Talk:Periscope (arcade game)

On Who Created Periscope

The issue of the origin of Periscope is still currently unresolved. I wrote an article on all the current available sources regarding Periscope as either a Namco or a Sega release initially. The main source cited for it as a Namco game in this article, the Tweet by @onionsoftware, is not conclusive as it comes from secondary literature (cited in the blog post below).

https://thehistoryofhowweplay.wordpress.com/2017/06/16/who-created-periscope/

Obviously not being accredited I won't use the blog post as a citation. My main concern is in how to approach this ambiguity in regards to the article. I don't believe the current state accurately reflects the information on hand and dual status as publishers/developers are usually not separated as they are in this article.

In additional, there are some needless pieces in the article as well. The reference to the book is needed especially when uncited, the cited claim that Masaya Nakamura developed Periscope himself is not actually mentioned in the cited resource, and other sources have countered Rosen's claim of it being the first quarter-play amusement machine (probably the first being the quiz games like IQ Computer and Computer Quiz).

Ambiguity

The following bulleted list was written by Red Phoenix here in response to my barnstar-bejeweled inquiry.

• We don’t actually know much about Namco’s model at all. No reception, and barely any press, just the one media release in Cashbox and a few pictures of it floating around the Internet. Unfortunately we can only take Namco’s word on 1965, but video game companies in general did not keep quality records that reach the Internet like they do today, a problem I’ve encountered in other video game articles I’ve written. The Cashbox source is from 1967 and talks about it being a new game, but that could very well mean new to the English-speaking world, or for export - who knows, they weren’t terribly clear either.
• Related to that, no one’s really sure how Sega got the idea, if they stole or licensed it from Namco or what - there is only speculation that it “may be this” or “may be that”. Rosen has said he designed it, but two issues here: he doesn’t make any mention of Namco’s version ever, and I’m inclined to believe he may have come up with the concept but he’s not the “designer” like Nakamura would have been. I’m trying to find a translation of an interview from the book “Sega Arcade History”, but I’d say it’s more likely Sega’s designer of the game was Hisashi Suzuki (not to be confused with the one from Square Enix). Again, though, I don’t have a source for that yet.
• Sega’s version, not Namco’s, was on display in 1966 in the next Cashbox source. Sega’s version was also on exhibition in 1967 in France. It was a 3-player cabinet. The source understanding is that the single player version was made for export since the 3-player version usually had to be fitted into a space - a poster picture from the 3-player version notes the machine at over 13 feet long, so that would be very impractical to export.
• I removed the release years from the box because we don’t have sources, at least in Namco’s case, to say for certain when it was released. Calling it a Japan-only release may also be wrong since the 1967 Cashbox article talks about Nakamura being willing to export it. Although the sources certainly indicate how important the game was to Sega, it didn’t make sense to me to list one manufacturer and not the other in the infobox.

@Red Phoenix: That's really good. I'm hoping there's some more informational shakedown you can do, and if you can't, then some of these issues should be made into prose or even Notes. You did such a good job at describing the controversy and clarifying some nuance in the prose, but it's still kinda confusing about Sega's involvement. This is such a big "in your face" issue that will trip up a detailed reader, so you should continue it into the prose as you have.

In other articles, I've described some minor inconsistencies and ambiguities among sources, in the form of Notes like here. But this is all encompassing. In the case of not knowing the release date of Super Mario Bros., the controversy is described in detail in prose and also summarized for quick reference like in infoboxes down in Notes.— Smuckola(talk) 00:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ll have another look within the next few days. Stressful days at work this week are leaving me little time for Wikipedia at the moment. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I found this photo on Getty Images, from an 1969 London amusement machine importing exhibition that shows both games. I don't know what's the policy on using Getty photos, so I'm just linking. Grath26 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grath26 (talk • contribs)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Periscope (arcade game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll give a more detailed review shortly, but overall it looks quite well done. Namcokid47 (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's do this thing. Let me know if you disagree with something here and we can discuss it.

Lead

1. I think "Nakamura Manufacturing Co. and Sega Enterprises, Ltd." could just be shortened to "Nakamura Manufacturing" and "Sega Enterprises" respectively.

• • Respectfully disagree here. Part of the reason for the suffixes is that Sega Enterprises would later have both Sega Enterprises, Inc. in North America and Sega Enterprises, Ltd. in Japan. Granted, that's a couple of years down the road, but leaving the suffix helps to remove confusion. And if we leave it for one, I think it's just good for consistency to leave it for the other. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries here. I'm not as knowledgeable about the history of Sega compared to Namco, so I was unaware of this. Thanks. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

1. Change "1965 (Namco, claimed)" to just "1965 (Namco)".

• • Complete as requested. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

History

1. "...better known as Namco," - this should be changed to "...later known as Namco." The Namco name wouldn't be used until 1972.

• • Fixed. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. "...and at the Hotel Equipment Exhibition in Paris in October 1967." This needs a source.

• • It is sourced; the tail of that sentence applies with the next inline citation, and I don't see a need to excessively duplicate it. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

1. "equivalent to $2 in 2018." - I'd suggest putting this in parentheses, like this -> ($2 in 2018).

• • Parentheses added. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There were other minor errors in the article a while ago, but I've corrected those already so I didn't bother mentioning them here. Overall, you did an excellent job with this. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just wanted to point out that the Oxford English Dictionary does not consider electromechanical a hyphenate, nor does wikipedia’s own electromechanics article. As with many pairings of two words to define a new concept, it appears this one started as a hyphenate and has now just become a single word. Indrian (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My dearest apologies on this, I'll remove this from my review. Thanks! Namcokid47 (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hello! Just a quick comment - I don't think this sentence is easy to understand (what is "rooftops"?) and it isn't cited: "It has been speculated that the original version built by Namco may have been a custom model for rooftops, a year prior to the mass-produced model." Cavie78 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Noted as "department store rooftops". Also, it is cited to the next inline citation, again. Citation not duplicated to avoid unnecessary repetition. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Namcokid47: All concerns addressed. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Namcokid47 (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

All the issues I've brought up in the article have been fixed in a rather swiftly time frame, and the article itself looks well-written, properly sourced with reliable references, and passes all the criteria. I'd say this article officially passes. Fantastic work, buddy! Also a warm thanks to everyone for correcting me on my mistakes, I appreciate it. I'll start the process of stating it as a Good Article. Namcokid47 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Move to Periscope (video game)

@Steel1943: Can you explain why this page was moved inaccurately? While Periscope falls under the video games WikiProject, Periscope is NOT a video game. There’s nothing “video” about it. It is an electromechanical game, much like a pinball machine, and we don’t consider those video games, either. The cited guideline unfortunately in this case has led to inaccuracy. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Red Phoenix: Ah, you are right. Gimme a minute... Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Red Phoenix: Should be all reverted now. Guess I got a bit mislead by the guideline I quoted (meant to quote WP:NCVGDAB) and assumed all articles with "(arcade game)" disambiguators were video games. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)