Talk:PlayStation (console)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As sort of the VG's project's expert on console articles, I'd be more than glad to do a review on this article. I'll give you a little advance warning; I'm going to be a little tough because I'm passionate about game consoles and I'd like to see this article become the best it can be. As such, my feedback is going to be targeted toward making this an excellent article and a quality piece for the Video games project. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Structure

This could really use some refinement to meet criterion 3b and help with 3a:

• The basic four points behind any good video game console article are its history, technical specifications, game library, and reception and legacy. I can see we've got the basics at least here, but I would recommend some reworking on the following two points:
  • Functionality, models, and tech specs can all go into one section about technical aspects and specifications. I'd lose the Playstation tech specs spinout article; it's mostly unnecessary and tech manual-like detail, see WP:NOTMANUAL.
  • Software library is good for a game library section. I'd recommend putting the copy protection section here and a bit on the CD-ROM hardware, as it defined the kinds of games that the PlayStation could play and what made it different from its competition such as the Nintendo 64.
• I'd love to see the tech specs expanded into prose; it does more for the layman who's unfamiliar with computer systems. See Sega Genesis for an idea of how this could be done.

Content

I feel as though there's quite a bit missing here to meet WP:WIAGA criterion 3a:

• I'd also recommend adding a paragraph or so about the peripherals of the PlayStation, such as its controller and memory cards. Surely these were important parts of what made the PlayStation successful.
• Likewise, I'd like to see the history expanded as well. PlayStation was involved in some outright console competition; I'd like to see more about Sony's competitive strategy to keep the PlayStation on top during its era and lifetime, not just its development and launch. I'd also like to see some information on Sony's marketing, where they targeted the PlayStation in sales and what kind of audience they were going for. The launch and development info is very nice, but there's not enough about how it did after launch, major events impacting its sales, and transitioning to the PlayStation 2.
• "Successors" really belongs with PlayStation, not the console article. However, a bit on the transition to the PlayStation 2 would certainly be welcome.
• I'd like to see Legacy get a big expansion, too. What kind of ratings and sales did it get during its time? How is it remembered today in critical reviews? All of this would be very helpful to understanding the console.

I'll keep going in a while, but as the structure changes are quite major that I'm suggesting, I'd like to get the input of the article's primary authors before going forward. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Red Phoenix! Are you finished the comments? I'll get to re-working the structure of the article shortly. Sega Genesis is a good example, so I'll use that for inspiration. I don't know who the other editors of the article are, this article was just seemingly built from several users and IPs who added to the article over the years. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind lending a hand as need be. The comments I have so far are a start; I have a lot of thoughts about specifics involving text and phrasing, but if a restructure is called for, it really doesn't make sense to proceed without that process underway; otherwise we're correcting issues that may not be there in the new form, or new ones may arise. Think of it as starting with the skeleton in having the structure, then fleshing everything out. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some pointers here into a total article restructure

Here's a suggested layout I would recommend:

• Lead (obviously). Should summarize the main points; is best written last.
• History
  • Development - start with Sony's foray into video game consoles, since this is their first. Make mention of the incident with Nintendo involving their peripheral and how they had experience with Sega in developing video games. This event is also worth mentioning.
    • I've added more information about Sony's previous alliances with Nintendo and Sega in the development section.[1] Thanks for the source, it helped a lot! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Launch - A big part of Sony's initial success was its pre-launch hype. Make sure that E3 in 1995 is mentioned; Sega pulled off a stunt releasing the Saturn immediately at $399 as of the show, but Sony stole the show by announcing that the PlayStation would release at $299. The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven L. Kent can be helpful here; if you can't find it, contact me by email as I have the ebook version.
  • Crash Bandicoot - While the PlayStation was in the last era of the mascot game, it was a defining thing for the PlayStation. Define it and add a little bit about the character's development and success.
  • Any other major events worth a section? I'm not terribly familiar with the PlayStation.
  • Competition against Nintendo's late release of the Nintendo 64? Strategies Sony implemented during the life of the console? Marketing and success?
  • Transition to the PlayStation 2 - A little bit about the PS2 can go in here. Some mention of developing DVD technology, how long the PlayStation lasted after the release of the PS2, etc. Overall sales figures can also go in here, as well as comparisons to its competitors, the Nintendo 64 and Sega Saturn, also even the Dreamcast if there's enough to support that.
• Technical specifications
  • Tech specs - in a prose format
  • Peripherals - What made the PlayStation so unique? Surely there's material about the DualShock controller or the memory cards, and there were some unique peripherals.
  • Network services - I'm not familiar with what Sony did, but I do know video game console network services were around at this time. Did Sony support any for the PlayStation? If so, what did they support?
• Models - I'm noting this as its own full section, not just a subsection of the tech specs. The reason I say this is because not only are there various models of the PlayStation (which may or may not need too much description, depending on the coverage), but also...
  • Regional Variants - section can go here.
  • PSone - a subsection about the PSone really ought to go here. It can still include a "main article" link.
    • (Parenthetical note: on a side note of recent discovery, I'd really try to get rid of this article and work it into the main one. This would be a good core for the new "Models" section; removing any unnecessary technical detail and OR while keeping the useful bits can make it reworkable into a good section, and then the models article can simply be redirected to this section or to PlayStation.)
    • Done what you suggested and added a separate 'PSone' section (which now includes more detail). ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Game library - Sony's game library was quite unique at the time. All sorts of different titles from what was "the norm" were introduced on the PlayStation. What made the PlayStation so unique? Was it the titles, the graphics, the sound, all of it? How was the library as a whole evaluated in reviews (can be retrospective), and what particular titles stood out? A screenshot from a copyrighted PlayStation game would be completely appropriate here as well, as a demonstration of what the PlayStation was capable of graphically.
  • CD format - can go here, as it was a standout feature of the PlayStation and what its games were capable of.
• Reception and legacy - Section should both include reception from the past and present. In terms of past reception, old issues of Next Generation and Electronic Gaming Monthly can help you here; a lot of images from these are available on the web and Next Generation is available by the Wayback Machine's archive. How the console is viewed nowadays retrospectively can be found through modern sources, like IGN, GamesRadar, etc.

That's a lot, I know, but I hope it's helpful. Given as much as I'm thinking, I'm not going to hold this article to just a week of review hold time unless there isn't any movement. I'd be more than glad to be patient to see the great things that can happen here. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 16:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As an aid: I'm going to start a full view of the structural suggestion in my sandbox. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, Red Phoenix. Don't worry I'm not abandoning the review, I just finished two reviews and currently have five GANs open! But this one is my top priority, so I'll get addressing most of your concerns now shortly. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. My one concern is that this won't necessarily be one that can be done "shortly". As I'm reviewing the detail of the prose, I'm finding holes everywhere and lots of citations to questionable sources. This may be a longer process than I first feared since that will have to be wormed out. I'll do a comprehensive reference review in a bit. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are putting too much emphasis on Crash Bandicoot in your proposed rewrite here. While there is no doubt that the game was successful commercially, it was hardly a "defining" game for the PlayStation brand or for the success of the system and, one highly amusing advertising campaign aside, was not a mascot or symbol of the PlayStation, in part because Ken Kutaragi did not want to acknowledge a game from a non-Sony Western developer in that way. The defining characteristic of the PlayStation was the way the system broadened the demographic of video game players into the college and twenty-something crowd by leveraging the strength of the Sony brand name, tapping into the underground club scene in its early advertising, and offering more "mature" and "realistic" video game experiences. Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy VII, Wipeout, Resident Evil, and Gran Turismo defined these aesthetics, and three of those games outsold the original Crash Bandicoot. You point out that the PlayStation came at the end of the "mascot era." This is certainly true, and it was the PlayStation itself that brought an end to that era. Games like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil would have guaranteed the success of the system whether Crash Bandicoot existed or not. Contrast this with Sonic the Hedgehog on the Genesis or Super Mario 64 on the N64, mascot games that functioned as true killer apps that highlighted the technical strengths of their respective platforms and drove sales. Indrian (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I did specify I'm not a PlayStation historian. That defining experience is part of what goes into the marketing to me if that's the way Sony targeted the PlayStation and is exactly what sold it. In any regard, the article as it is is missing that in all aspects; there's no definition of how Sony did market the PlayStation or why it was so successful. And holy cow, Indrian, good to hear from you again. It's been a little while. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Full reference review

• 1-8 are all okay, but they are all primary sources, so I'll have to check and see what they're being used to cite.
• Ref 10 "Pocket-lint.com" seems a little shady; any way to confirm it's reliable?
• Ref 15: Game Over needs a full reference. I'm somewhat familiar with Sheff's book, but it'll need a full citation here with page number for proper credit.
• Ref 24: What makes maru-chang.org a reliable source?
• Ref 28: Per WP:VG/S, GameFAQs is not a reliable source, due to heavy user-contributed information.
• What is reference 29 a citation to? A book, a newspaper, a website? It's unclear.
• Ref 30: "The Official PlayStation Museum" is a WordPress site. In other words, it's a fan vanity site, and is highly unlikely to be reliable unless it's written by a recognized industry expert such as a known video game journalist. As I don't believe that's the case here, it should be considered unreliable.
• Ref 31: What makes Stereophile a reliable source?
• Ref 32: What makes Cyberiapc a reliable source?
• Ref 37: Same as Ref 28, cannot be used because it's GameFAQs and user-contributed.
• Refs 43 and 44: What makes ConsoleCopyWorld a reliable source?
• Ref 52: What makes TechRadar a reliable source?
• Ref 61: I don't see DigitalSpy listed at WP:VG/S. Something tells me I've seen this one as being okay before, but I'm not sure.
• Ref 62 is a GameSpot forum post and therefore isn't reliable.

I'm worried about this. Compounding the many missing holes in the story with this many questionable references concerns me about this article's credibility. I would still like to see it make GA status, and would be more than glad to help, but this may turn out to be a project. These references need to be weeded out and reworked, with replacements with reliable sources made. Now, to keep you from getting too discouraged, I do have a HighBeam Research account which can help us out, and I've asked someone at the reference library for the Video games project to help dig up some sources. Given the circumstances, I am considering temporarily failing this article to allow for time to fully rework the article, of which I certainly wouldn't mind being a part of that process and lending as much help as possible. There is just so much to be done here with the restructure and reference weed-out that this may take more than what can be done in even two or three weeks. There certainly is potential and I want to see it reach that, but there's a lot of work ahead. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 19:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

With little movement this past week, I'm going to go ahead and temp-fail this article. Unfortunate as it may be, it's been a week since this review began, but there's quite a bit to be done here. The references need to be redone and a lot of material needs to be added to meet criteria 2 and 3 of the GA criteria. I'll be glad to contribute myself as much as I can, but there's a lot that has to happen here for this article to be a GA, and I don't feel as though we're reasonably close to it yet. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)