Talk:Space Giraffe

Video games Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (3 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (12 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Game Reviews

I think it would be best to list the reviews in the "Reception" section alphabetically, rather than "highest-to-lowest" or "lowest-to-highest," or by review date, to eliminate any possible bias it may present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.72.232 (talk) 15:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why it would engender bias, ordering by score clearly shows how varied the reception has been which is a defining trait of this title. I'd like it to stay this way unless there's a clear wikipedia precedent or a the point about bias is made a little clearer Gravy 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of bias, why should the highest scores be listed at the top? Why not the lowest scores at the top? I think that introduces bias. Also...

Each publication uses a different ratings system, so a 7 from GameSpot means something different than a 7 from IGN. If all publications used the exact same criteria to rate the game, then yes, you could make an argument that listing reviews in an order gives readers a fair comparison between reviews. But in this instance, it doesn't.

GameSpot Review Guidelines: http://www.gamespot.com/misc/reviewguidelines.html IGN Review Guidelines: http://games.ign.com/ratings.html

Using these two examples, GameSpot weighs a games originality heavily with its rating. An extremely good game that isn't original can't score anything better than a 9. IGN, on the other hand, can give an extremely good game that isn't original a 10. So their numbers don't line up.

Here is the section about originality on the GameSpot review guidelines:

We Take Time and Originality Into Account We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time. In general, GameSpot does not favor highly derivative games, which mostly recycle elements from other, previous games. Instead, we appreciate original concepts and ideas that are executed well. This also means that each time an excellent game is released, it becomes incrementally more difficult for another game to be as good in the grand scheme of things.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.72.232 (talk) 15:37, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand the bias point, what would it bias the reader towards?

The other stuff? Yep I understand that the criteria different reviewers use are different per outlet and to be honest tend to vary by reviewer as well. Even so if you take some time to look at some of the review aggregator sites (gamerankings.com and metacritic.com) you'll see that the average of those reviews and the spread of points do give you a broad idea of how a game has been received. As I said the "marmite" reaction to SG is a defining trait of this game/

I think the way review box is laid out now conveys a general idea of the wide range of the game's critical reception. Change it back to alphabetical and you lose that, the only other information you're communicating is you can put things in alphabetical order :D I think it'd be a shame to lose that information and without further elaboration on the bias point am having difficulty understanding what harm it does Gravy 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameindustry.com review

Just added this and noticed it had already been added / deleted.

I got the review from gamerankings.com and assumed if it was a good enough source for them it was also good enough for wikipedia. Gravy 12:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Anyone have a problem with the re-add?[reply]

Review

Multiple people on the Xbox forums and elsewhere have confirmed that SG got a 2.0 from OXM, but to upload a scan would at least violate the xbox forum guidelines. Because of this, I think it's credible -- though we should cite the OXM issue, not the forum that confirms it. White 720 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially as the forum thread in question does not contain the text that precedes the citation. That is, "Official Xbox Magazine gave Space Giraffe a 2/10 rating, stating "You'll frequently die because you couldn't pick out the pulsating assassin from the warped playfield floating over the throbbing LSD nightmare that is the background, which makes this game uniquely aggravating."".

The only thing from that bit mentioned on the whole of the three-page thread is the original score out of ten. With regards to uploading a scan or a transcript, I'm not certain about any legalities of such activity, but the Xbox forum guidelines do not apply here. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup

Just noting that I've done a lot of reorg and cleanup of this article - mostly stripping the achievements and the reference allusions out - as I think once we get a few more reviews in place, and scoop out more development details from Minter's blog, we can get this title up to a GA quickly. --Masem 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows version

gilesgoat of Llamasoft has a long rant on why there will not soon be a Windows version of Space Giraffe here, specifically in response to this Wikipedia article. Until there's any concrete info about a Windows version we should leave it out of the article. White 720 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]