# Talk:Kaboom! (video game)

This page redirects from the talk page of KaBOOM!, the nonprofit organization. --PvtDeth (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Kaboom does change the facial expression of the Mad Bomber at 10,000+ points. See video at the following....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=K06GMTx_NgY#t=231s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.6.179 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 
There is a link to imdb at the end of the article, I think this is on the wrong page, or just a joke (is a link to a producer).Flavio.mprado (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a clone to linux, called "Mad bomber". I should put this on ports, or open a new section "clones"? Or maybe rename ports to "ports and clones" (other pages have this approach).Flavio.mprado (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless I am mistake, wasn't Kaboom! played to a version of the 1812 Overture, with each bomb released playing one note? I recall a game like this that played this music, but I can't be sure it was Kaboom or some other variation on Avalanche. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I gave the article a quick re-write. I've added a development section (there isn't much from Kaplan on this) and release and reception, and legacy. The gameplay bit needs a re-work, but that can be tackled later. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated as always. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kaboom! (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs) 20:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: CooperCool23 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written. 
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. 
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (No original research):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage. 
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy. 
Fair representation without bias:

It is stable. 
No edit wars, etc.:

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. 
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Most of what is here seems to be pretty good, but there are a couple of grips that need to be addressed
(Note that I will add more points later, as I haven't read the entire article yet.)


### Major Addressing Points
• Awkward source formatting -> These sources just state the author and the year, which doesn't follow what has been prestablished as what is supposed to be done for formatting sources. Fix that.

Sorry, could you expand on why this is inappropriate? I've never had this issue with any in the past and it seems to be a valid way to cite material per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that it is inappropriate but rather, in a sense, strange for the sake of Video Game Articles in my opinion. Wikipedia:Citing sources also states that full citations, the way that I recommended, is the most common way used across Wiki articles, and the same logic always seems to apply to Video Game articles as far as i'm concerned. But that's purely just a nitpick thing, i'm totally fine with you keeping them as short citations, but I am at the very least curious as to why you would use them in a VG article in comparison to the common method of full citing. Is it a professionalism thing? COOPER COOL 23 user page 23:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
No real reason per se, other than I find it easier to cite when adding things in the future. For example, if I'm citing a lot of books or articles in magazines that are spread out among a good chunk of pages (common for older game articles), its much easier and tidier to cite them this way. I also just kind of like having all the citations in one section of the wiki instead of hunting in a larger article of where one citation actually is. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Unfit image in gameplay section -> Why is an image of the Paddle Controller used in the gameplay section? Replace the image with the one currently stuck in the reception section and delete the Paddle Controller image entirely. It's important for the control of the game yes, but that's like using the same image for the Breakout article. It just feels wrong for what is supposed to be explaining gameplay you know.

I'm going to respectfully disagree here. The graphics are discussed in more detail, specifcally the details of the bomber, the explosions, and more in the reception. I'm going to assume most people would try these games via emulation than actual software, so I think it should be clear that this game used an analogue disc rather than a joystick or button as most Atari games had for control. That seems more specific to the gameplay in question here. While I know it's not usually what is done, this is what the legal reasoning is done with these screen shot in question, and I believe better emphasizes it. There doesn't appear to be anything in MOS:VG saying the other situation has to be the format for these types of things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
You bring up some valid points, and i'd state that your argument prevails. My initial logic was that every gameplay section was pretty much legally obligated to include a screenshot of some kind (another case like with my other major point where I was going with my gut feeling that something was "wrong"... Again, just a nitpick thing with my Wikipedian writing and formatting style.) COOPER COOL 23 user page 23:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
I think that was sort of an older standard, but I think WP:VG has gotten a bit more serious about screenshots in games lately in terms of copyright and fair use. I.e: we can't just use it to say "this is what the game looks like" as we already cite fair use for using a game cover, so we'd be pushing it a bit to use it for both. While I do agree that its more common to see it in a gameplay section, with games like Atari stuff, a screenshot rarely conveys what we are seeing as I imagine anyone unfamiliar with games of this vintage will wonder "what's that square supposed to be?" :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


### Addressing Points
#### Lead
• "Kaboom! is an action video game published in 1981 by Activision for the Atari 2600." -> "Kaboom! is a 1981 action game developed by Larry Kaplan and published by Activision for the Atari 2600"

• By that logic, David Crane's mention in the lead should be removed.
I've updated to your suggested prose. Crane's contribution to the game seems to be quite large (see the details of the reception, etc.) like adding the mad bomber, as the game before hand was basically just Avalanche again it seems. I suggest leaving it in as its a pretty key part of the development. But if you really want, I can leave it.Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd say keep the mention of Crane in the lead. Like you mentioned, this game is pretty much just Avalanche again so mentioning that part of development would be important to keep. COOPER COOL 23 user page 16:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
It's in the lead still, just not in the first sentence. Is that still cool? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that should be fine COOPER COOL 23 user page 16:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Gameplay
• I understand that the game is very simple and would probably make the sentence sound weird, but try reworking the following sentence so that it doesn't have specific point values: "If at least one bucket is missing, the player receives a new bucket every 1,000 points."

Tried to re-phrase, I don't think the 1,000 point value is that important either, but I'm having trouble re-phrasing it without this bit, otherwise it just sounds like "well eventually you can regain an extra life", the 1,000 sort of clarifies its a set amount and just saying a set amount I think would lead anyone to ask "well how many do you need?" Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Is reference 4 really the best option to put into an article? I don't doubt that it doesn't have good info but is there really not a secondary option that could be used here instead?

I've replaced some with some reviews, but some sources miss out on the 2-player mode. I don't think the details are that controversial that they can't be substantiated by the primary source (i.e: they aren't opinions, etc.) But up to you if you want me to replace the rest. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Development
• I feel like these two following sentences could be worked into one another better: "Paul Wilson adapted Kaboom to the Atari 5200 and Atari 8-bit Computers. These ports were identical."

Tried to re-phrase this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Release
No points I have to address here


#### Reception
• Again sort of like my point in the gameplay section, the following sentence could remove the mention of specific point thresholds: "...such as his smile when the player misses a bomb and his frown when the player scores over 10,000 points."

Re-phrased. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Legacy
No points I have to address here


#### Other Notes
These relate to the infobox
• Add a caption under the box art stating that it is the 2600 box art specifically. I know that it's obvious what the image is but I have checked the box art of the other ports and they are drastically different, so the means to differentiate are nice

Good call. The later releases have particularly different art, so that's a good call. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• This game is a funky case with it's multiplayer, but in the modes section make it "Single-player, multiplayer". Those are the only two values accepted for that section anyway.

News to me. Happy to update it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)


### Final Verdict
Assuming i'm not missing anything grammatical, that should be all the points that I have to make. If you have any additional comments or quams, i'd be happy to know. But otherwise, this article seems GA worthy to me. COOPER COOL 23 user page 01:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey hey @CooperCool23:, I believe I've addressed all your issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: It seems like you have. This article has been passed. COOPER COOL 23 user page 01:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)