Talk:Ristar (Game Gear)

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Reception

I've boldly restored most of my edit to the Reception section. Sergecross73's edit summary did not explain the reasons for all of his reverts, which is understandable given the limited space for edit summaries, so I'll explain all the changes I've made here:

Addition of GamePro review - No idea why Sergecross would revert this. GamePro is a notable/reliable source, and is even listed as such on WP:Wikiproject Video Games/Sources.
Expansion of EGM citation - Again, no idea why Sergecross would revert this. The more details you have on a source, the easier it is for reviewers to check up the information.
Correction of EGM score - Check out an issue of EGM. They have never given scores on a scale of 100.
Rewriting of EGM summarizing prose - The version to which Sergecross reverted consists solely of quotations. This is a rather sloppy way of summarizing a review, especially in EGM's case, since they use a panel of four reviewers who are not always in agreement on every point - and in this case are in fact, sharply divided.
Removal of Gaming Sanctuary ref and prose stating Gaming Sanctuary's opinion as that of all reviewers - Gaming Sanctuary does not appear to be a notable/reliable source. I checked my impression with WP:Wikiproject Video Games/Sources, and it is not listed there. In any case, writing the article to indicate that Gaming Sanctuary represents the opinion of all critics is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
Separation of contemporary and retrospective reviews - Sorry, but I am of the opinion that writing about retrospective reviews just as if they were made upon the day the game was released is incredibly misleading.

I think that covers it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin IIIa - I didn't object to any of your additions, my problem was with some of the stuff you removed. You removed the bit about reviewers being divided on whether or not the game was worth playing if they had access to the Genesis version, which I found puzzling because even your version of the reception section contains reviewers saying that it was distinct enough from the Genesis version to want to play it, or that the reader should search for the Genesis version. 2 sources discuss that even without the gaming sanctuary page.

Anyways, I only reverted everything else as it was the only way to restore that information. I feel a hybrid version is the best approach. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring information without doing a blanket revert shouldn't be a problem; doesn't your browser support copy and paste?

As far as reviewers commenting on whether the game is worth playing in light of the Genesis version, my problem with that is it seems to be only retrospective reviewers (and not even all of them) who have made such comments. If the statement identified that it was retro reviews which were saying this, rather than an ongoing consensus from the time it was released, it wouldn't be such a stumbling block for me. My edit summary admittedly did not make this point clear.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every revert attempt/combination lead to a "this edit could not be undone due to intermediate edits" message, and your changes were numerous and throughout the article, so it would have been a lot of effort to surgically restore it to this hybrid version. In regards to your other concern, if you want to preface the comment with "Retrospective reviewers felt" or something, I'm fine with that, I don't really care either way. I'm just saying, the point was referenced in 2 separate review sources, which is noteworthy when we're talking about a game with only a handful of review sources available. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're making the editing process much more complicated for yourself than it needs to be. Reverting all an editor's changes and then surgically restoring all but the one or two you don't like is unnecessary; that's like trying to find the red marble in a jar by hunting down each individual marble that isn't red and removing them from the jar one-by-one. Just take the red marble. In other words, undo the one or two changes you don't like, and don't even think about the other changes. It's that simple.

There are a lot more than just "a handful of review sources available" for Ristar. It was a major first-party release; I'm willing to bet that every review publication which covers handhelds did a review of it upon release. Then there's the retrospective reviews on top of that.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you made a lot of changes across just 2 edits, so when I tried to just revert one of your edits, you get an error message like this. Which is why I'm saying that, if you don't like a ton of your work reverted, then make multiple, smaller edits rather than a bunch in just one or two.

In regards to the reviews part, that's great if you can dig some more reviews up, great, but I was writing according to what was available. Sadly, games from the first half of the 90s from less than successful consoles like the Game Gear don't typically have a ton of sources available online, and not many people have access to the old magazines. Even more mainstream titles, like Sonic Triple Trouble, have pretty small reception sections, for that very reason. If more sources are found, and it makes my content comparing it to the Genesis version WP:UNDUE, then I'd support removing it, but its accurate to the sources available currently to the article. (And I'm guessing its likely a comparison that was made in other reviews as well, as long as we're on the topic of hypothetical reviews.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dev team

It's claimed here the the Genesis version was developed by Sonic Team. It's not, but Sergecross73 will forever insists it is, since he's an admin and what says goes. The source here is laughable. First he cites it as being from 1995. The link doesn't actually work. Here's a working link: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/ristar-review/1900-6167207/

The review is from 2007, it even mentions the Sonic Mega Collection. This did not exist in 1995. Nowhere does the article at all suggest the Genesis version was developed by Sonic Team. It only says that it evolved from a prototype of the first Sonic the Hedgehog game. Even then the article itself calls this a "legend." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.44.202 (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reworded. The point wasn't really meant to be centered around ST anyways, the point was that it was made by a different development team, which is true. Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]