Talk:Major League Baseball (video game)

Screenshots

I've added the screenshots, but I think that they look a bit ugly maybe... maybe someone can clean them up a bit or remove one or two? I just wanted to make sure I had all my bases covered (nyuk nyuk) so I took six shots. Canadian Paul 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

DYN?

Seeing as one of today's Did You Know... is "that Major League Baseball for Nintendo was the first ever video game licensed by the MLB?" it's probably important to know that it's not correct. Mattel's League Baseball for the Intellivision at the very least preceded it by eight years. Note the disclaimer text on the cover. Perhaps what was meant was that this NES MLB game was the first to use actual MLB teams since the Intellivision MLB game just used generic players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squirrel Killer (talk • contribs) 13:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Review Validity

The reception part of the review doesn't seem to hold a lot of credibility. It links to some user reviews on large sites to pass them off as the official word of what critics thought of the game. The one that is most concerning is the "Gamespot review" of the title. Since there really isn't a huge online archive of classic video game magazines from that era, the entire "reception" portion should maybe just be a legacy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lava Wolf (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review on hold

Hello. I saw this page on the GA review article and released it hasn't been reviewed in almost a month. I'm trying to clear up some of the backlog on the VG Project GARs and thought I'd help out on this one. This article was a good read, and I think it could be considered GA if the following changes are made:

• Reduce the number of overall images. The images themselves have nice FU templates, but too many can make an article difficult to qualify for fair use. Try and chop it down to 2 or 3 screenshots that are the most relevant. You also need to add a source for each image you keep. If you got these yourself from an emulator, just make a note of it on their image pages.

 Done Cheers, CP 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fix wikilinks to "Sports game" and "Multiplayer game" to avoid spelling re-directs.

 Done Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fix spelling of "Intellivision".

 Done Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Graphics section, second sentence: capitalize Caucasian.

 Done Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Only the first letter of each sub-section should be capitalized. ("Gameplay Issues" ---> "Gameplay issues")

 Done Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Add a region tag to the release date. If the game only came out in North America, just place the NA tag (^NA) in front of the date.

 Done And will take a brief look to see if it has a Japan release date. Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• The links to List of NES games/Famicom games aren't needed in this article. Only articles dealing with systems or lists of game require them.

 Done Should I link to other relevant Baseball games in a See also section, or just leave it out? Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One you've made some changes, go ahead and reply on either this page or my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good luck! Nall 22:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Good work! I'd say this article now qualifies. A peer review might be useful for improving it further, but for now it has everything a Good Article should. Appropriately the first baseball game GA, too.

About the "See also" section, if you want to add similar games or series from this era I think that would work, or another sports game from this developer. Nall 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! GA status fully deserved. Una Laguna^Talk 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlus

Atlus developed this game, no? --Hydao (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. What is your source for that? Canadian Paul 04:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The GDRI site: http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Atlus >> Much more reliable than GameFAQs and etcs, if we are talking about developers... but yeah, I'm gonna ask that site. --Hydao (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's interesting, along with what you posted on my talk page. I certainly have no attachment to using GameFAQs over anything else, so if something else is uncovered, that's good enough for me. Canadian Paul 17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up and it seems Enteractive Inc. wasn't around when this game was released. They formed in 1993, five years after this game was released. The Enteractive here was a brand label that LJN Toys used in their video games they published from 1988 to 1990. I hope this clears everything up. Renelia Richter (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It does. I've updated the article, thanks! Canadian Paul 20:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The Reception section's really lacking right now. Any reason it's so short? czar ♔ 02:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because it's a 20+ year old video game, making contemporary sources difficult to come across, in addition to it not being a very good/popular game, thus limiting the amount of reviews in modern sources that are considered reliable. Nintendo Power is a dead end; there was never any substantial coverage there. But I suspect somewhere obscure out there, there is probably an extra review or two that could help beef up that section. Canadian Paul 07:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have some leads for offline sources you would like me to help follow, please let me know. Otherwise I'm not sure this can stand as a good article with next to no Reception. czar ♔ 11:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's what you feel that you need to do to improve Wikipedia, then I won't argue. Canadian Paul 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Major League Baseball (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I planned to nominate this for a GAN a while back, but for whatever reason I never decided to. This was promoted way back in 2007 and appears to have been nominated by the same person as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, another GA that has been nominated for a reassessment. This one is clearly unsuitable as a GA and does not meet the criteria for a number of reasons.

1. The biggest issue I have is the surprising lack of a large reception section. While I understand that finding reviews for older games can be difficult (especially for the real obscure ones), having one this short is unacceptable for a GA. Even something like Xevious, a rather obscure video game in the West and is about seven years older than MLB, has a better one than this. The only review that is even here is a brief mention in Nintendo Power that doesn’t provide any actual information aside from the casual comment about it being like Bases Loaded.
2. Uses unreliable sources, such as MobyGames and VGMPF.
3. The article is not structured properly nor is it very well written. Not sure why the Development section was placed in front of the gameplay. The development section is also largely unsourced, and I fail to see the purpose of the “Technology” section as it doesn’t make any sense to have in a video game article.

I don’t think this article is up to snuff for the GA criteria, so I am voting to delist this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist - Most of the article is sourced to the game's AllGame page, which has been a dead link since 2014 and there is no way to verify the information. I'm not even sure if the article passes notability to be honest, and it's going to be difficult to expand the reception section. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delist The article in the current state doesn't even establish notability per WP:GNG, let alone being on a GA level right now. Development section is mostly about similar games before it, cited unreliable sources in Moby and a wiki, major parts of Gameplay and Technology (or whatever that represents) are unsourced. I have fixed the AllGame reference. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)