Talk:Gearheads (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheJoebro64 (talk · contribs) 00:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Expect comments within the next few days. JOEBRO64 00:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Thanks. I actually have a comment of my own: the screenshot seems a little fishy. This is for two reasons: the first being that the right player is at 21 points yet the game is ongoing, contradicting what the article says about the game (yes, I know that you can change the winning score, but you're not really supposed to: it's done by a hidden undocumented setting in the .ini file, and there's a hidden debug screen that enables you to do it too). The second being the position of the toys seems unlikely to me. For these reasons, I have suspected for a while that the screneshot used is a mock-up (it is actually used on the game's box) rather than an actual gameplay shot. Should I change it? Adam9007 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adam9007: yeah, if it's just a mockup or impossible to create within the game I'd change it. I'll be writing the full review soon, but from a glance this looks pretty good. JOEBRO64 18:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: I don't know for sure that it's a mock-up; it's just a suspicion. But the right player having 21 points certainly contradicts the article... Adam9007 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead/infobox

• Philips Media is linked twice
• June 1996 release date is unsourced.
• Wasn't there an SNES version of the game? It's not listed in the infobox.

• I'm not actually sure. Was there? I know a SNES version was reviewed by GamePro, but I've never seen any hard evidence that the SNES version was actually released. Eric Zimmerman's Gearheads page only mentions the PC and Mac versions, as do the Philips and R/GA pages. Adam9007 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• A few SNES database fansites I looked at do list the game, and the GamePro review provides a release date of November 1996. It's odd it isn't listed on Philips and R/GA pages... maybe it was ported and published by a different company? JOEBRO64 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: I've found an Electronic Gaming Monthly review (of sorts) of the SNES version, and it says it was (or was going to be, I'm not sure which: there's no release date so maybe it had been released by then?) published by Philips. It's therefore a bit strange that the Philips website doesn't mention it. There's precious little about the SNES version out there: not even YouTube videos (that I can find) or anything like that. I'm guessing that if it was released, it's ultra-rare. I'm not sure whether or not to consider this review as proof that it was released. The article claims it contains both just-released games and to-be-released games. I think the best we can do is add a sentence that says a SNES version was planned for release in late 1996. Adam9007 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'll reach out to WT:VG and see what they think. JOEBRO64 20:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Adam9007: a user at WT:VG suggested that you add to development that an SNES version was planned but ultimately never released, and cite it to a list of SNES games ([1]). They also suggested you should split the SNES reviews from the rest of the section. JOEBRO64 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: Would this be an acceptable PAL release list? Gearheads doesn't appear on it. Adam9007 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Adam9007: I don't think so; it comes from a fansite, not a primary (like the American one) or reliable source. Maybe though, it depends if it's accurate/has been researched well. JOEBRO64 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: The best I could find online were this, this, and this. I also have what might be (but I'm not sure) a release list in Retro Gamer's SNES book. Are any of these any good? Adam9007 (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Adam9007: the second one looks best. The first one looks like a forum post and the third one is from RetroCollect, which I'm pretty sure is unreliable. JOEBRO64 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: I've just realised that the second one says NES, not SNES. However, I did find this. Is it a full release list? Adam9007 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Adam9007: it's smaller, but it is from a reliable source. I'd say it's fine. Also—I'm going to be doing something this week so I won't be able to edit until Friday. I'll check the review ASAP. JOEBRO64 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Gearheads is a strategy video game developed by R/GA Interactive and Philips Media. It was released by Philips in 1996 for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. I feel like you could combine these into one sentence. How about something like: Gearheads is a 1996 developed by R/GA Interactive and Philips Media, and published by Philips for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS?
• I feel like the second paragraph could use some expansion. There's a fair amount of information present in the development and reception sections that could be added to the lead.

Gameplay

• No mention of this being a strategy game.

• I'm not sure how to put that in without it sounding repetitive from the lead. Adam9007 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've added a mention; I hope it doesn't seem repetitive. JOEBRO64 20:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Deadhead, a skull toy, "scares" toys it comes into contact with so they reverse direction.[6][5].[1][7] What's up with the period splitting up the refs?

• I don't know... I've deleted it. Adam9007 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also, those refs should be sorted out in numerical order (I know this is tedious, but I've been told most MOS guidelines recommend this).

• I'm not sure what you mean? Adam9007 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The refs should read like [1][5][6][7] (in ascending order), not [6][5][1][7] (all over the place) JOEBRO64 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• In single-player mode—I'd link to single-player
• I don't think charged needs quotations; it's pretty common to say something is charging to work so people'll know what this means.
• a powerup is granted to the player—I'd link to power-up

Development

• If we decide that the SNES version exists, I'd add its release date in a sentence here.
• No other comments here, pretty well-written.

• @TheJoebro64: I'm wondering if we can use this image in the article? It does mention that there were screens for toy statistics during development. Would that be original research? Adam9007 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, I'm not so sure because it's a non-free image, so it'd need a good rationale to be added. I don't think it'd really be OR though. JOEBRO64 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• @TheJoebro64: It's a debug screen, so it was presumably used during development. Whether it's the same one as mentioned in the source and article I don't know, but it presumably is. Adam9007 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Reception

• Gearheads received mixed reviews. Reviewers praised the game's addictiveness, visuals, and entertainment value but were conflicted over the sound and music. Generalizations like this need references because they can be challenged.
• Gamer's Zone should be italicized (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works)
• Should you add the GamePro and EGM scores to the review box?

• I don't think they have scores. Adam9007 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• The GamePro one does; it provides scores of 3.5 for graphics and controls, 2.5 for sound, and 3.0 for fun factor. I'd merge the scores together in the infobox (that would make it 12.5/20) and then put the breakdown in a footnote (similar to how it's done at Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game)) JOEBRO64 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• While most of this section is pretty well-written, at points it has sort of an "X said Y" formula and could use some extra variation (see Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for advice).

References

• The 20em part of the {{reflist}} template is unnecessary because the references are automatically put in a column when there are more than 10 present.
• No other comments on the references, as all seem reliable and are archived.

JOEBRO64 21:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Adam9007: nice work. This is overall pretty close to a GA. JOEBRO64 20:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Adam9007, I'm back and took a look at the article—everything looks good. Passing. JOEBRO64 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)