Talk:Platformer/Archive 1

Archive 1

major entry overhaul

Ok, I went in to add a few things here or there, as well as make some cuts, and I pretty much ended up rewriting most of the entry. It's now 3 times as long, and more encyclopedic in nature. I tried to focus on significant evolutionary landmarks and historical firsts in genre, many of which are quite obscure and lacking their own wiki entries.

I also reorganized the article quite a bit. While I kept the 2D and 3D distinction I also broke it up into other evolutionary steps like scrolling, multi-directional scrolling, pre M64 3D, post M64 3D, etc. I'm not 100% positive about every one of these firsts (especially Wonderboy in Monster Land being the first raster-based Platformer with multi-directional scrolling that follows the character), but they are certainly all much earlier than anything the article suggested before.

I included the first fully 3D polygonal platformer I knew of (Alpha Waves, 1990. If anyone knows an earlier game that's clearly a platformer, please include it), cleaned up some factual inaccuracies and tempered a bit of the fanboyism (focusing heavily on Nintendo games regardless of significance, ignoring important games by others). I removed NiGHTs, because it has nothing to do with the platform genre, and I tweaked the definition to not include things like collecting items and killing enemies that are not defining characteristics of the genre.

I also split the 2D era into the single screen/classic arcade era and the scrolling platformer because it's easily as distinct of a shift as the transition to 3D. Also expended these sections a bit. Brought up Major Havoc and Jump Bug. The single screen section could use a little expanding. I'm not that well versed in those

One of the main things I did was to add a section for subgenres. I included the existing Isometric section in this, and I added a section on run and guns, hop and bops, Prince of Persia derivatives, puzzle platformers, and Bubble Bobble-style games. I hope that some of these spark some discussion. In some cases I didn't know quite what to call these games and I'm open for suggestions.

For reference, the earlier article can be viewed [[1]] here.

Defintion of Platform Game

I'd like to suggest that Earthworm Jim, Jak and Ratchet and Clank are not Platform games. (and I'm sure a few others). Go down the list of nearly all the games listed and in nearly all of them the player's main activity is not running around shooting things with a gun.

I think that is a significant distinction between action games and shooters. Earthworm Jim get's grouped with Mario because he's cartoony but he belongs grouped with Mega Man, Turrican, Metroid and other 3rd person shooters (or platform shooters).

Every one of those 2D games from Metroid to Megaman. The term "platform shooter" is better applied to games like Contra and Metal Slug where the platform elements are neutered and while present, are not the focus of the gameplay. But even those games are yet another sub-genre of platform games.

You might have a point about Jak and Ratchet though.

Timeline of platform games image

I have created and uploaded to Wikipedia an image representing the timeline of significant platform games, in the case it could be of use. Image:Timeline of platform games.jpg

Grumpy Troll (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC).

I like it, I hope it sees use. Andre (talk) 20:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Much better than the one you showed me earlier. Nice work! Personally, I'd remove Earthworm Jim and insert Mega Man (the first one -1987). I'd also remove Crash and insert something else, but I can't think of any recent (within the last two generations) platform games that really stick out besides Mario. I only make this suggestion because as a Timeline showing the change of platform games, it strikes me as odd you'd have two from the same year in it. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. K1Bond007 21:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both for your positive comments. I did indeed put in more effort than in the previous version, which was more a demonstration of the idea than a serious attempt at a usable image in the article. I generally based it on the Chronology of significant platform games, which explains the appearance of Earthworm Jim and the absence of Mega Man, though the insertion of Crash Bandicoot was my choice, as Crash somewhat became the unofficial mascot of Sony for its PlayStation console in the console's heyday, and the Crash Bandicoot series of games was both critically and commercially successful at the time (under Naughty Dog's paw, after which the development of the franchise's following games was handed on to another studio).

I may have difficulty making modifications to the image in its current state, as I produced it with software incapable of handling layers and have no access to such image editing software currently. Appropriately changing the file would require makeshift edition and saving it in a lossy compression format, for its size to stay reasonable, albeit this would result in a considerable decrease in quality. Unless someone has the software and skills required to patch up the image, it may have to stay as it is (though maybe I will start again from scratch to modify it as you deem fit).

Grumpy Troll (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC).

Though I agree about Mega Man, I think it's fine for the article as is. I am going to put it in. Andre (talk) 05:21, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see how Spyro is really relevant in the timeline, so I suggest putting Sunshine in its place and listing either the Jak series or the Ratchet & Clank series/games in. Or maybe just putting Spyro out and putting a Zelda Game (Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask or even Windwaker) But that comes to 'Were those platformers or adventure games?'. - RPharazon 19:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Zelda games aren't really platformers, since they have a complexity (many different items/weapons, buying things, talking to people, etc.) to them that isn't just about running and jumping. Not that there's anything wrong with running and jumping. --Sum0 21:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you count Zelda II, but do we really want to? --Shadow Hog 22:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the timeline should be reserved for major changes in gameplay or design, as the chronology already lists a lot of games that are minor variations. Earthworm Jim, Crash Bandicoot and Spyro should be removed, perhaps replaced with Castlevania(RPG elements), Mega Man, and Prince of Persia or Another World(rotoscoping)

For graphics software that can handle layered images, check out the GIMP. Jacoplane 22:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Creating montages of copyrighted images is very much something we should't be doing, see Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Collages. ed g2s • talk 12:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

General 'Significant Platform Game' Concerns

I have a few problems with the list of significant games. First of all, it is not very readable because of the wide variability of name and comment lengths. Would a table with separator rows for decades and columns for name, publisher/year, and reason for listing be better? Also, Space Panic is listed out of order and lacks a page entirely. It preceded Donkey Kong by a year, but this article's first paragraph in the 2D Era section makes what appears to be a false claim of originality. (note: no jumping, just ladders and platforms) The widely popular Lode Runner is not mentioned at all, though it really had no momentous improvements over Space Panic. I'm more concerned with the ommission of the games Metroid, Super Metroid, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Super Mario World, and possibly games like Bionic Commando or Metal Slug. Also, there are games listed without reason and contradictory or incorrect reasons listed for entries. Ex: Alice was 'dark' and had 3rd-person shooting, but Conker and Ratchet & Clank are listed as being 'firsts'. Further discussion would be appreciated. --Anon

Psychonauts

Under the "Chronology of significant plaform games", Psychonauts is listed. Is this game really notable? Thunderbrand 15:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have under my eyes PC Gamer UK's review of Psychonauts, ending with the words "there are more new ideas in here than a hundred Half-Life2s. It's wonderful. Please, have a go." The review's conclusion is that the game is "exquisite, imaginative and hilarious" and overall "mindblowing", this acclaim reflected by a rating of 89%. Grumpy Troll (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC).

Yeah, but notable for doing what? Thunderbrand 17:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This review doesn't seem to agree. "Psychonauts utilizes a ton of well-known gaming conventions, and while art style and originality and humor make up for a lot, you can't help but think you've seen this game before." "...the core gameplay is solid, just marred with too many clichés and collecting." --24.114.252.183 19:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Notable for provoking a feeling of déjà vu, according to that review. Having not played the game myself, I shall leave up to those of us who have the task of reaching a consensus on whether or not Psychonauts is notable enough to appear on the list. (May I say, though, that there are many titles which I believe should be removed from the list on the basis of notability; am I the only one to feel thus?) Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 20:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC).

No, you're not. A lot of the 3D titles especially are grasping at straws for justification of notability. PoP:Sands of Time wasn't even the first 3D Prince of Persia!--24.114.252.183 20:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I do believe, however, that The Sands of Time is noticeable for bringing innovation into the platform game genre with its gameplay, the sense of freedom it gives to the player, and the level design to suit. The title was critically acclaimed and for many the modernization of a genre which was beginning to tire and become tired. Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 21:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC).

Psychonauts is my favorite game to come out recently (along with Katamari Damacy). The notable thing about the game is the incredible artwork and story. I think it's truly beyond anything Nintendo has ever done, and brings platform games closer to the LucasArts style adventure games (which are not really commercially viable any more). I think it belongs on the list. Jacoplane 22:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Psychonauts certainly stands above other recent platform games, if only for its originality. Significant indeed. --Sum0 12:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Thunderbrand, you know Tim Schafer? Did you read Gamespot and IGN reviews? Did you compare Psychonauts reception in the gaming press with other multi-console platform games in this generation? --Mateusc 19:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Pshyconauts just came out this year so it's legacy in gaming really has yet to be defined, however I think I'd putit with Earthworm Jim in notability issues in that it really takes a stale gameplay mechanic and makes it fresh again purely using a surealistic enviornment Deathawk 03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Super mario sunshine screenshot

I think this screenshot either needs to be improved or replaced. Granted, it is a good representation of platform games in the 3D era, but it's a photo taken off a screen, and it has the gamespot logo on it. Personally, I feel a screenshot from Super Mario 64 would be better. This screenshot shows mario jumping from platform to platform, I think the point of 3D is that this is no longer a requirement as the genre has evolved. Something like Image:N64 Super Mario 64 start.jpg perhaps? Jacoplane 22:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree and I made the change, although I did so with a different image because your suggestion is technically already on the page (see timeline). K1Bond007 22:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate all the contributors to the article which has greatly grown as the subject of a successful collaboration, an efficient GCOTW indeed by any standards. (I am no authoritative figure albeit it had to be said.) Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 17:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC).

In my opnion, the article only fail to didn't talk about 2D platform games are alive in Game Boy Advance. --Mateusc 19:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I dare say you mean "CONGRATURATION", myself. Like, that one they had lying around the video game make place. (Freakin' stupid cheap waste of my time! They're being jerks!) --Shadow Hog 20:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it did pretty good. Thunderbrand 02:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The First 3D Platform game

The article contained the statement that Mario 64 was not the first 3D platform game, yet did not clarify what the first one was, so it has been reverted until a reference is provided. Shawnc 10:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We need more info on that "Bug" game or any other ones. Shawnc 03:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It was for Saturn and it came out in 95. There was a sequel that also came out before Mario 64 called Bug Too!. That's all I can tell you. K1Bond007 03:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I found out that Clockwork Knight was a Saturn launch game in Dec. 1994 in Japan. It contained 2D sprites on top of 3D backgrounds though. Shawnc 04:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Clockwork Knight and its sequel are more 2.5D than 3D, though they might arguably still be notable. Still fun, though, particularly number 2.

Anyway, BUG! was a 3D platformer that, AFAIK, launched with the Saturn. Now, while it wasn't completely free-roaming like Super Mario 64 was (it restricted you to set paths), it was a platformer, and it definitely involved going in and out of the Z-Axis at some point or another. The fact that it came out before Super Mario 64 kinda makes it closer to the first 3D platformer.

Then there's Jumping Flash!, of whose existence I only JUST recently learned of. Effectively, it's another 3D platformer, that launched with the PlayStation. I don't know too much about it, but it involved the Y-axis an awful lot. Its sequel, Jumping Flash! 2, actually came out in Japan before Super Mario 64 hit the scene, though it came out on or around the same time in the US.

I'll see if I can't squeeze this in the article, if it's not already. --Shadow Hog 17:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody give a reason why I, Robot (1983 3d arcade machine) is not a platform game? To adopt the language of this article, the main player has to jump from and to platforms while fighting enemies and must walk over red squares to turn them blue, which I don't see as significantly different to collecting objects. - ThomasHarte 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And I would add Sega's Congo Bongo, which is the first thing I thought of when the article mentioned 3D platform games. It is almost like a 3D version of Donkey Kong, and it came out only about a year after Donke Kong. (Don't know when that was in relation to I Robot).Eric B 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Congo Bongo is arguable, but not true 3D, of course. I, Robot is not a platform game. Jumping is automatic and you can't miss. There is zero focus on hopping on platform, but instead on coloring in a playfield. I would submit that the first true 3D platformer is Alpha Waves. It's a fully 3D game based entirely on platform hopping. It's very abstract and there's no jump button (instead the platforms are bouncy eliminating the need), but it's still a 3D platformer, and it was released in 1990.

Bug!

Shadow Hog posted: "BUG! does not have 3D models; where are you getting that?"

From the developer's page on Bug!: "All of the levels and characters are rendered in glorious 3D, allowing complete freedom of movement." -- Realtime Associates[2] Shawnc 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the developer meant "pre-rendered" by the word "rendered"? Shawnc 07:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Wording issues

Let's refrain from using unclear, ambiguous wordings such as "more truly 3D". Shawnc 06:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Paragraph

The last edit deleted this paragraph:

The advent of 3D platformers brought a change in the goals of some platformers. In most 2D platformers, the player only had to reach a single goal to complete a level, but in many 3D platformers, each level had to be combed for collectable items such as puzzle pieces (Banjo-Kazooie) or stars (Super Mario 64). This allowed for more efficient use of large 3D areas and rewarded the player for thorough exploration, but some found collecting countless trinkets more tedious than challenging. Donkey Kong 64 was widely criticized because of how the player had to frequently rotate between five different characters in order to pick up different colors of bananas and other items. However, not all 3D platformers were like this, most notably Crash Bandicoot. It remained true to the 2D tradition by using fairly linear levels, each with a goal at the end.

Is their any justification for this? I thought it was fine. Anyone else have any thoughts? Kertrats | Talk 13:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine, put it back. Andre (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

the paragraph has a high sony bias. Any nintendo lover with half an eye would know that. 67.138.42.251 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Angus

Conker VS Ratchet

In the Chronology list, Ratchet & Clank is mentioned as the first to combine platforming with third-person shooting. O RLY? Conker's Bad Fur Day had that way before R&C.--Boredalot 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Also, I removed R&C: Up Your Arsenal from the list simply because I was playing Jazz 2 online six years before UYA came out. --Boredalot 17:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Alice is first mature platformer?

From the article: American McGee's Alice (Rogue Entertainment, 2000) - The first major "dark", M-rated platformer. Shadow Man came out the previous year and I think would qualify as a platformer. Ace of Sevens 06:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Monty On The Run

Whilst I won't argue with including the Monty Mole saga in a list of significant platform games, it might be better to use the first MM game Wanted: Monty Mole rather than Monty On The Run unless there's a reason that this one should feature ahead of it. Does anyone disagree? - Zagrebo 18:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (signed this a day late, apologies)

Why no Isometric Games?

This article seems to overlook the isometric 3d platform games that were extremely popular in the 1980s, for example 3D Ant Attack and the various Ultimate Play the Game hits such as Knight Lore. Is there a general consensus that these do not count as platform games for some reason? - ThomasHarte 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Strictly-speaking, Ant Attack is an isometric action game and Knight Lore is an isometric arcade adventure. Both have some very simple platforming elements (ie you jump on top of things) but that is not the genre they should be categorised in. - Zagrebo 14:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[Non-]significant platform games

I think the list of significant platform games has been embellished a little and is no longer objective. In particular:

• Technician Ted - wasn't this just another Jet Set Willy clone?
• Gex: Enter the Gecko - the game was poorly received and barely sold
• Banjo-Kazooie - why is this significant at all? Memorability isn't significance, and this is just yet another of Rare's N64 platform game cycle
• Prince of Persia 3D - this appears to be cited as significant for being insignificant?
• Conker's Bad Fur Day - obviously not one of the first platformers to combine third person shooting - Tomb Raider did that five years earlier - and not one of the first "adult-aimed" platformers given the mature nature of Prince of Persia, Flashback, etc. If anything I'd call it deliberately juvenile
• Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus - "The first platform game to use cel-shaded graphics", why don't we also have "the first platform game with 32 pixel high sprites" or "the first platform game with Gouraud shading"?
• Ratchet & Clank: Up Your Arsenal - surely good review scores aren't enough to be called significant?
• Doukutsu Monogatari - since when does repeating genuinely significant work and giving it away for free make that work significant?
• Psychonauts - why is this significant?

Perhaps the best thing would be to make the criteria for inclusion more obvious? I think that a "significant" platform game must be either highly influential or ubiquitous. What do others think? - ThomasHarte 11:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the first five that you mentioned, as well as Ratchet & Clank. However, I think the other ones are significant (except Psychonauts, which I know nothing about, but I imagine it must be signficant in some way). Regarding Doukutsu, I think it's signficant in being freeware. As far as Sly Cooper, perhaps we should figure out the first platform games with different forms of graphics, as you say. That would require adding to the list, not deleting items from it. Andre (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blinx had a time-manipulating feature similar to Prince of Persia's, but Blinx was released a year earlier. Wouldn't that be a better example, even if it was more exploration than action? 167.206.128.33 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Technician Ted - wasn't this just another Jet Set Willy clone?

Not really. There was an innovative (arguably arcade-adventure) element to it involving Ted having to do tasks (represented by hitting two boxes) in a certain order that added something new to the platforming genre at the time. It made the game quite complicated, though (for me, anyway) and I think that is why few (if any) platform games followed in its footsteps - most in fact preferred to be bona-fide Jet Set Willy copyists of the "explore the rooms and collect all the objects" variety -- Zagrebo 14:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Amiga

Apparently according to this article, the Amiga never existed! Nor Gods, Soccer Kid, Turrican 2, Superfrog or Magic Pockets. Oh well.

Failed "good article" nomination (DEC. 2006, obsolete)

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 28, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is written reasonably, however, there are a few issues which I noted throughout the article:

• Parts of the article read in a conversational or essay type form, eg It wasn't a title really influenced by existing genre conventions or and indeed nearly all of them do.
• The article is absolutely full of weasel words, thus failing to meet criteria 1.c of the GA guidelines. Most of these are not referenced. For example:
  • "Some felt that the blur associated"
  • "To this date, arguably no platform game has been completely free from this type of criticism"
  • "Psychonauts is regarded by some as the best"
  • "often regarded as the pinnacle of this style"
• Spelling, punctuation and grammar is good.

2. Factually accurate?: The article fails on several occasions to provide references for some major statements.

• The one that stands out the most is "The first 3D platform game was probably a French computer game called Alpha Waves". Making claims like this without proper referencing has a hugely negative impact on the article. This, along with the fact there are many other unsourced statements, means that the article fails criteria 2.a of the GA guidelines.
• Heavy usage of the word "probably" is indicative of the lack of references.
• Although most referencing is constant, a few references are given as embedded HTML, and should be matched up with the format followed by the majority of the article.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.183.1 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

3. Broad in coverage?: I think that the article meets both guidelines of criteria 3 under the GA guidelines. It has a decent run-through of the topic involved and does not include unnecessary trivia. However, a cleanup may be useful.

4. Neutral point of view?: Most points demonstrate a NPOV. However, as mentioned before, weasel words run throughout the article and need to be removed to provide a completely balanced view.

5. Article stability? Article is stable, and no evidence of edit wars in the history. Meets section 5 criteria of he GA guidelines.

6. Images?: All images are tagged and most have good captions. Well related into article and demonstrative of individual sections of the article. All have FU rationale under screenshots. Meets section 6 criteria of the GA guidelines.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Mouse Nightshirt 14:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I've had a look at the article but the main issue I can see is a lack of citations in parts. Have a look at the list an I'll try adding some fact tags. There shouldn't be a mass of them but it'll need a few

• It is well written?

(a) the prose is excellent fantastically written article, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading.

(b) the structure is logical, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; Done where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); Done

(c) It generally complies with the Wikipedia Manual of style; specifically, it follows the Article lead guideline (unless it is too short to have a lead), Article layout guideline, Jargon guideline, Words to avoid using guideline, How to write about Fiction guideline, and List incorporation. Done

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.  Done

• It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and while the use of inline citations are not mandatory, they are highly desirable, in particular for longer articles. Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are necessary for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

• It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic;  Done

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). Done

It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;  Done

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.  Done

• It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.  Done

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions; Done

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.  Done

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale NES Super Mario Bros.png, Alpha_waves.gif, Bug for sega saturn.png, N64 Super Mario 64 shifting sand land.jpg, TheLostVikings.png, Contra (arcade game).png, Another World 1.PNG, Dodokodon ingame.png and Knight lore 4.gif has no fair use rationale

I know the fair use bit looks a lot but that and the cites are the main prolbems. The OR is mainly for me as I need to check a few points before I sign them off but I'm pretty sure they'll be alright.

It's fantastically written and should this pass GA I'd consider nominating for FA straight away but the cites and pics need sorting firs. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want. BigHairRef | Talk 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise. I can take some original screenshots of those games for fair use purposes. A few of the things marked original research are simply intuitive statements (like, for example, it's obvious that a genre is not defined at its onset; logically it cannot be), but I'll try to bolster some of the other things with a few more refs.Frogacuda 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, BHR, I'm just going to mention one more thing. The lead should have an image. Take a look at almost any GA or FA, and you'll see that they have an image at the top-right of the article. I know that platform games are a very broad category, but surely you can find an image that works regardless of type. Just a suggestion. Green451 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I took new screens for all images that I didn't add personally and added fair use rationales, so that should be fine now. I added some more refs. I have a few more to take care of, but I'll do it tomorrow.Frogacuda 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The prose is terrible, every paragraph is choppy and does'nt lead on from the previous example: Donkey Kong had a sequel in Donkey Kong Junior.(makes no sense) There was a third game in the series, but it wasn't a platformer.(do we need to know that?) It was succeeded by the 2-player cooperative Mario Bros.(new content introduced with no flow at all) This title, along with Chack'n Pop, laid the ground work for Bubble Bobble,(reference) which, in turn, influenced many of the single-screen platformers that would follow (see: Comical Action Game for more info).(see also shouldn't be in mid sentence, needs a reference also.) M3tal H3ad 07:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is the same as saying "They had a savior in Jesus." It's a perfectly normal way of saying that thought. Like, if I say "You have a friend in me," it doesn't mean that I have consumed a companion of yours and he literally dwells within me. I'm a professional writer and copy editor, and there's nothing wrong with that sentence. Also, you say there's no flow, and yet, it follows the series game by game completely logically, and leads into the way that the CAG sub-genre emerged. Donkey Kong 3 is mentioned only to explain how the evolution leads directly from Jr into Mario Bros. Parenthetical statements do, generally, fall in mid-sentence, also. You're just wrong on this one. Frogacuda 16:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Right quick summary of where we're up to. Firstly I'm afriad I'll have to disagree with you M3tal H3d. I think the whole thing is one of the best written articles I've seen in some time. (I've only been registered for a few months but I've been around longer). THe main problem is the technichal details which are no less important but make the article more verifyable etc. As far as the pic was concerned I was using the rationale in the criteria that not having them dosen't necessarily prevent GA but had it been a FA nom I'd definitely have agreed with you. Right to business.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Minor point remaining is the {{who}}tag in the Platformers into the present section leading to the '?' for 2c. I'd advise binning it personally it's a bit weasally. Only remaining real issue is the lack of a definition for a proto platformer. All we're told is that they came before platformers and not what features they lack that platform, a link to a wiki article would do although a citation would be musch better along with a brief description. I'd advise binning it personally it's a bit weasally. Otherwise all issues sorted. I'm impressed with the amount of work that's gone in tbh after the number of cites that were needed. The only real improvement I would suggest would be a slightly larger lead image, a slightly more dispassionate (NPOV) summaries for the pics and add something like for illustrational purposes only to the fair use images. If that were done I'd seriously suggest nominating for FA. I'll take a look back soon! BigHairRef | Talk 17:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Proto-platformer" wasn't intended as a proper term for a genre, it's just the term I used for very early ancestors of platformers that don't really fall into any other categories (it's short for prototypical platformer, obviously). To be honest, I coined the term myself assuming that its meaning would be easily and intuitively understood. Is it really a problem?Frogacuda 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a major one but strictly speaking it should mean that the GA nomination fails on the OR front as you've just said you've coined the term yourself. It's confusing to me at the very least and I've been playing games for 90% of my life. The problem was I looked at it and thought right he means a platformer with bits missing but if you've never heard of a platform game you might wander what it's on about. I'd feel better about having it changed or defined a little better but I'll still rate as GA. Just from an outside viewpoint, IMO you'll get no where near FA with that in despite the quality of the artilce as a whole, it'll bring the rest of it down. It'll save work in the future if you change it now but good work on the article. Go for FA. BigHairRef | Talk 00:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)