Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)/archive4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)[edit]
4th nomination (Previous FAC): Well, here I am again trying to get this thing to pass. Let's see how it goes this time.--SeizureDog 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TTN and I have been working on condensing and cleaning up the Gameplay section. The whole article should probably go through a significant copyedit session,
though I'd say the level of citations and references in the article is quite good.— KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The introduction is meant to be a summary of the article, yet it only discusses its poor sales and reception - there needs to be gameplay and development information. The gameplay section has no inline references. Image:ET2600-TheBestPart.png is far too large to pass fair use. Part of its rationale: "Atari doesn't want it and has dumped in into a landfill. That's sorta like giving up copyright." Is it? In the critical response section, the title "The worst video game of all time" is inappropriate, most of the reviewers don't use those words. Also in that section, the last paragraph is completely unreferenced (and it's making some very bold statements). Those two section titles in critical response could simply be removed, they're excessive, considering both discuss similar things. It's difficult to elaborate on everything else because there is so much use of a bad tone, unreferenced statements, and inappropriate quotations. --125.238.144.97 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all issues that can be easily addressed - most especially the fair-use rationale for the image. I'll take care of that now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can easily address the lack of gameplay and reception references, be my guest. I wouldn't consider it a simple task to do well. --125.238.144.97 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gameplay section simply describes the gameplay, which can be easily found in game's instruction manual. Sometimes, I have to wonder what the purpose is in requiring citations for patently obvious descriptions of a game's gameplay. Reception, on the other hand, always needs to be well-cited, as that is especially prone to POV. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then cite the pages where the information was taken from the game's instructional manual. You could use multiple cites, or one that encompasses all of the pages. The answer to your question is: because "patently obvious description" still may be original research. For reception, I had a real look at it, and it's in quite bad condition. To make it easier, I've created some "citation needed" tags, trying not to be too excessive. There are some very bold statements that may even need to be removed. --125.238.144.97 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on the critical response section. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then cite the pages where the information was taken from the game's instructional manual. You could use multiple cites, or one that encompasses all of the pages. The answer to your question is: because "patently obvious description" still may be original research. For reception, I had a real look at it, and it's in quite bad condition. To make it easier, I've created some "citation needed" tags, trying not to be too excessive. There are some very bold statements that may even need to be removed. --125.238.144.97 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gameplay section simply describes the gameplay, which can be easily found in game's instruction manual. Sometimes, I have to wonder what the purpose is in requiring citations for patently obvious descriptions of a game's gameplay. Reception, on the other hand, always needs to be well-cited, as that is especially prone to POV. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can easily address the lack of gameplay and reception references, be my guest. I wouldn't consider it a simple task to do well. --125.238.144.97 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are all issues that can be easily addressed - most especially the fair-use rationale for the image. I'll take care of that now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to cite some of these things. Perticularly this one: "Although the movie it was based on is widely considered a classic" - The E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial has around 30 cites for its reception section. How am I supposed to cite this statement without cluttering the article? How do I narrow this down to being able to call it a "classic" with just one or two cites?--SeizureDog 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't even call it a "classic". Use something like "Although E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial was generally well-received..." - notice the link to its reception section. --125.238.144.97 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: As noted in the above discussion, this article needs a lot of POV cleanup and better citations in certain places. Yes, the game is often referred to as the "Worst Game of All Time", but the way this assertion is currently stated in the article puts undue weight on this particular issue. While these issues can be fixed, I don't think the article is in Good Article status, much less appropriate for FA at this time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I should add that very little is revealed why it was considered the worst game of all time. We get a large paragraph of people who have called it the worst game of all time, and then we are treated to a small paragraph of a few complaints with no references. This is probably the article's largest flaw, but its bad tone and bold, unreferenced statements are contenders. --125.238.144.97 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, I cleaned up the reception section. I think it's less informative now, but that's the price to be paid of strict citing. However, I see no reason whatsoever to cite the gameplay section. The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is a FA with zero cites in its gameplay section, and it's a far more complex game. Is the article, or at least the section, fixed now? Or is there more to be corrected?--SeizureDog 06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The gameplay isn't a real worry, but Majora's Mask is a terribly-referenced article from my viewpoint. You've fixed a few problems with the reception section, but it's still far from featured quality (the second paragraph is the problem). Look here: Final_Fantasy_VIII#Reception_and_criticism. There is a good amount of problems that are credited to multiple reviewers. It needs to be similar to this. --125.238.144.97 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that this game was made in 1982. If you're saying I need more reviewers then well, there aren't any (at least not credible). You also seem to be saying that I need to list more problems critics have with the game. But the thing there is that it's too simple of a game to have very much to complain about. So I'm confused what you want. --SeizureDog 06:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've created blanket statements while only citing three reviewers. The problems need to be discussed like the reviewers have discussed them, and three reviewers does not mean that every reviewer thought the same. I'm sorry, but featured articles need to be almost perfect. There are literally two sentences on the game's criticism. That is not sufficient, especially for a game so widely criticized. I can't put it any other way. --125.236.145.60 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've basically fixed all the problems with the reception section. However, it still needs more reliable reviews or mention of criticism. Don't tell me there aren't any, a game of this age will require real research (books and such), not just Google searching. By the way, I am the IP address criticizing the article; I couldn't be bothered logging in. --Teggles 08:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mk, I see what you did there. As for real researching, I did that a long time ago. There aren't very many books out there on classic gaming, and most of those don't have much information on the individual games themselves (unless it's like Pong or Pac-Man). So the few books already cited are probably going to be as good as this gets.--SeizureDog 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally have less issue with the citations - I agree that official reviews and citations about this game are going to be difficult to come by. My issue (as of last night - haven't had time to review today's version yet) is the overall tone of the article. I see that quite a bit has been done to improve that, so my criticism may be moot now. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mk, I see what you did there. As for real researching, I did that a long time ago. There aren't very many books out there on classic gaming, and most of those don't have much information on the individual games themselves (unless it's like Pong or Pac-Man). So the few books already cited are probably going to be as good as this gets.--SeizureDog 13:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've basically fixed all the problems with the reception section. However, it still needs more reliable reviews or mention of criticism. Don't tell me there aren't any, a game of this age will require real research (books and such), not just Google searching. By the way, I am the IP address criticizing the article; I couldn't be bothered logging in. --Teggles 08:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've created blanket statements while only citing three reviewers. The problems need to be discussed like the reviewers have discussed them, and three reviewers does not mean that every reviewer thought the same. I'm sorry, but featured articles need to be almost perfect. There are literally two sentences on the game's criticism. That is not sufficient, especially for a game so widely criticized. I can't put it any other way. --125.236.145.60 07:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that this game was made in 1982. If you're saying I need more reviewers then well, there aren't any (at least not credible). You also seem to be saying that I need to list more problems critics have with the game. But the thing there is that it's too simple of a game to have very much to complain about. So I'm confused what you want. --SeizureDog 06:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The gameplay isn't a real worry, but Majora's Mask is a terribly-referenced article from my viewpoint. You've fixed a few problems with the reception section, but it's still far from featured quality (the second paragraph is the problem). Look here: Final_Fantasy_VIII#Reception_and_criticism. There is a good amount of problems that are credited to multiple reviewers. It needs to be similar to this. --125.238.144.97 06:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is much incorrect in this article. First, the suggestion that Kassar didn't want to do the product, "...we've never made an action game out of a movie" is silly. What was the Raiders game? Second, to suggest that Atari crashed because of the money spent on licensing and the extra games built is ridiculous. First, Atari could have easily weathered that storm, and second, it doesn't explain why the entire video game industry crashed at the same time. I was at Activision then, having previously been with Atari, and I can tell you that the release of ET spelled the end of the entire industry, not just Atari. The reason ... no open-to-buy at the retail level. Excess ETs and Raiders (from the year before) had clogged the system and buyers just quit buying product. Customers still wanted new games, but stores weren't carrying them. What we have here is a primary example of how Arrogant Ignorance at the highest levels can bring down, not only a company, but an entire industry. And, believe me, the ignorance at the highest levels of Atari and Warner Communications was obvious to any of us who were there and had access to the executive staff. ET should either have not been licensed, or it should have released after Christmas. It would probably have sold just as well. In addition, the decisions of how many and when to manufacture and ship product were made with no forethought nor true understanding of the market. A marketing 101 class would have made better decisions with even less information. This is what happens when senior executives don't know they don't know, but think, they know better than anyone else.Bradfregger 17:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Brad Fregger[reply]
- Well I dunno what to tell you about the Kassar quote. That's what he said. Maybe he just forgot about Raiders or something. I've also tried to steer the article away from saying that E.T. directly caused the crash, but it was one of their biggest mistakes and certainly the most prolific. Still, it's great to have an industry insider commenting on the article. Perhaps you can help improve the article? Know of some things to source that perhaps even you yourself have published?--SeizureDog 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize we're discussing hear-say and potential POV issues here, but in all the history discussions I've had with people about the 1983 crash, everyone tends to point to the 2600 version of Pac-Man first as the cause of the crash, and E.T. is almost always mentioned as an afterthought. It's not until you get into the "glut of terrible movie-licensed games" argument (which seems to start with E.T. even though Raiders came before it) that people really start paying attention to E.T. as a significant factor in the crash. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in my reading, people tend to point to Pac-Man as crippling Atari, but to E.T. as finishing it off.--SeizureDog 21:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize we're discussing hear-say and potential POV issues here, but in all the history discussions I've had with people about the 1983 crash, everyone tends to point to the 2600 version of Pac-Man first as the cause of the crash, and E.T. is almost always mentioned as an afterthought. It's not until you get into the "glut of terrible movie-licensed games" argument (which seems to start with E.T. even though Raiders came before it) that people really start paying attention to E.T. as a significant factor in the crash. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I dunno what to tell you about the Kassar quote. That's what he said. Maybe he just forgot about Raiders or something. I've also tried to steer the article away from saying that E.T. directly caused the crash, but it was one of their biggest mistakes and certainly the most prolific. Still, it's great to have an industry insider commenting on the article. Perhaps you can help improve the article? Know of some things to source that perhaps even you yourself have published?--SeizureDog 19:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.