Talk:Menace (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a Psygnosis game. One of my favourite developers. And early Rockstar which is an added bonus. I'll finish this review soon JAGUAR 21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

"Menace is a side-scrolling video game" - we have three genres ranging from a "shooting scroller" (in the infobox), "shooter" and "side-scrolling". Which one summarises the game the best?
You might want to consider rephrasing the opening sentences to something like ...developed by DMA Design and published by Psygnosis. It was originally released for the Amiga in 1988, and was ported for the Atari ST, Commodore 64 and DOS in 1989. That's the structure I would personally go for, but it's up to you
"He eventually settled upon a development deal with Psygnosis" - did Psygnosis have a part in the actual development? Or did they just publish the game?
Can the gameplay section be expanded it all? Not asking for a complete expansion, but I feel that it could explain things a little better. The prose mentions nothing about the ship's shields (which I saw on the screenshot), if the player has lives or if there are bosses of any kind. A couple to few sentences more would be great. I also have a wide monitor and resolution, so things always appear extra out of proportion for me! I usually have to shrink my browser window to get the real perspective of things
"where Andrew Braybrook played and recommended the game" - who did he recommend it to? Hewson Consultants?
"particularly for its gameplay, graphical design, and sound. Criticism was particularly directed at the game's ports, and the limitations met with the inferior hardware" - repetition of "particularly"
"The Games Machine favorably" - favourably

References

References are all good. Nothing at all wrong with these

On hold

Great little article! Nice work. I'll leave this on hold until all of the above are clarified. But all in all, just a few minor issues. Please let me know if you need any help or explanations. JAGUAR 21:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jaguar! I've gone through and fixed up your concerns. I tried to expand the Gameplay section a bit more, but I'm not sure if it's enough. Let me know if you have any concerns. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment- the dev section and its ref from Psygnosis said that the Atari ST version came out in 1991; I adjusted the infobox/lead to match. That said... the ST review in the reception was published in February 89, so there's a mismatch there. If that is correct (and it would make more sense for the review to be after the port came out and that Psygnosis was wrong on their site), then the dev section, lead, and infobox should all be moved to the correct date. --Pres N 03:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up, PresN. I've discovered that the reference is actually an unofficial site about Psygnosis, so I don't think it's very reliable. As far as I'm concerned, the Atari ST version was released alongside the C64 and DOS versions; I've adjusted the article accordingly. I wish there was more definitive information about these types of things. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 03:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that issue up. Anyway, this article looks good to go now. Well done on all the work put into this! Nice to know that I'm not the only one promoting Liverpudlian video game developers ;-D

JAGUAR 16:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm being honest, your work on the Ultimate/Rare articles was a big inspiration for me to work on the DMA stuff. It's almost surprising how much I'm enjoying it, too! Thanks again. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]