Talk:Pixel Gun 3D

App Icon

Add the app icon of Pixel Gun 3D in the information box? Supernt7852 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot

Maybe add a screenshot of a map on Pixel Gun 3d? Soggysocks220 (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pixel Gun 3D/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 04:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I can give this one a go. Shouldn't take too long given the article is short and sweet! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @NegativeMP1:, I've added in some comments below. Pretty minor stuff, so hopefully close to the finish line on this one. No other major issues identified and a source spot check looks good. Let me know when you've actioned and I'll close the GAN as as pass. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reviewing this article, I think I've addressed everything that's listed below. λ NegativeMP1 22:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! Thanks for the quick action and appreciate it. Welcome any feedback on the approach and always happy to review future articles if you nominate. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Review

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Y Yes, this conforms to the standard.

• Plot is usually a separate section to Gameplay rather than subsection.
  • Viewed the plot as not significant enough to be a separate section, since its only a single paragraph. Can be split off if you disagree.
    • Given it's already cordoned off in its own section, it doesn't make a difference how the hierarchy of the section appears either way, so not a big deal.

Is the article generally well-written?   Needs another proofread.

• eachother -> each other in P1 of the headline.
  • Done.
• games -> game's in several areas of the article.
  • Done.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing?   The game seems notable but the sourcing and coverage leaves a little to be desired.

• Like many mobile games, the in-depth coverage is largely not from confidently reliable sources:

1. 1. Windows Central is a reliable source per WP:VG/S.
   2. Common Sense Media is a reliable source per WP:RSPSS.
   3. 148Apps is a source of situational reliability per WP:VG/S.
   4. AppGet and TechTudo are sources of unknown reliability per WP:VG/S.
      1. According to Portuguese Wikipedia editors, Techtudo is a source commonly used over there. I also presume reliability in Appget since it's gotten through some GAN reviews, such as Vanille.
         1. No worries! I should check it out and see if it can be recognised at WP:VG/S, but obviously if it's a widely used WP:NONENG source then there's no issues jsut because it's not as recognised here.

• Trivial coverage from WP:VG/S is fine to add but exercise caution on how it is used. Each provides brief assessments of the game limited only to the breadth of gameplay modes and weapons.
• The Hadley Pocket Gamer citation does not cover Pixel Gun 3D.
  • For some reason, sites like this update their articles and remove past entries. I meant to tag it as a dead link. Check the archived links, they're in there.
  • Thanks!

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article?

• The statement in Reception about praise being directed to multiplayer modes seems like it is a catch-all for miscellaneous review sources. The three listicles, Pocket Gamer, GamesRadar and Gamezebo really don't have anything to say about the multiplayer as cited.
  • So what do you propose be done with them then?
    • I'd add an additional sentence that said that several outlets cited the game as one of the best mobile shooters or battle royale games, which makes the sources usable and provides text that the sources verify.
• Absent a review aggregator score, can the game's reception really be said to have been met with overall praise? Of the two WP:VG/S reviews: Common Sense Media had at best to say that it "isn't bad" and Games for Windows scarcely evaluated the game beyond stating it was a "fun" recommendation and noting the "frustrating" and "difficult" controls. Deneen of 148Apps dedicates quite a lot of the review to noting the single-player shortcomings. Suggest removing evaluative assessments of the reviews or something more balanced i.e. Following release, Pixel Gun 3D was praised by critics for X and received criticism for Y.
  • Changed to "positive reviews." The sentence that comes right after it would make something like what you suggested seem off, in my opinion.
    • Fair compromise, thanks.

• Both the Steam and IGN page put 3 April 2024 as the date of release for the PC port.
  • I think it adjusts based on timezone, because for me on both sources, it says April 2nd.
  • That's fair, I'm in an non-US timezone so that's definitely a better call.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues?  

• The Pixel Gun 3D logo is treated as a cover. There is also a user that has requested a manual review of the image to examined it and consider an alternative free license. If a genuine cover could be found for the game, like the Steam header art, this would be valid non-free use.
  • The Steam header art says "PC Edition" on it, and the game updates its icon every time it gets a major update. A single icon is not really possible, unfortunately.
    • This isn't a licensing issue so happy to leave my nitpick as-is.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?   See below:

Development and release

• The lead statement isn't clear: is Krasnov now Lightmap or did development change hands?
  • This isn't clear in the sources either. I don't know.
    • That's ok! If the sources don't say it, it's fine to leave as-is.
• If the Windows Phone release date is unknown, best not to attribute it to when it was reviewed.
  • Reworded to "before January 2014." Hopefully this is okay.
    • All good!
• The inclusion of new game modes would seem to be a more significant aspect of the June update.
  • Done.

Reception

• If the author of the AppGet review cannot be identified, best to attribute it to the site.
  • Done.
• What were Edmonds' thoughts in the Windows Central review?
  • Basically the same thing as the other sources criticizing the controls, I don't think there was any unique commentary.
• Given Boudreau doesn't review the game, it is perhaps not the best idea to attribute his observation about what users said on Steam reviews unless this can be corroborated.
  • So do you suggest the removal of this bit? It can probably be removed, though it does seem to fall in line with some criticism
    • I think so, it's much too specific and subjective an assessment. Maybe generalising that Ian Boudreau of PCGamesN reported user complaints about the game's monetization model upon release. The gist is to just reduce undue emphasis on it.
• Someone added in the Guo paper since the review started. I think the paper should definitely be added but the source itself is completely neutral on the game and just making an academic observation. Details on the quantum are also overkill. Suggest reframing the source to just provide context for the monetization reception, such as i.e. Some were also critical on the game's technical performance and monetization practices, with a 2015 review by Guo & Papatla identifying the app's add-on features were substantially higher than other apps. You can then re-introduce the Vinha review on a new sentence.

Sales

• Good work qualifying all of this is from the word of the publisher as it is very promotional.
• What does it mean for a game to be on the 'trending' charts on Steam?
  • I feel as if it explains itself, I assume most people know what "trending" means.
    • That's fair - given the article doesn't explain it either it should be left to the reader.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.