopefully provide some "outside" perspective for understandability. Nczempin (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at it fixing it. Let me know if it still needs work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Would someone who has recently seen the beginning be willing to describe it here in the discussion? If I knew what exactly happens, I could describe more clearly how it should be phrased in the article, or change it myself. I'll try and find a way to see it for myself, perhaps on Youtube. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty minimal.[3] We added details that are learned later in the game for summary style. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I watched the C64 version now, and (contrary to the PC version), it clearly says "20 years ago" as the very first thing, and then the credits "roll". (Nice hommage to this in Gilberts talk BTW; he must have done some pixel editing to change it to 25 for his presentation). -- Nczempin (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sid/Syd

Just going to throw in a random driveby comment here: the article uses different spelling to refer to the same character in two separate places. Its "Sid" in the infobox caption, and "Syd" in overview section. Its been too long for me to remember which is correct to fix it myself, but naturally the same spelling should be used in both instances. -- Sabre (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe it should be "Syd". I fixed it in the caption. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

nes version experienced development & the company believed

In the lead, it says "... its Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) version experienced a notably difficult development due to strict censorship by Nintendo of America." A version of a game cannot experience anything. So I started changing it to "the team responsible for the Nin.." and read the more detailed info in the article. Seeing "development" I had assumed there were difficulties during development, but having read the NES section I am not sure this is what was meant; wasn't development per se already finished? did they experience difficulties _during_ development, or did they experience "a development", namely, the problems with Nintendo? So please someone go over the sentence and write it more clearly in that respect. And BTW companies don't believe (in the NES section. "The company believed that the content was reasonable"), so someone should either find a person to mention, or rephrase. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

company believed -> their staff believed: Done. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

nes version experienced: Done. -- Nczempin (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• The game was heavily recoded and given completely new art for the NES version. As such, it was developed again. Just my two cents. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As Jimmy stated, it went through a conversion process, which I've always understood to be part of general "video game development". There's no conception or pre-production aspect to it, but there is a lot of technical processing and troubleshooting involved. To avoid confusion, however, "converted" or "ported" can be used. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Porting/conversion is normal; producing the port/conversion of a game also involves development. That's not what I was flagging. What happened with NES MM was not normal. The game was essentially finished (technically; it was submitted for release) and they had to rework a bunch of stuff. I have since read more details and I made a change to the phrasing in the lead; please check if you find it acceptable. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

past tense

just glancing at the article very casually (and reporting some of the issues above), I found a few issues with using Past tense correctly. Could someone please go through the whole article and make sure that, (in particular; but please watch for the others as well), past perfect is used when it should be? -- Nczempin (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm re-reading right now, but not spotting anything. Just to be sure, past perfect is used comparatively to distinguish the order of past events right? Are there any other uses to look out for? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Done. All that I could find, I fixed. See my recent edits with "past tense" in the edit summary. Please sanity-check them. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

more nagging about nes section

First, the game is published, then developed. The proper chronological order should be used: First, they develop. Then (I guess near the finish) they run into problems with Nintendo. Eventually it gets published. Changing this would also require some additional tweaks (e. g. Jaleco link possibly in a different place) -- Nczempin (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Which paragraph is that in. I can't seem to find it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniac_Mansion#Nintendo_Entertainment_System_version. I found similar issues in other places too. I will collect and name them unless they get fixed in the meantime, or possibly fix them myself. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the first two sentences of that section? Those are more introductory/summary sentences. The odd thing is that the game was apparently released uncensored in Japan first and then censored for the US release, which happened two years after the Japanese release. I couldn't find anything substantial about the chronology of the worldwide NES releases and went with a summarized intro. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I think I was, yes. IMHO you don't need these intros. I don't need detail, just sort of the "natural order" of first development, then publishing should be reflected better. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

single sub-sections

I don't know what the WP policy or guideline is on sub-sections (or if there is one), but it feels strange to have a section with just 1 named sub-section. It is most easily noticable in the table of contents, where you have only "3 something 3.1 something 4 something. So those parts that precede the named sub-section should get their own named sub-section(s). -- Nczempin (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT and Help:Section are pretty loose when it comes to stuff like that. I've always interpreted the lack of definition as freedom for editors to apply personal preferences. The way I see it, the headers should make sense while avoiding redundancy. If a simple level two header describes the bulk of the content, then I see no reason to add a level three one. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree, but if there is already a level 3 section, it looks strange if it is by itself. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

worked on the lead

I made some changes to the lead section; I tried to make it read better without losing any meaning. It turns out that all three paragraphs now start with "Maniac Mansion". I currently lack the imagination to avoid this, since just saying e. g. "it" or "the game" would either lead to confusion (because "it" could refer to something else from the end of the previous paragraph) or to more repetition. Perhaps we will just need to choose which of them is the least evil, or hopefully somone can come up with another solution. The only other concern I'd have is that perhaps the lead is too long (I may have made it longer myself) considering the size of the main article. But before I propose how I would trim it, please give your views on whether it needs trimming. Of course, pointing out where I have inadvertedly butchered the facts would also help me. -- Nczempin (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the second paragraph to start with "The game". Since the topic of the article is only this game, I don't think any confusion will arise. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

confusion for "it", repetition for "the game". I'm leaving this to you and the other editors. -- Nczempin (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

overview vs. gameplay & plot

User:S@bre says Single "overview" section is perfectly acceptable when there isn't much to say and a single section makes better presentation; ie Sam & Max: Freelance Police if you're taking FAs as examples. Fair enough, as I said I only did a sampling. I was under the impression that we would need to expand the sections, but you provided a perfect counter-example. And in any case, if we do decide to expand for some reason, we can always expand first and sectionize later. -- Nczempin (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any further expansion is needed. The basics are presented to give the layman a general understanding. All I can think to add would be game guide-ish details that won't further the ideas already presented. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

crediting the developers

Currently, in the infobox under "programmers', we list R. Gilbert and Aric Wilmunder. However, we established that A.W. only worked on the PC port. David Fox is mentioned in the article, but not in the box. The credits sequence for the C64 version lists "Ron Gilbert, David Fox, and Carl Mey". I haven't checked the others (yet). So, how should we deal with this? Should we eventually include all the credited staff, if not, how do we decide who to leave out? What about the different versions? The 64 version was the primary version, the Apple II one came shortly afterwards (haven't been able to figure out yet what the story is behind that; was it ported so quickly, or was there some parallel development?). So do we lump them all together, do we make separate infoboxes for each port, or do we, say, under programmers, put "Aric Wilmunder (PC port)" or something like that? I'm only mentioning the programmers, because they are the most likely to change from port to port (and perhaps because they are closer to my heart :-), but we should deal with all of the developers, or at least those that are supposed to go in an infobox. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I kept it simple and just listed Gilbert and Fox. There's no need to list the full credits, that would bloat the infobox. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Audio/Music

This aspect deserves mentioning. I think it was also among the critically acclaimed parts, and we mention improvements in the sequel such as voices. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside a few comments in the reception, I don't think there's much. I didn't find anything about the audio development in reliable sources. The only thing I came across were some forum postings that the audio was very simple and generated by the computer. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Reception other than critics

We have a lot of detail on the reviews, but almost nothing on commercial success (AFAICS only some sales figures from Germany). -- Nczempin (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to find much as far as sales figures are concerned, if that is what you are looking for. Back during this time, the video game industry didn't readily document sales figures as they do now or even 10 years ago. –MuZemike 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't hurt to try; surely it must be possible to come up with something, any little thing, if Happy Computer was able to do so for Germany. Some old magazines with bestseller lists? Sure it's all more official nowadays, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is a problem for all Lucas adventure games. I remember Masem saying that LucasArts didn't release sales information back then. And as MuZemike pointed out, the industry didn't keep good track except for the top sellers.

I try to keep an eye out for anything to aid comprehensiveness when I research. Typically in the "making of" articles I've read, some sales information is at least mentioned, but I didn't see anything like that for Maniac Mansion or Day of the Tentacle. Maybe Jimmy came across something in his reception research. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

more balance on the different versions

We could talk a little bit more on the difference between the versions; right now this is dominated by the NES version. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the only differences to the other versions are graphical quality. The game itself remained mostly unchanged. The NES version was more notable because of the censorship it went through. Our sources reflect that, so I think the article is representative and as neutral as we can get it. However, if there are sources that discuss the differences, we can expand the release section some. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree that it's notable, but the NES section now has roughly five times as much text as the rest of the Releases section. If we can't find anything to expand the other bits, maybe we need to cut down the NES section a little bit. In addition; surely there must have been some significant changes going from C64 and Apple2 to the 16-bit machines ST and Amiga? What about sound on the PC version? Wasn't this in a time before standardized sound cards? -- Nczempin (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a bit to the release section and tried cutting a little from the NES section, but not sure what else to trim. Maybe the details of the supposed nudity?

I didn't turn up anything about the other versions. Different programmers worked on them, and I believe the processes were uneventful because the SCUMM engine's design. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Bernard

A little more on Bernard would be nice, as he's the main protagonist of the sequel. -- Nczempin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What's currently in the article is all that I turned up as far as development. I doubt there's much else out there from reliable sources. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

just something small and innocuous that would link the mentions of Bernard together. Right now it's a little confusing to a lay reader IMHO. We mention briefly that he can repair things, he's on the screenshot, and then much later we say that he came back for the sequel. (That we are discussing such details shows the article is in pretty good shape already :-) -- Nczempin (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

my vote for A-Class

Well, at this point I would give my vote for A-class. I don't know the specifics of the class, but the article has significantly improved since I first came here. There are some minor issues, but IMHO we are close to FAC. So I would give it one-half of the votes required for A. However, in the meantime I have become the leader in number of edits (the secret is to always just edit a single character at a time), so: Am I still eligible to vote? -- Nczempin (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that since the bulk of the major changes occurred prior to your contributions and you were leading a review of the content that your mostly "uninvolved" for the purposes of A-class assessment. Of course, I'm easily labeled biased in this assumption. If you think there's any issue, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Assessment. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Well, I would not have given it an A when I first came here, and I would now. But it seems we are having trouble even getting a second person to say that; I guess we can decide whether or not to count my vote when that second person comes (and it really would just take one of those who came here in the meantime that weren't mentioned in the original A-class assessment request); whether then to wait for a third or not. Independently of A or not A, I would now consider the article to be ready for FAC. And I don't think we need an outside opinion to go for FAC. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Or were you saying that the bulk of the changes came after I had left the feedback but before I started getting involved myself? -- Nczempin (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I'm a nitpicker, so the fact that I can't find anything that bothers me means either that there really is very little wrong or that I have acquired a bias by having got involved. So let's go for FAC!! -- Nczempin (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that the leap from Start-class to GA-class was more drastic compared to the leap from passing GA to its current point. Your questions and contributions have been very very helpful (didn't mean to minimalize your contributions if you took it that way). Is that more clear?

As far as going for FAC, I think gaining A-class will be something good to mention at the candidacy. But if a second reviewer does not chime in a week or two, then going to FAC sounds good. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC))

Of course the move from Start to GA is several orders of magnitude tougher than the next step. I don't mind my contributions being minimalized; I tried to make fun of it myself, because number of edits is obviously not a good overall measure of contribution. I was just shocked to find out :-) -- Nczempin (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Guyinblack25 that you did an excellent job in post-GA improvements, far more than what I would expect. I think these A-Class assessments do go a long way towards FAC, as every part of the article will have went through more scrutiny, the prose will have been more "tightened up", and hopefully most MoS issues will have been addressed (though I had one article promoted to FA, and there were still minor MoS nitpicks that needed to be made while it was featured on the Main Page). Personally, I never really played Maniac Mansion, but it was released right around that time in which I lived, breathed, ate, and drank anything related to Nintendo or the NES. That and I have a bit of paper sources that I have contributed. That said, I'm pleased with the progress this article has made, as it is one of the video game "gems" in its history. –MuZemike 01:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAICR, I also never played MM, or pretty much any SCUMM games (although perhaps I should). For Wikipedia editing, this may be a good thing; I sometimes run into very editors who want to protect their pets (main hobbies) and don't seem to want to get any outside perspectives; very much the opposite here. I am very happy with the constructive collaboration we had on this article; everyone focusing on improving Wikipedia. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai's review

Lede

• point-and-click interface - should mention that its a p&c interface where the player using (text) commands as many non-SCUMM games did not use an interface anything like this.
  • possibly (do we have that in the main article?), but not necessarily in the lead. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should (after more sources are added) mention how the original game has been reviewed more recently.
  • could be problematic because those reviews seem to come from very focused sites. And if we then add a qualification, it will probably become too unwieldy for the lead. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Should mention the fan remake.陣内_Jinnai 22:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it is notable enough to include here as well as just in the article. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • notability doesn't apply to content inside the article. As there was a fan remake, it should be mentioned as that in itself is unusual, especially that its been commented on. A normal remake would be less relevant imo. A simple sentance can suffice "The game was later remade for Windows(?) as a fan remake" or something probably better.陣内_Jinnai 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't mean notability in the strict Article-for-Deletion sense (after all it should definitely be in the main article, no doubt about that), but in the "how I understand lead sections (that they should summarize the most important points of the article)" sense. I'll try to find a better word next time. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Considering how rarely fan remakes are made and much less commented on by independent secondary sources, I'd say a 1-line mention is warranted.陣内_Jinnai 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
          • FYI- the fan remakes are now mentioned in the lead. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Overview

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.

---

• Since this is a video game, there is no need to assert the characters are fictional; that can be assumed by the average reader since the premise is so fantasical it cannot exist in reality.
  • probably. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• You can wikilink 2D - the term is common enough that it doesn't need to be spelled out and then have parenthetical abbreviation.
  • Not only that (removing the spelled-out version), but IMHO we don't even need to wikilink "2D". -- Nczempin (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not sure why "Walk To" and "Unlock" are highlighted. The paragraph doesn't mention anything about those specifically. Either all of them should be listed (in a notation), or none of them. However, it would be best if those were expanded like The "Walk To" command is what the players use to move around.
  • You're right; it must have been a victim of refactoring. It is absolutely unclear what the special significance is (if any). I personally would like this whole section to be expanded to the point that we don't call it "overview", but there was at least one counter-opinion and the issue was not important enough for me to argue about it. In most of your feedback to this section, there is some danger (that was voiced before) that we make it too much into a game-guide. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand that concern. That's why listing every command would probably go to far, but having a command in there without context is not the best way to avoid being too gameguidely.陣内_Jinnai 23:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes. I really have no idea where it came from, we'll have to wait for the others to chime in. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Does Dave have any special skills? If so, that should be mentioned since Dave will always be selected.
• "If one character dies, a replacement must be selected, and the game ends if all characters die." - that sentance doesn't clarrify if they are taken from the initial 3 or the entire group of potential players.
• Given the above point, it doesn't mention whether the player only plays one character at a time or switches between them.
  • Both, actually, but I guess it's not very clear. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Does the gameplay differ in the NES release?
• Were there any major changes in the Deluxe version to the gameplay or storyline?陣内_Jinnai 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Responses:
    • I agree with the "fictional" comment. Though I don't think the article is hurt by leaving it in. I'll defer to others.
    • I prefer to introduce terms for the layman. I feel the same way about "fictional" and will defer to others.
    • I'll see about rewording the command content to provide better context. But I don't think an exhaustive list is necessary because the image lists them all. If you'd like I can list them on the image description page.

• • • • I think its more of a question of why those are highlighted without any context.陣内_Jinnai 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Dave has no special skills outside the basic commands.

• • • • That should be mentioned as its not apparent from reading the article and, as mentioned, considering he is the only essential player character should be given a bit more detail.陣内_Jinnai 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe that the character is selected from the unselected ones.
      • Given what Nczempin and you say, I think that needs to be resolved and clarified as it seems you're saying 2 different things.陣内_Jinnai 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The game plays the same way in all version, including the NES version.
    • The Deluxe version was only a graphical update to my knowledge. Expanding on my comments in sections below, the Deluxe version is a fan product. Any changes should not influence the general description of the original game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:26, 11 April 2011 (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.

Development

• "The first character concepts were of a simple group of siblings." - don't suppose there is anymore info on the siblings or why it was changed beyond "gradual process"?
• "Three to four characters, however, were excluded due to the game's size." -tagged that - which of the 3 were cut out.
  • The source does not say. The original characters were very generic and they gradually evolved into what's in the final product. So it doesn't specify which character was added when, when the generic ones became more defined, or which characters were dropped. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
    • How do you know one was dropped? Does it specifically say that?陣内_Jinnai 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That bit is almost word for word from the magazine article. I tweaked it for copyvio reasons, but the statement is so short not much tweaking is possible. No further details were provided. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
        • It's probably best to use a quote here then because I'm sure others will ask "which one was excluded" in the future or make a notation.陣内_Jinnai 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Is there any clear idea of what other possible genres were thought about for the game?
  • Not in the sources AFAICT. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Correct. The developers had no idea what genre to do until Gilbert saw Kings Quest. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
• For SCUMM development, I know its wikilinked, but I'd add a little bit on the purpose of a scriptinting language. The reader shouldn't haven't have to click on the wikilink to get the jist. I'd put it at no more than 1 complete sentence, you're just trying to educate the completely uninformed as to why a scripting language is easier to work with than assembly.陣内_Jinnai 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • We already spend quite a lot of space (possibly too much) discussing SCUMM (the actual scripting language) and its advantages. In addition, the main reason a scripting language was chosen (which is the primary concern at this point of the article) is right there in the sentence "it would have taken him far too long". Perhaps it needs to be clarified. Anything else, like general advantages and disadvantages of scripting languages vs. assembly are out of scope and would be hard to do without risking OR, or they would need to be so brief that they would easily be challenged as inaccurate. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about the advantages of SCUMM. I'm talking about the advantage of any scripting language over assembly language. If its going to be delving too much into OR, then remove info on assembly language and scripting language and just mention that his approach would have to be changed. That statement is likely to confuse readers as to why scripting languages would be easier and the wikilink likely won't help them after a cursory glance.陣内_Jinnai 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, now I understand. Not sure I agree (I think we could ask a little leap of faith here from the lay reader), but I'm definitely the wrong person to ask about this particular issue. Perhaps a footnote would help? -- Nczempin (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Footnote, yea, that's fine.陣内_Jinnai 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • So long as it's concise, it sounds like a good idea. I don't think this topic should have to explain industry trends unless it originated or popularized them. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
            • No, but as this game created SCUMM and the reasons why should be explained in a way that readers understand if they don't know why scripting language has advantage over assembly and why, if it does, he wasn't originally considering a scipting language. If that cannot be explained without OR, then it probably should be left out as its likely to confuse readers given that the links to those articles don't give the nessasary info to a reader without some basic technical background confused as to why.陣内_Jinnai 21:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
              • I encountered something similar with Marble Madness at its FAC. Given that using a scripting language is an industry trend, I think this article is the wrong place to explain the "why". I think the information about the design choices provide enough for the layman. For example: "soon determined that with this approach it would have taken him far too long to realize the ambitious game concept" and "system that could be used on many adventure games, cutting down the time it took to make them". That and I don't recall the sources listing any extra information outside what's currently in the article.
                Just to reiterate, I think a footnote is fine, I just worry about putting in too much information that is best described in higher level articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
                • I understand your concern. I don't think such a higher-level article exists and am a bit scepitcal it can exist in a manner that complies with WP:JARGON and WP:MTAA. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic considering the number of those "higher level" articles with too much technological terminology.陣内_Jinnai 22:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
                  • You pessimism is warranted because they are not in good shape. Though I've always operated under the assumption that they will be fixed in the future. (It could happen, we've started to improve our higher level articles.) Otherwise the article becomes tangential and off-topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

• • • • • • • • • • • Well even if that may be, I'm not sure we'll have anything that can give a good explanation to the layperson what the pros/cons to assembly vs. scripting language is.陣内_Jinnai 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it again after a while, I guess the big question that bugs me is why did he feel the nessesity of building a new scripting engine? Why couldn't he adapt C or LISP to it. The only info there is that he discussed the situation with Chip Morningstar. Okay, but that doesn't answer the question as to why they thought an existing scripting language with some tweaks couldn't handle things. Considering this game was the reason for the creation of SCUMM, I'd except that info. Either remove most of that info on C and LISP or explain why they weren't good enough.陣内_Jinnai 21:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

He's what I know about SCUMM based on my research. Hopefully it answers some questions.

• Gilbert considered LISP because it was a popular language at the time.
• To my knowledge, C was not considered. It's syntax served as a model for SCUMM's syntax.
• SCUMM communicates with the hardware in assembly language.
• I assumed that the developers wanted a proprietary script to suit their own needs ("cut down the time to create adventure games").
• The syntax for SCUMM is quite simple and uses descriptive commands and object names. The simple script allowed for context sensitive commands, something that would have been very time consuming in assembly language. I don't know how easy this would have been using other languages.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

• Okay, well given that (since it appears its speculation as to why C wasn't chosen as a base), it would be better to remove it or move it to a notation.陣内_Jinnai 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is an issue. Could we get more input? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
    • Maybe post it at WP:VG and possibly WP:SOFTWARE? The latter as they might have some other sources.陣内_Jinnai 19:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Release

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.

---

*"In contrast to their previous games, where they had been only the developer and had used external publishers," - doesn't appear to be backed by the source. Ifso, where? That Maniac Mansion was developed and released by LucasArts is; that's previous games weren't I can't find.

• • You're right, I've just been through this source twice and it's not there. IIRC it is in one of the sources though; this issue definitely needs some attention. The claim itself is definitely true, but, I know, that's not the point. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, Guyinblack found it; page 2, paragraph 4, last two sentences. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• This section should also mention the fanmade release. I know its in the legacy section, but as its essentially a remake, this is where it would typically go, not a legacy section. The text should also include what was changed in the remake.陣内_Jinnai 22:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I responded about the placement in one of the below sections.
    I try to mention as little as possible about fan remakes. In fact, it's only in there because Gilbert mentioned them on his blog and at two of his recent speeches about the game. No reliable source mentioned fan endeavors outside the SCUMMVM project, which is tangential to this topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:47, 11 April 2011 (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.

Reception

• This game should use aggregate scores as those are preffered. It currently uses none and they do exist. Specifically they should be listed if anything in the box rather than or in addition to individual review scores.
  • Your first link is an "aggregate" score of 1 review (meant for the Amiga version, but the actual review states explicitly it's for the C64 version. This actual "review" (looks more like just a description) is 2 paragraphs long on a site called "allgame.com"; I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. The second one points to 3 reviews from far after the initial release, so they would be more relevant to your second point regarding recent reviews. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • They both have an "overall rank". Those sites have been noted as being reliable for their aggregate review scores. Even if not all the reviews are from RSes, the score is still reliable. However, allgame is on the video game RS chart as its run by Allmusic who had previously been listed as reliable sources. However, since they seem to be the only site for that review score, then you don't need to list the aggegate review score as its lower than the rest (3 stars out of 5).陣内_Jinnai 22:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:VG/S: Data from these aggregate review sites should be handled carefully. I think that aggregates help you if you would otherwise be overwhelmed by the sheer number of reviews, but here we only have 3 genuine reviews. It is (statistics-)methodologically questionable to rely on aggregate scores with such few samples. And with such few reviews, it is actually possible to use them directly. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I'll defer to your judgement then if you feel you'd rather handle the scores individually.陣内_Jinnai 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I think we're fine without the aggregates. Also, I thought the project deemed TopTenReviews unreliable. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

• Given the popularity of the game, I'd want some more current reviews. They do exist also.陣内_Jinnai 22:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure which popularity you are referring to, please clarify. The 3 more recent reviews do exist and appear to be from reasonably reliable sources. The question is, do we want to add them here or in another section. This really depends on the answer to "do we want to separate contemporary reception from legacy reception or not", which question seems to shine through a few of your comments (e. g. regarding the remake). I would tend towards separating them cleanly, and I can live with the way it has been done. --
    • It can be in a subsection or not. I don't care. It just needs to be made clear what is the initial reception and what is the more contemporary reception (on the original game). The remake's reception should also be separate. There also seems to be a lack of contemporary reception imo.陣内_Jinnai 22:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't think we'll find a contemporary review from a reliable source outside "Top games" lists, which are already in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
        • I have already proven otherwise. Even if the aggregate sources are unreliable, they do have more contemperary reviews.陣内_Jinnai 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
        • There are some more.陣内_Jinnai 21:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Touché. However, I don't see what the contemporary reviews add to the article that the respective lists don't already. If anything, the FAC's I've seen typically criticize our articles for a lack of reception from the game's first release.
            If you still believe so though, I'll add in a sentence from the Eurogamer review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
            • They first of all show the game is still important today, inspite being nearly 20 years old. Not many games can show that. Second, they give a different kind of reception by giving it a kind of retrospective commentary or comparing it to modern games. It's the same for famous books like Tom Sawyer or movies like It's a Wonderful Life. While its arguable this game is at that level (I'd put some money that it would be (though not a ton ^_-), and giving more recent receptions when they come at it from angles of how the game lives up to modern audiances who have played many games since then or who have never played it before, but played many modern games.陣内_Jinnai 15:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
              • I added the Eurogamer review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Impact and legacy

• As noted elsewhere, the fanmade remake should be moved elsewhere. It is still a remake whether it is made by fans or not. Since its been commented on by independent RSes, it should be treated like any other remake to keep it in line with neutrally representing it.陣内_Jinnai 22:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. A remake should be treated differently from the original ports. If your objection is to treat fanmade differently from anybody-else-made, I agree, they shouldn't be treated (significantly) differently -- Nczempin (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • My point is that yes, due weight applies and it shouldn't take the majority of the article or even a huge portion (if it did, it should likely be spun out, if there is enough development info and reception otherwise cut back). However, giving it its own section is within line of WP:UNDUE as shown by wider consensus on dealing with remakes in other FAs. That its a fan remake means that special care should be taken on sourcing and placing emphasis on what is usually more detailed development/release info.陣内_Jinnai 00:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Fan remakes are an example of legacy rather than release. I don't think that fan remakes should be paired with official ones unless a legacy section is absent from an article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
• The TV adapation and sequal Imo should be moved to a related media section per standard faire for these type articles, especially the TV adapatation.陣内_Jinnai 22:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that the two items are derivatives of this topic, I'd say the current name is fine. I've seen related media sections used for media that is developed/released in conjunction with the original. That wasn't the case here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
    • That is not how we deal with video game TV adapations elsewhere. Not saying there can't be an exception here, but why should MM be an exception? The response you've given, as mentioned, isn't supported by the multitude of other video game articles which have had TV/movie adaptations. Related media sections are commonly used for adapatations; that's why they are "related".陣内_Jinnai 15:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Typically, I just lump it in with the rest of legacy like in Q*bert. But this had enough content for a stand alone paragraph.
        I partially agree with rationale the TV adaptions, but we've handled sequels differently. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
        • Well I don't think there's anything formal with sequels as I've seen them listed in multiple areas including legacy section, sequel section and release/dev sections (although mostly for expansions and fan discs) and adpatations/related media. These sections have been at different areas in the body.
        • Therefore, I accept the idea that for this article putting the sequel at the bottom is fine, though I dispute the reasoning that its common practice; rather that there is no common practice.陣内_Jinnai 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
          • Makes sense. I think that the content should flow well, and if it it does, then structure is not a big issue. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
            • With the sequel, yes; with the TV adaptation, no. It is common practice to list TV, comic, novel, etc. adaptations in "related media sections" usually somewehere above reception (just go look at any FA with such adaptations (after 2007)), but below the dev/release info. I've not heard a convincing argument why MM should be an exception in that regard.陣内_Jinnai 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

References

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.

---

• Mobygames is an unreliable source (it was recently delisted per consensus) because its entire content is user generated or if not its not clear what is/isn't and basically poisons the entire site (similar to IMDB).陣内_Jinnai 22:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. We should look for a better source for the release dates. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Well that sucks. I thought we had a rationale for Moby Games' use for release dates and publishers... But I can't find anything at FACs or in our archives.
      I'll check out GameSpot to see if they have the info. It might take a sizable chunk of citations though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
      • I could not find a suitable replacement. GameSpot lacked details that Moby Games provided. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

        • ( unfortunatly, they are unreliable. The site is entirely user submitted for its info.陣内_Jinnai 03:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

          • It's irrelevant because I removed the content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:34, 27 April 2011 (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.

Misc

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 article definatly needs some copyediting for removing redundant verboseness and a more active voice. Okay let me rephrase this. This article definably needs to be copyedited. I am half-way through and have done a number of minor edits for clarification or proper grammar and I am certain I'm missing most of them.陣内_Jinnai 21:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the and->while changes (you introduced a while ... bla while.... in one of them), and the first "had" was wrongly removed (past perfect: After a customer _had_ sent, stores pulled); the second one doesn't sound 100 % right in either alternative, but yours sounds "more right"). The other copy edits so far seem fine. -- Nczempin (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Past perfect (and present perfect) should be one of those copyedits to avoid. IMO the phrase "had sent" is overly verbose because simply using "sent" implies the same thing; Toys R Us did not pull them off the shelves until the letter. However, you can go ahead and have someone else check it out. I admit not being the best at fixing those issues.陣内_Jinnai 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, why should past perfect copy edits be avoided? It may imply it (and commonly used throughout WP), but that doesn't mean it's correct grammar: After we had visited our relatives in New York, we flew back to Toronto.. -- Nczempin (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase how put it how it was put to me in my FAC review, it makes the article too verbose and less engaging and ultimately boring too read unless you're really into the subject.陣内_Jinnai 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I disagree with whoever said that. It is certainly not appropriate for an FAC to be rejected only on those grounds. When I read "After I finished eating, I went home", it jars me, while when it is correct, I don't even notice. It is not like it is some fancy not-in-use paradigm, but simply correct written English, as befits a serious encyclopaedia. (befits may be a little posh, though :-) )-- Nczempin (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree and if that is the only major outstanding issue here, I'm not going to give a no vote, however, that seems to be the general consensus of reviewers at FAC.陣内_Jinnai 00:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't change it back, so there would not be a concern by those reviewers. Can you point me to that discussion? Seeing is believing, I must say. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School Rumble/archive2 - first oppose

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Archive 19#Plastic Duck-shooting

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive40#bot option

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive23#What can be done when an "Oppose" asks for copyediting by someone unfamiliar with the article? - this one more describes its overuse as a weakness

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive31#Followup on 500-word FACs.

I know there's more, but that's what I could find. Specifically Walsh, who opposed the nom, mentioned elsewhere to me (i can't find that) that the prose was largely flat due to in large part the passive tense, although some other issues with sentence structure didn't help.陣内_Jinnai 01:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any parts that comment on the past perfect. Passive voice is a different story altogether, it is generally considered (oops :-) to be a problem stylistically. But the two subjects are independent from each other (or, to use my favourite word, orthogonal). I am willing to take the risk of correcting past perfect where I see it necessary; presumably an article that relies very heavily on past perfect (constantly saying "after this had happened, that happened") would other problems, but they wouldn't be solved by "hiding" them through using incorrect grammar. We are straying a little bit off the topic of this article, so if you want to continue the discussion, we should take it to my or your talk page; I'm willing to leave it be, however. -- Nczempin (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (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.

Fan remakes

I realize they are fan remakes and generally not covered, but as it stands right now, given the coerageby RSes I cannot support it without some more dedicated info and probably its own section or sections. There may even be enough for a seperate article (don't know), but I find the dismissal of fan remake as not worthy of more than a mere mention even though many RSes seem to think so as violating WP:NPOV by not giving it proper weight given its coverage.陣内_Jinnai 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The link didn't display any results for me.

I added some refs I found for the two remakes, but the coverage is quite limited in what it describes about the games. What is currently there is what I found in my search from reliable sources.

I also added a mention in the lead. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

[4] Try that. Even ingoring all the "Gilbert would love a MM remake" news articles, there's still a lot of stuff there.陣内_Jinnai 16:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is more helpful. Though most of those are a mix of the Gilbert's recent post mortem , his "love a remake" comment, generic game pages on mainstream sites, and forum/comment postings. I found two more sources, but the coverage is still very limited in my opinion because they mostly say the same thing. Only a few add a little bit here and there. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

My point being there's enough coverage that some of the items can be made up from the primary sources, but only for those remakes they do talk about. Since secondary sources talk about it, we can and should use the primary sources to supliment relevant info, like there development commentary and such. As I mention, the amount of weight that seems relevant is likely a (sub)section, more than passing mention, but not enough for their own article. Any and all remakes could be talked about in that 1 section since none of them seem especially notable; the concept of a fan remake for MM is well covered in the abstract though and leaving it like it is, is not giving it relevant weight to the amount of coverage received.陣内_Jinnai 21:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Though a number of sites covered the remakes, they only covered a bare minimum about them. Maybe outside a few extra sentences from primary sources, I don't think anything more is necessary. Let me know if you have additional sources that I missed though. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC))

2 more for GS.陣内_Jinnai 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are still very minimal. Granted the dissertation is the best source I've seen for MMD, but it doesn't add much to what's already in the article. I'll add content from the dissertation later today. The pilot study discusses the game in terms of gameplay, which really refers to the original. Other than that, it only adds that a remake was made. Regardless, are pilot studies acceptable sources? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Ask at WP:RS/N. Even if the answer is "no", then its still a valid "Further reading" material.陣内_Jinnai 15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vote

I'm currently holding off on a vote ATM. There are a number of issues, but they seem mostly to be minor ones.陣内_Jinnai 22:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I closeed a few sections that didn't seem to have any major outstanding issues. However, as long as this article uses Mobygames as a source I cannot in good faith give this an A-class approval. That said, I'm holding off to see how this will be addressed.陣内_Jinnai 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Voting no - see #FAC consideration? for my reasons why.陣内_Jinnai 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more stuff in Nintendo Power #14

I found a small amount of additional information in Nintendo Power #14 (where the preview was) in its "NES Journal" section, which covered Lucasflim Games and Skywalker Ranch. Here is a brief summary that is related to Maniac Mansion:

• Commentary from the VP in change of Lucasfilm's video game division about what video games should be like and cites Maniac Mansion as an example.
• Short comment from Doug Crockford who was in the process of making the NES version of Maniac Mansion, saying how the NES can do some things faster than what a PC could do.

Here's the full citation (can be used to copypaste right into the article): "NES Journal". Nintendo Power (14). Redmond, WA: Nintendo: 88. July–August 1990. ISSN 1041-9551. OCLC 18893582.

I placed a copy of that page up at imagebin here if anyone is interested (only will be up for at most 2 weeks). –MuZemike 07:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nice find. I'll see about adding this tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror

Looking through the article, I was wondering if it should be part of the HORROR wikiproject. I'm just not sure if it does or not. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's find out. -- Nczempin (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It ultimately depends on whether your WikiProject considers it as such. I mean, does it convey the necessary horror for it to be a horror-related article (IMO on a similar level as Resident Evil or even the earlier Sweet Home)? –MuZemike 06:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a section at the Wikiproject to get their opinions. Link GamerPro64 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it belongs. The topic is a horror parody, which is a sub-genre of horror (as verified here). We could use a horror parody article, though; seems like plenty of results. Horror is not even mentioned at the parody article. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gilbert on making Maniac Mansion - presentation

Gilbert, Ron (January 2011). The Making of Maniac Mansion (Streaming media). Hanover: Game Forum Germany.

Just found this presentation (courtesy of Mixnmojo's reporting) at the Game Forum Germany in January. As 45 minute presentation by Gilbert, its quite indepth and covers a fair few aspects that might come in useful in expanding the development and impact sections. To get to it, select "2011" in the player, then find Gilbert's entry. -- Sabre (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. I read about it on his blog, but didn't think it'd get posted online. I'll try to watch it this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Wow. What. A. Goldmine. Can we use this as a reference somehow? It really expands on and clarifies some points we have in the article. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I asked them if they can provide a more direct link. I'll let you know when I get an answer. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a person who will deal with it, but everybody is really busy with either CeBit or GDC. -- Nczempin (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I'll try to add content today or tomorrow with the current link and we can update the url later. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm a little bit uncomfortable using such an ephemeral reference; linkrot hits videos—particularly Flash videos—harder and faster than any other kind of online material. I wish there was a way to back this up. Anyway, good job on the expansion, GiB. It looks great. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I just found this. That GDC talk finally happened, apparently. Should be useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The summary looks very similar to the speech Gilbert gave at the Game Forum. Maybe when the GDC posts the video, it'll have a more direct link and be similar enough to switch the two out. We'll see. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

http://www.nordmedia.de/mediaserver/GFG/videos/2011/Gilbert_DSL2.mp4 Note that I haven't downloaded this myself, I was merely given the link by the nordmedia people. Let's hope that some sources with text pick up on either this or the GDC version. -- Nczempin (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa that's a big file. Should we link directly to it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Aye, link it directly in the reference in place of the other one, that'll be far more pernament than the other link. It'll change the reference icon automatically so people will know its a download of a video file. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Updated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

"mostly timer-based cutscenes"

I changed the sentence that pretty much said that there were _only_ timer-based cutscenes to "mostly timer-based". Having tried the beginning of the game I know there is at least one cutscene that is event-based. It probably counts as OR, sorry. It would be easy to just take out the "timer-based", but Gilbert talks about the timer thing as one of the things he had learned to improve on for the later games. Since it is obviously not the case that the cutscenes were _exclusively_ timer-based, I introduced the somewhat weasely language. Perhaps one way to deal with it would be to take out the what-based qualification in the first mention of the cutscenes, and talk about it later when his lessons-learned are described. -- Nczempin (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that certain events triggered timers. So maybe that event triggered a timer of 0 seconds. Otherwise, wouldn't it be possible for a bunch of scenes to happen while you stood outside the mansion at the beginning of the game and just did nothing.

Regardless, I don't think the "timer-based" is essential to understanding that section. We can probably remove the phrase all together. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Done. -- Nczempin (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NES BG Music

Shouldn't something about the NES having background music for each protagonist and the Edisons be added? 76.204.123.119 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Was this exclusive to the NES or did every version have something similar?

I did not encounter much about music during my research. If you have a reliable source that mentions that, I guess we can add it in. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

Archive 1