Talk:Galaga '91/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 03:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to reciprocate for your review of Super Monaco GP, and I can't do Tails' Skypatrol since I had a good hand in that one, so this one will have to do :) Red Phoenix ^talk 03:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

• Reviewers praised its colorful visuals and gameplay, and for being well-designed around the console's hardware. However, some believed the limited screen resolution made it difficult to play. Something I was taught here on Wikipedia is that most often, use of the word "however" isn't considered encyclopedic tone. You might play with this, but you could probably get away with striking the "however" and otherwise leaving it as it is.
  • I believe I remember skimming through that page a long time ago. You're right, it really shouldn't be there.

Gameplay:

• The player is able to shoot down a Boss Galaga holding the captured ship to rescue it and transform the player into a "dual fighter" with additional firepower and a hitbox. Technically didn't the single fighter have a hitbox too?
  • Sorry, I meant to type "larger hitbox".
• However, destroying a Boss Galaga with a captured ship while it is in formation will instead cause the fighter to turn against the player and act as an alien. This "however" is a little more okay since it's implying a contradiction instead of a contrast, but even I'm a little lost here reading this. So, what's the difference between being able to rescue a ship or have it turn against you? Do you have to shoot the Boss Galaga before it returns to the top?
  • It's hard for me to talk about the dual fighter concept in a professional manner (I had this same problem with the GAN page for the original Galaga). Basically, if a Boss Galaga captures your fighter, you have to shoot it down while it is divebombing in order to rescue it and create a dual fighter. If you shoot down the Boss Galaga while it's sitting at the top of the enemy formation, the captured fighter will turn against you and try to kill you. I rewrote that sentence to try and make it clearer, but I don't know how better it is.
    • The wording you use works. I understood it now. I would presume that a layman would as well.

Development:

• Is Now Production credited as a developer, and should they be in the infobox? I understand that wasn't always the case with company assistance during this time frame in game development.
  • I didn't list Now Production in the infobox because the work they did for this game was pretty minor — Namco did most of the work, so I didn't see the need to list them. Although I guess it wouldn't make a lot of sense not to have them there, so I put them back in.
• It was published under the Namcot banner, the former consumer game division of Namco. This sentence is a little confusing to the untrained - is a banner a former game division? Obviously not, but for clarity, I'd suggest this: "It was published under the banner of Namco's former consumer game division, Namcot."
  • Corrected.
• To promote the game, a LCD handheld game was released, which has since become a prized collector's item. To clarify, this is a separate game promoting the real game?
  • Specified that it is a separate game promoting the Game Gear original.
• Its localized name has become a point of confusion, as Galaga was the follow-up to Galaxian and a North American upgrade kit for Gaplus—the third installment—renamed it Galaga 3. You lost me on the last bit here - an upgrade kit for Gaplus named Gaplus as Galaga 3, or named Galaga '91 (the subject of the sentence) as Galaga 3?
  • Galaga 3 was for Gaplus, not '91. Clarified.

Reception: Nothing noteworthy. I did see some very minor issues but I corrected them already.

References: I'm not doing spot-checks due to time constraints and not being a necessity for GA. All references meet the reliability standards based on my knowledge of WP:VG/S

• What template did you use for #4? It's very odd to see the publisher listed before the magazine name, and I know {{cite magazine}} doesn't do that. I didn't think any of the other common ones did, either.
  • I mistakenly used {{cite news}} for the Retro Gamer article. Swapped it for a {{tl|cite magazine}] one.
• Not a GA note: I tried to find you an author name for the 4Gamer.net source. Unfortunately, I find myself embarrassed by my total lack of understanding of Japanese. There is a note near the top under the article title that according to Google Translate says "Editorial Department:" then a name, but the name is "早苗月 ハンバーグ食べ男" and according to Google Translate that translates to "Sanaetsuki hamburger steak man". I have no idea if that's actually the author's pseudonym or just a horrible translation, so with that being said (unless TarkusAB wants to chime in here and tell me just how wrong I am), we can go with the way you've written it so far.
  • I think the whole thing is a pseudonym. At first glance I thought 早苗月 was the name, but I couldn't parse it out into a way that made logical sense as a Japanese man's name. Outside of names, it's an unusual way of saying the month of May. The last part says "hamburg steak-eating man". I'd just not use it. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I basically had the same experience as TarkusAB while figuring that out. Ultimately, I decided not to use it, as there's no way that would make any sense in English to my knowledge. I just used "A writer for 4Gamer.net" instead.

That's pretty much all I have. Not much, but it's a short, sweet, and enjoyable article. Take a look at the issues I've identified and let me know when you have them addressed or if you have questions. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• • • That's all good. I kinda figured as much, but thought I'd have TarkusAB check for sure since he knows more Japanese than I do.

@Red Phoenix: Wow, I totally forgot about this. Anyways, addressed your concerns and provided some comments. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I'll pass this. A good read; I had fun doing this review. Well done. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)