Talk:Commander Keen in Aliens Ate My Babysitter

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Commander Keen in Aliens Ate My Babysitter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• It'd be helpful to readers if you specified that Invasion of the Vorticons was three episodes.

• Done

• "despite being the sixth episode released" Released as part of the main continuity, presumably?

• Done

• "t did not sell as well as the first trilogy, which was attributed by id to poor marketing and awkward status as a stand-alone retail game in a series known for groups of shareware episodes" Are you missing a word here?

• Done

• "a pseudo-3D effect" Link?

• Done

• Some of the comments in the plot section come across as unsourced editoiralising. I support the idea that plot sections need not include references, but claims about how it is "unclear" which game came first, for example, surely need a reference. (Something similar may be going on in the gameplay section; does the guidebook explicitly mention the pseudo-3D effect, for example?)

• Removed editorializing.

• Sometimes you shorten Commander Keen in Goodbye, Galaxy to Goodbye, Galaxy and sometimes Galaxy. Consistency would be good; FWIW, I prefer the latter. Similarly, are we going with Aliens or Aliens Ate My Babysitter? Dreams or Keen Dreams? Or is there something else going on here that I've missed? I don't mind shortening titles, but I'm not sure I'm keen on their being two shortened titles and a long title for every game!

• Done- standardized to Aliens, Galaxy, Vorticons, and Dreams

• "shareware trilogy. Id signed the deal," Shouldn't that be id? Also "Id Software did not".

• Done, rearranged so as to not start a sentence with "id".

• "Despite being listed numerically as the sixth episode, due to it having a different publisher and schedule Aliens Ate My Babysitter was developed after "Secret of the Oracle", but before "The Armageddon Machine", the nominally fifth episode.[4]" Could this be rejigged a little? It's quite a complex sentence.

• Done

• "at least two more games" Could you name them? That might help contextualise the significance of this release.

• Done; Masters of Doom says that they signed a deal for 2 games, but only one was actually released by FormGen before they got bought by GT Interactive, which Id used for years after- that's a bit too complicated to get in to, so reduced down to just "their next retail title", Spear of Destiny.

• "Aliens Ate My Babysitter was included with the other series games in the 1996 id Anthology compilation release" Well, not the Gameboy release, surely?

• Fixed

• "Unlike the other six prior games, Aliens has not been released for modern computers through Steam.[10]" That reads like OR; the sources doesn't mention the game.

• Can't find a source that explicitly mentions it was missing, so cut.

• I know what you're going to say, but there's no reception section; this is an issue.

• It is, and I'm not happy about it. I did find that I mis-remembered the Dragon series review- he does mention Aliens as part of the series (I thought he only said Vorticons and Galaxy), so it can get brought back here into "Reception and legacy". Other than that... I've manually gone through all the archives I can find for Compute!, Computer and Video Games, PC Player, Computer Gamer, PC Zone, PC Games, Advanced Computer Entertainment, and Game Informer (and a lot of magazines that ended up having archives or publications dates that end in '88 or start in '94). I did manage to find a couple minor mentions in PC Zone, which have been added.

• I don't know if you have any access to this book, but it apparently describes Aliens as the first ever 3D shooter. That's a heck of a claim, and surely belongs in the article.

• Given that the game is a 2D platformer, that is a heck of a claim. The context "the historical predecesor to Doom", however, implies that what they meant was Wolfenstein 3D, their next game. That's probably not really the first 3D shooter either, but it was certainly the first successful one or the first that would be called a "first-person shooter".

This article was a good read, but it looks like the game itself is right on the borderline of being non-notable. Even just one or two other third-party mentions would be a valuable addition, I think! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me know when you're finished with my comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Sorry for the delay; addressed all of your points now. --PresN 16:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes so far; I'm happy with the "reception" issue, which was the biggie, but a few more bits:

• "While the game was not reviewed by most critics of the time," This is OR!

• Removed.

• You could consider rejigging the reception section to put all sales information together.

• Done.

• The last sentence of the first paragraph of the section doesn't flow very well.

• Done.

• Sorry to bang on about this, but you have a lot of comparisons to other games in the gameplay section; is this in the cited source?

• Removed

Nearly there! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Last 4 done. --PresN 20:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: ping again. --PresN 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay- this is definitely on my radar. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to make sure it didn't get forgotten. My Wolfenstein 3D review took almost 2 months, so any "delay" on this one is negligible. :) --PresN 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok; I'm happy that this is where it needs to be for GA status. Nice work, as ever; almost a full set... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)