Talk:Breakout 2000
 | Breakout 2000 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 9, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Breakout 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 01:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this one on. Good to see some love for the Jaguar, and Looks like a solid article at the outset. I'll provide some comments shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Index
This is an issue I think is directly relevant to the GAN.
This is an issue I think is indirectly relevant, but worth addressing.
This is just a personal preference or comment that could help.
Article
All in all the article is in great shape. You have a good skill of locating and paraphrasing older sources and using an eclectic style of sources that provides proper context for games, particularly in the development section of the article.
Some initial thoughts from me:
"garnered" -> "recieved an"; just a more accessible word choice.
Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The lead summarises the development well, but covers the reception with a single sentence. It may be useful to provide a summary to have the lead genuinely cover the content of the article. My approach is usually "Upon release, X recieved average reviews, with praise directed by critics to A and B, and criticism to the game's C and D." But whatever works for you!
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
"Perdue recounted the game's creation and history in a 2018 interview." - Bit of a show not tell principle here. If Perdue's interview provides important context and already supports the content in the section as citations, the interview in itself isn't necessary to mention unless there's something notable about it.
- Done -- I removed that line. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
"...full freedom during development," - could clarify we mean creative freedom from the publisher for clarity. Not that I think any reader would think Purdue was at risk of being imprisoned by Atari.
- Done -- Perdue was given complete freedom, not full freedom x_x. I changed the line now Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
"serving as basis for Breakout 2000" > "serving as the basis"
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The ST Report [1] and perhaps other sources can help provide important context that the June 1995 'Fun n Games' Day was a media event at the Atari Sunnyvale Headquarters for producers and developers to showcase upcoming titles to the media.
- Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Apropos of nothing, and no action needed, but it looks like Classic Gaming was not quite right, because unbeknownst to the mainstream, ICD had a limited publishing run for AirCars for the Jaguar in 1997 after Breakout 2000 was released, making Telegames the last publisher standing only at the end of 1997.
- Done -- I changed the line and it now read like this: "By this time, Telegames was one of the last remaining software publishers for the Jaguar". Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there no reliable source for the release date? The Allgame source has the month but not the date. The Issuu cited source no longer works. That leaves two Atari blogs with conflicting accounts of what the release date was...
- Done -- OK so, i managed to find a Silicon Times Report issue where it states that it was released that week. The Atari Gaming Headquarters listed the release date as December 10 (between December 9-13, 1996), meaning that it was published on Tuesday. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The NexGam citation is a source of ambiguous reliability and the text doesn't explain the reason for its mixed outlook. It could easily be kept and expanded or removed either way as a source that isn't high quality.
- Done -- I expanded upon what the neXGam reviewer said. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The 'Legacy' section is well written and sourced but largely focuses on the work of Perdue after the release of Breakout 2000, which has little relevance to the game itself and not quite the point of a 'legacy' section under the manual of style. Is there any connection to the performance or success of the game and the later work of Perdue? Otherwise I would probably lean to editing down this section.
- Done -- I removed details regarding Mario Perdue's works after Breakout 2000, and solely focused on his three other Jaguar projects that he did after BK2. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Vrxces:I'll get around your comments tomorrow after work! Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Vrxces:OK. I managed to get around your comments. Let me know for anything else! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- Nope! Looks great. This is a short but well-written and comprehensive article that covers all the bases and uses its sources very well. I'll finalise the GAN now. Thanks :) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)