Jump to content

Talk:Lego Island 2: The Brickster's Revenge

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

Game plot

[edit]

While the article contains the story for the PC/Playstation version of the game in the Plot section, it does not cover the GBA and GBC versions of the story, which are extremely different (For instance, the Constructopedia doesn't play any part in the GBC version at all, other then a small mention by the Infomaniac). I own the game for PC, PS1, and GBC, however, I do not own the GBA version (Though I have played a little bit of it). There is a walkthrough of it on YouTube however, so I should be able to write a section on the GBA plot by watching that, unless somebody here owns it. Jamesster.LEGO (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"All plot" and other clean-up

[edit]

Although it has been suggested that we expand upon the plot summary to cover the handheld versions, I have added {{All plot}} to the list of issues atop the page. As the article currently stands, it is mostly centered around the game's plot. I have slimmed the plot down a little as part of my clean-up edit, but I'm sure that such an in-depth summary is not needed and more extraneous information can be cut out.

More importantly, the article needs more expansive coverage of gameplay. I have moved two sentences from the plot to a new section for gameplay, but there is much more that can be written, especially considering this game's varied styles of mini-games.

To help with the lack of citations, I was able to provide one cited IGN review for the game. More reviews should also be included. I could not find the GameStop reviews referenced in the article; are these referring to professional reviews or merely user ratings?

A section on development could certainly be helpful; I know such sections are commonplace for a number of video game articles. Covering the info in these pages from the game's development team would be a good place to start start. --PeabodySam (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible GA

[edit]

Hi, I've been reading the article and I'm wondering if it can be GA. Although its state is terrible, if some corrections are made and the content expanded, it could reach this state. So I'm calling the user @Cyberlink420: who made the GA of the first installment to see what he thinks about the idea. 181.204.42.146 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]