Jump to content

Talk:BattleSphere

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't almost this entire article uncited conjecture

[edit]

From the rewrite I've seen, almost all the article now consists of is one authors uncited history of this game. It's full of unreferenced points, now even added as notes, e.g. the Thunderbird mention, It's based on Babylon 5 ships, it's production was limited due to a shortage of components etc. Where are all these sourced????

It's screaming WP:or to me. StraightDown (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say, after reading the few citations there are, to the FAQ and development log, almost all the text has been copied into this article and so risks copyright infringement charges. StraightDown (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff mentioned such as the production of the carts was here even before i joined Wikipedia. I've tried my best to find most of the sources that talked about a specific stuff about BattleSphere before the rewrite but without luck. The notes are added as to pinpoint what exactly is referrencing the game based on the official FAQ by the game's website, since this was a group project of only three people in the span of +4 years developed with their own money. The note about the storyline was the most difficult one, as i had to literally search every Star Trek episode in order to find which one was the game's storyline based on (alongside which Arthur C. Clarke story took inspiration Star Trek as well). The other references are taken from in-game such as Futurama (in fact, the whole game feels like a huge loveletter to sci-fi stuff that the creators liked from what i've seen and played so far), so i don't believe the rewrite is a complete copypaste of the sources and it's not WP:OR in the slightest. I don't believe any of the team would throw a legal action to the article, since the team has moved on from the project and they prefer to forget about the game, in my opinion. So, all of the sources, including the one by magazine publications are invalid? I don't think so... KGRAMR (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody can make the article more brief then feel welcome to do so! I did a draft physically and passed it on computer before putting them on Wikipedia + sources, so in other words, it's not a copypaste. I did tried my best though... KGRAMR (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it is referenced in the article much of the text appears to have been copied and pasted in from the FAQ. E.g. the races StraightDown (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first person who posted the whole backstory of the races was the one with the IP 78.92.175.140 as it can be seen here: [1] KGRAMR (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The One

[edit]

User:KGRAMR, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/The One there was a review for this game in The One #33 if you want to make use of that, and I found a link: https://archive.org/details/theone-magazine-33 and http://amr.abime.net/issue_316 73.168.15.161 (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've checked out the links you posted but unfortunately, there's nothing in regards to BattleSphere here, though you can post some of the reviews for the games from the magazine into their respective articles :) Do The Math (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:KGRAMR, you're right, the archive.org link is incomplete and missing the reviews! However, if you go here: http://amr.abime.net/issue_316_pages and click on page 103, you'll be in business. :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the link already and although it has a similar title, both Jaguar BattleSphere and Virtuality Battlesphere are completely different titles altogether and years apart from each other so, it doesn't count. Although you could create an article dedicated to Virtuality Battlesphere :) Do The Math (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... my bad! :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:BattleSphere/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'll take this one. Feel free to ping me if I don't get to it within the week. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to try to get through a first pass. Then we can circle back on the lead and any other lingering details.
    Gameplay and premise
    • First and foremost, I recommend getting rid of specific controller motions, as per WP:GAMEGUIDE. It's enough to summarize the main actions in the game, without explaining detailed button combinations. You do this a few times. The section will be more readable once that's done. I'll try to offer a few other comments before we come back to it.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The plot takes place in a future where seven alien races have engaged in a war." -> "The story is set during a future war between seven alien races."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gameplay consists of five modes divided into single console or network submenus, each featuring distinct scenarios and objectives: " -> A colon isn't appropriate where you're really going into a list (in prose). I might suggest a paragraph break before this sentence, and finishing with a full stop.
 Done -- Hopefully... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Free-For-All is a deathmatch mode, where the goal is to kill other ships. The match ends on a kill limit, and the winner is the player that accumulated the greatest number of kills" -> "Free-For-All is a deathmatch mode, where victory is awarded to the first player to reach a specific number of kills."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider putting the names of the modes in quotation marks.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " the Telchines" -> is there even one adjective that helps describe these?
 Done -- I described the Telchines as an advanced race... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " the humans Smg'Heed" -> are they actually human, or just humanoid?
 Done -- the Smg'Heed race are actually humans, but i decided to call them humanoids based on your suggestion... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Every race has three selectable ship types, each one with their own advantages and weakness, and two non-playable ships: fighters, bombers, superships, capital ships, and starbases" -> "For each race, players can select a fighter, bomber, or supership, with unplayable set pieces in the background such as starbases."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • MAW system might be better phrased as "missile warning system", for clarity.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production
    • "of ICD" -> I'd consider removing this. If there was a blue link, maybe it would be worth elaborating. But right now a reader wouldn't know what ICD is.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a team conformed by four members:" -> were there four members if you later say that other people contributed to the production, later? You could just say "a team led by X, Y, and Z."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something about the way this is phrased makes it confusing about who did what. A shorter, clearer attempt: "The four acted as co-designers, with Wukovitz providing music using an audio engine created by Engel, who also provided most of the artwork. Engel, Le Grand, and Wukovitz also served as co-programmers".
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't need to say that the game production was chronicled in a magazine. You're better off summarizing what the magazine said.
Hmmm... let me see what i can do with that line... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concept
    • "Le Grand compiled information to become a developer for the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer, when Atari Corporation unveiled the Jaguar" -> "While Le Grand was researching on developing for the 3DO console, Atari unveiled their own console plans with the Jaguar."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " They sent a 20-page proposal to The 3DO Company, Atari, and other companies" -> "The studio thus sent their 20-page game proposal to both console makers, among other companies."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Engel and Le Grand were invited by Atari staffer Bill Rehbock to a private showing of the Jaguar at Glendale, California on September 23, 1993. They pitched the project under the name Singularity as an update to Star Raiders, and asked Rehbock if they could rename it as Star Raiders 2000. " -> "Atari invited the team to a private showing of the Jaguar in September 1993, where Engel and Le Grand pitched the project as Star Raiders 2000, a successor to Atari's game from the early 1980s."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rehbock told them the name was already taken, as Atari wanted it for their in-house teams. Atari liked the proposal however, becoming interested in signing them as developers under the Phalanx Software name." -> This should follow from the previous sentence, instead of interrupting it with details about the concept. Put that after.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Engel and Le Grand posted an online advert expressing interest in Jaguar development" -> This feels out of sequence. It's otherwise confusing why they would post an advert after meeting with the Jaguar private showing, and received a response.
 Done -- Rearranged this sentence, hopefully... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "via GEnie" -> a lot of people won't know what this is unless you tell them. In which case, is it really important to the story?
 Done -- I explained was GEnie is. (P.S. - I decided to remove GEnie from the paragraph...) Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development
    • "The team settled on making a game with different single-player and network multiplayer scenarios" -> "The team decided that the game should feature different scenarios for single-player and network multiplayer."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Singularity was renamed to Star Battle" -> "The working title changed from Singularity to Star Battle,"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " 4Play cited Star Raiders, Doom, TIE Fighter, and Iron Soldier as influences for the game" -> This is the better written sentence, and redundant with the last one. At most you could expand on this, "4Play cited Star Raiders, Doom, TIE Fighter, and Iron Soldier as influences for the game, combining aspects of each game design." But even that feels redundant.
 Done -- I mentioned Netrek afterwards. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Development was handled during the staff's leisure between their full-time jobs without financial backing." -> "Since the entire team already had full-time jobs, they began development in their spare time without any outside investment."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Star Battle was later renamed to BattleSphere, and 4Play went full-time with its development from July to September 1995." -> "As 4Play shifted to full-time development in July 1995, the game received its final name as BattleSphere."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Atari requested a demo for a focus group test with another Jaguar game titled Space War 2000. According to Engel and Le Grand, Space War 2000 was panned by the focus group and Atari shelved it in favor of BattleSphere." -> "Meanwhile, Atari shelved another space game called Space War 2000 due to a poor reception in focus tests, deciding to shift their focus to BattleSphere due to the demo's positive reception."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "4Play began working on game modes, however Atari discontinued the Jaguar and the company folded to merge with JTS Corporation in 1996. Despite this, 4Play decided to continue production of the game." -> "Atari discontinued the Jaguar, and the company merged with JTS Corporation in 1996. 4Play decided to continue production of the game, focusing on multiple game modes."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A crew of eight people including Engel volunteered as testers on their free time. Le Grand focused on the last game mode, and worked along with Engel on correcting bugs found during the testing phase." -> "With the help of several volunteers, Engel led the testing process, discovering bugs that were fixed Le Grand's help."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BattleSphere was approved..." --> This feels like a good place for a new paragraph
    • " BattleSphere was approved for binary encryption by Hasbro Interactive, which acquired all of Atari's assets including encryption tools as per their buyout via JTS on March 16, 1998, but 4Play did not proceed with manufacturing due to lack of a written approval by Hasbro. 4Play employed an encryption cracking software, using a brute force method to encrypt the ROM image without additional hardware."
    • "In March 1998, Hasbro Interactive acquired all of Atari's assets after buying out JTS, approving BattleSphere for binary encryption soon after. However, 4Play didn't receive any approval in writing, leading them to encode the game's ROM image using encryption cracking software, without official hardware support."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Harker quietly departed 4Play in mid-1998, due to concerns with the project's financial viability. By July 18, 1998, the game's development was finished." -> Due to concerns with the project's financial viability Harker quietly departed the studio in mid 1998, with development finally finishing in July, 1998."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph feels a little redundant with the first paragraph, under the main section header. I'm not sure the solution. We can come back around and figure out how to better organize "who did what".
The third paragraph is basically the game's technical aspects (i.e. the visuals, music, network code, among other details. But i'm open to suggestions to improve it... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can pause there. Solid work so far. Just a few confusing passages, and some elements that can be simplified for readability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shooterwalker:Yeah, the suggestions you are making are excellent! I'll get around it tomorrow as soon as i can after finishing my work shift. This is one article i really want to get to GA! Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shooterwalker:OK, so i'm done more or less with the first pass. I'll be on stand by and await for more comments! Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work so far! I'm going to try to get through the rest of the article. Then hopefully one more pass afterwards.
    Release
    • Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, the constant announcement of new release dates doesn't really inform readers and tends to make the article more confusing. I'd try to scale these details back.
    • "The game was first showcased in non-playable form at the 1994 Summer Consumer Electronics Show under the name Star Battle, and targeting a Christmas release date." -> "The game was first revealed at the 1994 Summer Consumer Electronics Show, planning for a Christmas release date under the title Star Battle."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was then demonstrated along with the CatBox peripheral during ToadFest '94, an event hosted by retailer Toad Computers and slated for a January 1995 launch window. The game was also showcased in playable form at the 1995 WCES and planned for a summer release under its final title, BattleSphere. The title made its last trade show appearance at E3 1995, where the network mode was shown." -> As per WP:NOTNEWS, I might suggest summarizing this in a tighter way. "The game was later showcased at X, Y, and Z, revealing..." or "More details were showcased at additional tradeshows, revealing additional gameplay at X, the final BattleSphere title at Y, and network play at Z."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of my comments relate to the last point. Do we really need multiple sentences about how the E3 demo was coded? Do we really need a sentence for every product demo at every tradeshow?
I think i can make a big overhaul to the release section regarding this aspect. I can try to make it look less cluthered... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hasbro opening Jaguar development seems like a major part of development, and should be mentioned there. (It might even be out of place in the release section, since it relates more to development.)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with the auction proceeds going to diabetes research and after-tax profits from subsequently sold copies were invested into the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation." -> this can be stated in fewer words
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not clear to me why the homebrew piece is important, and I'd be tempted to drop it.
It's a info piece that was revealed after the game was released, given that developing games for the Jaguar back then without any official development kit was easier said than done. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused how they could offer pre-orders in March for a game that was published in February.
Removed that info piece. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement about it being in high demand on the secondary market belongs in the reception, particularly when talking about the game's commercial performance.
I'll move it once i rearrange the release section.
    • "It introduced features such as new visuals, network compatibility with the original, bug fixes, among other changes and extras." -> ", offering new visuals, as well as bug fixes and compatibility improvements."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The controller overlay statement isn't really clear to readers why it's important, and should be explained or dropped.
I can actually explain this: neither the original BattleSphere nor BattleSphere Gold ever came with a controller overlay like other Jaguar games like Alien vs Predator and Iron Soldier. I've seen eBay auctions of the game from time to time, since i want a physical copy of the game, and 9 out of 10 times they will not come with the overlays endorsed by ScatoLOGIC. I can rearrange the sentence though... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A PC port was in development but never entered full production, due to lack of funding after unsuccessful pitches to multiple publishers. Platforms like PlayStation, Dreamcast, and PlayStation 2 were also considered. 4Play expressed interest in licensing the game to third-parties, and were seeking companies under the ScatoLOGIC label to finance console ports." -> "4Play expressed interest licensing the game to third parties, or porting the game to PCs and consoles. They began development on a PC port, but never entered full production due to lack of interest from publishers."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to reiterate that there is a lot of extraneous detail in this section, with many sources announcing nothing more than an appearance and a (shifting) release date.
I rearranged the release section. I hope this rearrangement sticks the landing... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception
    • Trying to summarize a whole review is always going to make it more confusing to readers. Instead of trying to list off a bunch of things in multiple sentences per review, try to shorten it to one sentence, capturing the main idea. (For both Intelligent Gamer's Fusion and NextGen)
Let me see what i can do with both reviews... Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue that the pre-release reception (e.g. "anticipated") belongs in the release section, and that the reception should be for when the game is finally released. Consider moving the first paragraph into context with the release section, before the date of the release, but after a summary of their pre-release activities.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • " BattleSphere was met with generally favorable reception from reviewers since its release" -> "Upon its release in February 2000, BattleSphere was met with generally favorable reception from reviewers." (Just to reinforce information and make it clear to readers)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "GameFan's Eric Mylonas pointed out the networkable multiplayer as the game's strongest feature. Mylonas also commended its use of Gouraud shading and soundscape" -> "GameFan's Eric Mylonas praised networked multiplayer as the game's strongest feature, while also highlighting the game's soundscapes and Gouraud shaded graphics."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Atari Times' Gregory D. George praised the game for its graphical presentation, CD-quality music, sound effects, fast-paced gameplay, and artificial intelligence of enemy ships. Nevertheless, George noted that the music becomes repetitive after prolonged play sessions. He also found the menu and ship selection screens difficult to read." -> "The Atari Times' Gregory D. George also praised the game's audiovisual presentation, as well as its fast-paced action and intelligent enemy ships."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offer a paragraph break before retrospective reviews. You can even offer a summary statement, "In the years after its release, reviewers have celebrated BattleSphere as one of the Jaguar's best and most desired games." (multiple citations)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a 2002 retro gaming special, Edge magazine deemed it as "A true example of the bedroom coding ethic in a multinational world". -> "In a 2002 retro gaming feature, Edge called it one of the "most desirable games of all time" due to its small production, created by a small team with a "bedroom coding ethic"."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Heiko Poppen and Michael Tausendpfund of German website neXGam gave positive remarks to the variety of ships and mutiplayer for up to 32 players, but criticized technical issues with the network mode." -> Reviewing the game in 2007, nexGam praised the game's ship designs and multiplayer mode, while criticizing some issues with network support."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "HobbyConsolas identified it as one of the twenty best games for Jaguar, regarding it as a "very complete game" but lamented its limited release." -> "Lamenting its limited release, HobbyConsolas identified it as one of the twenty best games for the Jaguar."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker:Done with the second pass, hopefully. Let me know for additional details waiting to be addressed! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Was ScatoLOGIC just the name for the publishing wing for 4Play? It might be fine to drop it, or leave this out of the lead, since that would make it redundant.
Yes, ScatoLOGIC is the name for the publishing arm for 4Play. I'll explain what was the role of ScatoLOGIC in the game's release section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An enhanced edition of the game titled BattleSphere Gold was also released in 2002." -> "An enhanced edition called BattleSphere Gold was also released in 2002."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taking place in a future war between seven alien races, the leaders of each race confine all hostilities to an enclosed region of space, sending their best soldiers and military technology in a tournament to claim control of the galaxy. " -> "Set during a future war between seven alien races, the factions agree to confine their hostilities to a tournament with the galaxy at stake."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gameplay consists of five modes divided into single console or network submenus, each featuring distinct scenarios and objectives. " -> "Gameplay consists of five modes, each featuring distinct scenarios and objectives."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The player chooses from three ship types and fight against opponents. " -> drop this as unnecessary detail
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " partnership group conformed by " -> "partnership between"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ICD is sort of meaningless without more context, and I'd recommend dropping it, at least in the lead.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " decided to work on a space combat game, being pitched to Atari Corporation as a successor to Star Raiders." "decided to pitch a space combat game to Atari Corporation as a successor to Star Raiders"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the networking factor of Netrek." -> this comparison is hard for readers to follow. It might be clearer to drop the comparison. Or maybe spell out what you mean by networking factor.
i reworeded it to component, since it makes more sense (to me at least) as the game's multiplayer full use of the Jaguar's LAN capabilities... Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Production began in 1994, and was handled during the group's spare time without any outside investment." -> "Production began in 1994, with the partners self-funding the game's development with full-time work."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with the auction proceeds and after-tax profits from subsequently sold copies were invested into charity" -> " with profits from all sales donated to charity."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The game garnered generally favorable reception from gaming publications prior to launch and since its release; praise was given to the graphics, soundtrack, gameplay, controls, opponent AI, and multiplayer " -> "Gaming publications gave the game generally favorable reviews, praising its graphics, sound, gameplay, multiplayer, and AI."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " some noted the minimal texture-mapping, while criticism was geared towards some issues with network support" -> "Some reviewers also criticized the game's network support."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay
  • " that is played" -> "played"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Gameplay consists of five modes divided into single console or network submenus. Each mode features distinct scenarios and objectives:" -> " Gameplay consists of five modes, each featuring distinct scenarios and objectives."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " humanoids" -> "humanoid" (being used as an adjective here)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "freedom on zero gravity" -> "freedom in zero gravity"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throttling is performed by holding up or down using the controller's buttons and d-pad. The keypad can be used for the same result. The ship is also capable of spinning left or right. Radar lock-on is executed by aiming the reticle at a target, and the player can cycle between targets; the ship's front (FR) and aft (AR) radars keeps lock on the target until it is eliminated. The ship's weapons can be fired, and their firing function can be set using the keypad." -> drop this, per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. we don't need to know controller motions. Just say the player can maneuver, lock onto targets, and fire weapons.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can drop the (V) (S) (T) (E) as unnecessary detail too.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The keypad is also used in "Alone Against the Empires" for repairing the ship and hyperspace jump respectively." -> you can drop the references to the keypad here
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Each mode have their own adjustable rulesets such as difficulty, starting level, and ship types to fight against" -> I think this might be too much detail, but if you want to keep it, I recommend putting it closer to the part where you start discussing the modes. (earlier in the section)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paragraph break might make sense for controller and multiplayer support
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • "Other people also collaborated with its production." -> this is sort of an empty / obvious statement. I'd remove it.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's development process was chronicled by online magazine Atari Explorer Online (later renamed to Jaguar Explorer Online)." -> You don't need to call out a source like this in the article. Just summarize what the source says.
 Done -- Hopefully... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The project was conceptualized in August 1993, when Engel and Le Grand decided to work on a space combat game." -> "Engel and Le Grand created the concept in August 1993, beginning the project as a space combat game."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where Engel and Le Grand pitched the project under the name Singularity as Star Raiders 2000, a successor to Atari's game from the early 1980s." -> this wording is confusing -- either they were calling it Singularity or they were calling it Star Raiders 2000, or some other clarification is needed
 Done -- I explained what was the whole ordeal... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Engel described the concept of Singularity as Star Wars: X-Wing, but with a black hole as the main focus." -> "Engel based the game's concept on Star Wars: X-Wing, but with the story focusing on a black hole."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Harker reached Engel and Le Grand to act as intermediary between his company ICD and Atari" -> it's not clear why Harker was acting as an intermediary, and who ICD even are. It's probably easier to drop this than to clarify, but I leave this one up to you.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a partnership group" -> "a partnership" (that's the legal entity)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the networking factor of Netrek." -> This needs more clarity
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to concerns with the project's financial viability Harker quietly departed the studio in mid 1998, with development finally finishing in July 1998." -> "Harker departed the studio in mid 1998, citing concerns with the project's financial viability, and development concluded in July.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the last paragraph to the beginning of the section. It talks extensively about the personnel involved, and would flow better with the early part of the section.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • " the final BattleSphere title" -> "the BattleSphere title"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this flows a lot better. Thanks for all the fixes.
  • "with the auction proceeds and after-tax profits from subsequently sold copies were invested into charity." -> "and all subsequent profits were donated to charity".
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • move this first paragraph to the release section, particularly around the area where you say "It became an anticipated title for the Jaguar"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is otherwise solid.
It might take one more pass after this, given all the issues. But we're getting a lot closer. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker:I'll get through the lead and other areas right now, but i'll continue tomorrow with the rest, since it's almost very late where i live. I really want to say thank you for being very patient with this GA review! This is one Jaguar article i really want to get to such status. Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker:Done with the third pass. Let me know for more details waiting to be addressed! Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Thank you for taking on this legacy title, and preserving an element of history. Let's try one more pass.
Sources
  • After a review of the sources, there are a lot of self published and unreliable sources that start to take away from the article's reliability. The good news is most of them are there to support what other more reliable sources say, and you could remove them without harming the article overall.
  • There is a chance that when you remove the unreliable sources, you'll end up with a few statements that are effectively unsourced. But these tend to be detailed statements about poly count or individual sounds. Most of the other statements will be sourced to other more reliable sources, and the article will become stronger through reduction.
  • AllGame is marked situational at WP:VGSOURCES. You already have those statements sourced to better sources, so it would be no loss.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Semiofficial BattleSphere FAQ" is self-published, and an edge case. I get that this the "semi-official" website of the game manufacturer, but you already have most of these facts covered in other sources, and it's not a major loss to the one statement you would have to remove. The way it's self-described doesn't fill me with confidence, even as a primary source.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider removing the self-referential source from Douglas Engel in May 1987. Again, you have better sources, and best to avoid too much non-neutral stuff directly from the author.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You probably shouldn't source the credits screen, and don't really need to.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biff's Gaming Videos is self published and unreliable.
Well, i was going to keep it since it features the game's developers but ok, i'll remove it... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the source to mp3.com
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide more information about MyAtari?
MyAtari (https://www.myatari.net/) was an online magazine similar to Atari Explorer Online (thought the closest comparision format-wise is 1UP), which reported about peripherals, reviewed games, etc. It lasted until 2005. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you've removed the other reliable sources, it's easier to give a pass to the game manual and other self-published material from Le Grand and Engel. There's always a risk on relying on self-published sources too much, but if you remove the more unreliable sources, these will feel more like edge cases, and bring the self-published material into WP:PROPORTION.
Lead
  • Again, ScatoLOGIC is literally the same people as 4play, and can be left out of the first sentence. At most, you could mention that they formed ScatoLOGIC to self-publish the game, in the latter part of the lead (third paragraph) where you describe the release.
Let me se how i can paraphrase it... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • The gameplay section is reading a lot better now.
  • " The online magazine Atari Explorer Online (later renamed to Jaguar Explorer Online) chronicled the game's development process " -> literally remove this. It's enough to use it as a source, and you don't need to call it out.
Removed the sentence... Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but indicated it would better be called Star Raiders 2000 and offered making an update to Atari's game from the early 1980s. Atari staffer Bill Rehbock told them the name was already taken, as Atari wanted it for their in-house teams." -> "When the studio suggested developing the concept as an update to Atari's 1980 game Star Raiders, Atari staffer Bill Rehbock responded that the title was reserved for an in-house project."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Harker was brought on board after reaching to Engel and Le Grand" -> the meaning here is unclear. is this sentence missing a word?
 Done -- Clarified the sentence, hopefully... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 1998," -> consider a paragraph break here
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release section is pretty solid too, but keep in mind what I mentioned about unreliable sources. You might lose some details here, and that's ok. Release sections are supposed to be simple.
OK then! -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, pull the pre-release impressions to the release section. Something like, "Leading up to release, VideoGames Magazine noted it as a "respectful tribute" to space combat games. Intelligent Gamer's Fusion expressed excitement over the game's audiovisuals and network play. This was echoed by Next Generation, who hailed it as one of the best Jaguar Games, while lamenting that "[i]t's too bad that the game will not receive the large audience it deserves." For good measure, make this its own paragraph, starting with the sentence "BattleSphere received favorable commentary from gaming publications prior to launch, and became an anticipated title for the Jaguar."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start the reception section with "Upon its release in February 2000..."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your patience. These old games can be tricky to cover, but they are really important to Wikipedia. You're doing good work by taking this on. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker:You're welcomed! I think i'm done with the fourth pass. I'm gonna take a rest, my head is killing me after today's work XD Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made a few minor copy-edits, for flow and for organization. Thanks for all your great work on this. Happy to call this a GA. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker:Thank you so much for taking the time to review BattleSphere :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 15:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that aspects from first person shooters and flight simulators were incorporated into BattleSphere?
    • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by KGRAMR (talk). Nominated by KGRAMR (talk) at 15:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/BattleSphere; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - See comments below
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. Earwig comes up clean, everything is sourced (there might be some citation overkill in the article, but that's not really a problem for DYK). QPQ not required (one of the first five nominations). The only problem IMO is the hook -- it's not so "hooky" IMO. Looking through the article, a couple things jump out. The first is the "one of the most desirable games of all time" quote and related information about value/rarity. The other isn't actually in the article, but appears to be in the sources -- that profits go to diabetes research. That's an unusual thing for a game, and could be added/made the hook. Either way. I also see that the nominator has been banned, but isn't the person who got the article to GA. KGRAMR do you want to take over as nominator? Basically just means suggesting another hook at this point. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 10:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit quirky, but I think it works. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhododendrites:OK so, here's more or less an alternative hook:
    ALT2: "... that all subsequent profits from sold copies of BattleSphere were invested into diabetes charity?" Sources: [2], [3], [4].
    I think it's a good hook, given that one of the members of 4Play is afflicted with diabetes so, they donated profits made from sold copies to charity. A noble and respectful act if you ask me... Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @KGRAMR: Oops. Ping didn't come through, sorry. So the only issues are (a) press releases aren't typically considered reliable sources -- but that's more of an article editing issue, since the interview source is probably good enough to verify this claim, and (b) these sources seem to be published at the time of release (or just before) so they can't really verify that the profits actually were invested. Easily fixed, though, by reframing the hook along the lines of e.g. "the developers pledged to donate all profits to diabetes research". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites: How about this hook:
    ALT3: "... that the developers of BattleSphere pledged to donate all profits from sales to diabetes research?" Source: [5] Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some folks might prefer such a claim not come from an interview, but I think we're probably ok here. I wikilinked diabetes and changed the nominator to KGRAMR. Good to go, I think. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BattleSphere&oldid=1220924799"