Talk:Space Station Silicon Valley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 19:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a childhood game I've missed out on! I'll do this within 48 hours. JAGUAR 19:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

"Space Station Silicon Valley is a platformer video game" - 'platformer' in this instance sounds a bit odd. Usually it would be a platform game but I'll leave this up to you
"Players control Evo, a robot reduced to a crawling microchip after a ship crash, and are tasked with entering the bodies" - is tasked with, as it's only one player/robot?
"which allowed for more advanced environment and model processing" - missing 'a'. which allowed for a more advanced environment and model processing
"At release, Space Station Silicon Valley was acclaimed by many reviewers" - might sound better as Upon release
"with a look and style akin to Wallace and Gromit (1990–present)" - why is this here?
"described by creative director lead artist Jamie Bryan as being similar to Cubivore: Survival of the Fittest (2002)" - I take it that Bryan was talking about this in a retrospective interview? When I saw the 2002 game I got confused!
"IGN's Tim Jones was critical of the port, criticising the gameplay and level design" - shouldn't this belong in the reception section and not development?
No dead links
No dab links

An excellent and well written article, as expected! It was not only comprehensive but it was also a joy to read. Once all of the above are addressed then I'm sure this should easily pass. I wished I had this game when I was a kid. JAGUAR 13:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks for your review, and kind words! I went through and addressed most of your concerns. I feel as though it should remain "are" (i.e. "Players are tasked"), although I could be wrong. As for the review of the port: IGN's GBC review was the only one I could find, so it felt a little odd to put this in Reception with no other reviews to accompany it (and it's the only place where the ports are mentioned in the article), but I could definitely move it if you feel it is necessary. Same goes for the PS1 reviews. Let me know. – Rhain ☔ 13:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them so quickly! I think you're right about the "are" part, it should remain that way (must have missed the plural). Yeah, I agree with the GBC review remaining in the development section as it seems more relevant there if there's nothing else. With all that done, I'll be happy to promote this. Well done!

JAGUAR 13:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]