Talk:Gran Trak 10

Fair use rationale for Image:GranTrak10 screenshot.jpg

Image:GranTrak10 screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gran Trak 10/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 23:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And so I take this on, as is tradition. Indrian (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have to ask... The article relies very heavily on Business Is Fun—what kind of hallmarks of editorial credibility does it have? I couldn't find any info on "Syzygy Press", which leads me to believe it's self-edited and -published. Did the book mention its editorial process? The author mentioned this website several years ago but it doesn't imply that there was an outside editor. Part of the purpose of a reliable source is having independent editorial vetting, as even experts make typos and get facts wrong. Thoughts? czar 14:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Marty Goldberg is an expert on Atari history who has been published in numerous professional magazines with editorial oversight and had a paper he co-authored accepted at an academic conference and therefore passes muster as a self-published source. While not perfect, this book represents the most definitive account of Atari's early history written to date and contains far fewer inaccuracies than any of the non-self-published sources on the topic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with relying on it heavily. Indrian (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to belabor it but without links, that sounds like a puffy author bio. My understanding is that he did some freelance for Retro Gamer and has been used for interviews about the New Mexico dig but otherwise doesn't have a pedigree. Nothing wrong with that—where would history be without amatore?—but authors are put through a professional publisher's editorial process to make sure their product is sound. I'd tread carefully and would treat the book the same as if it were published on the author's personal webpage unless there is evidence of external oversight.  czar 21:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no professional video game history scholarship of any note. Its not puffery to call him an Atari expert; he is one by default because there is no one else. I fully believe that someday there will be a better treatment of the subject, but right now there simply is not one. I don't agree with all the conclusions the book draws, but the factual basis is generally sound. And being published is immaterial in a field like this with few good sources. Steven Kent is published, and if you use his book as your primary source on most video game subjects you are in trouble. I know the sources, both primary and secondary, extremely well, and right now this is the best we have. Indrian (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

So on to the main event:

Lead

• "it caused a total loss of $500,000 for the company" - This is not quite accurate. The company did experience a loss of $500,000 for the fiscal year ending in June 1974, and Gran Trak was a significant factor in that loss, but it did not create the entire loss all by itself. I would say something like "significantly contributed to" rather than "caused."

• Ah, you're right, I'm misreading it- I thought it was that Gran Trak lost $500,000, which was part of a larger loss for the company, not that Gran Trak lost "a lot" and Atari was 500,000 in the red at the end of the fiscal year.

Gameplay

• "as in a real car. The gear shifting works similar to a real car" - Vary the language a bit.

• Cut the duplicate.

• "but the pedals function as buttons rather than variable pedals" - I get the concept here, but using the term "buttons" does not really convey the true meaning, which is that the pedals are digital controls rather than analog.

• Tried to fix, though I'm not sure I succeeded 100%

Legacy

• "Gran Trak 10 lost Atari $500,000, roughly as much as the previous year's profits" - As above, it was a significant factor in the loss, but not the only one.

• Fixed as above

• "leaving it considered as the game that nearly put Atari out of business" - Awkwardly worded.

• Reworded, and properly quoted the fragment I was pulling from Atari, Inc.

And that's it. Not really much to tweak here, so I will go ahead and place the review  On hold. Indrian (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Addressed everything, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Right, forgot to ping, so I have no idea if you saw this or not. --PresN 02:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine. I'll promote. Indrian (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

3rd opinion on inclusion of Wozniak liking Gran Trak 10

Amakuha‎ and I disagree on whether or not their addition of Steve Wozniak considering Gran Trak 10 to be his favorite game is a good one in this article. The statement is well-supported by RSs, so that's fine, but since Wozniak did not work on the game, or even work directly for Atari at any point, in my opinion it's trivia- "relatively famous person liked this game". We've gone back and forth a couple times, so rather than edit war, I'm requesting additional comment from WT:VG members here. --PresN 16:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Trivia - There's no mention that he was inspired by it or that it helped him specifically in the development of Breakout nor is he a reviewer. At this point it's just a guy who liked a game and is only included because he's well known for other things. CrimsonFox ^talk 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove. The statement tells us something about Wozniak and nothing about Gran Trak. Mention it on Wozniak's article, but not here. If it inspired his game design philosophies or something it would be very different and I would argue to include but unfortunately that's not the case. TarkusAB^talk 16:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove. For the same reasons you presented. Just an opinion of a famous person.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• Leave (in the latest version):
  1. The mention of Wozniak is intended to illustrate the reception of the game at its time (normally, it goes into section "Reception", not "Legacy"). Currently the article only mentions that the game was successful, but there is no indication that the game was even considered "addictive" so much, as to make people like Wozniak spend lots of money playing it, as was the case.
  2. Yes, Wozniak is not a professional game reviewer (like the guys mentioned in "Reception" section of more modern computer games). However, I doubt that such profession existed/was popular in 1974. (Play Meter's first issue got published in December that year.)
  3. I strongly disagree that Wozniak was "just a guy who liked a game" or that this is just "an opinion of a famous person". Was he indirectly employed by Atari? Yes. He had access to all the games of Atari for free and preferred to play specifically Gran Trak 10 "all night long". Was he involved in game design? Yes. He implemented the first version of highly successful Breakout. Therefore, he is mentioned not only based on his current celebrity status, but as a person involved in computer game design. --Amakuha (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't him being employed by Atari actually make this a counterpoint? It makes it a primary source and isn't be a reliable measure of a games quality as he was an employee of the company? CrimsonFox ^talk 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • No, because this article is about one specific game of Atari, and Wozniak was not even involved in its development. Moreover, I believe that even if president of Atari stated that this was his "favorite game ever" it would be useful to mention that opinion here, since it would distinguish one game of Atari among hundreds of others. --Amakuha (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter if he didn't work on the game directly. Him being an employee of Atari is the problem and makes his opinion potentially biased. Why would someone openly criticise games from the company that is currently employing them? Sure he might be the type of person to do so but we don't know and it makes it unreliable. CrimsonFox ^talk 09:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • The point is not whether he praised or criticized it. The point is that he singled out this game among hundreds. And he did so while not being involved in Atari anymore. --Amakuha (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Remove. Based on the current context, this factoid illuminates no larger point besides Woz liking the game. I can't recall doing the same for any other figure in any industry. czar 02:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Grease patch?

I remember a cabinet of a game that looked just like this (a dot-delimited track, steering wheel etc) at a local shop, and one outstanding feature I noticed was a small glass (or plastic?) plate smeared irregularly with grease, stuck to the screen over a part of the track the middle, raised from the screen by four rubber pads in the corners, to symbol a slippery segment of the track - there was no in-game visual cue the part was slippery but the car handled differently over that segment. Can anyone elaborate on this? Was this some later version or something? Sharpfang (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sharpfang: May have been LeMans (1976), though that has visual oil slicks, or a clone version of that or Gran Trak 10. --PresN 14:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

LeMans has its slicks displayed on screen as darker squares though and they change location throughout the game with track changes. I specifically remember this one due to that peculiarity of a crudely greased rectangle of glass, maybe 3x5cm in size, affixed to the CRT screen as the only visual cue there was a slick there. It could have been some unauthorized clone though - it was in Poland, sometime in the 80s, with IP laws non-existent and still behind the iron curtain. Sharpfang (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)