# Talk:Space Cavern

I created this article, after going through my old Atari 2600 games.  The description of the game I put in italics, is word for word from the manual.  No copyright issues, do to fair usage laws, and the fact no one cares.  Dream Focus 04:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It says from the manual, that's all the reference anyone needs.  The top part now has a reference to a book, which isn't where that information came from, it just common sense.  I wrote it.  Two player game, mention the series, company name, and you move back and forth shooting enemies above you or to the side.  Simple.  Feeling that such a simple thing needs a reference to verify it is rather ridiculous.  Dream Focus 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Cavern/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll have this to you by the weekend czar ♔ 21:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Talk:Games by Apollo#Notability of individual games: I have previously discussed the independent notability of this topic in light of sparse sourcing. While I think it's short enough in its current state to fit better in a "Games by Apollo" list of games or something of the sort, I also think it's substantial enough to be in a gray area and to go forward with the GAN, so voilà:
IGN wiki is user-contributed and an unreliable source
Took it out. Thankfully Weiss supports that it was released in 1982. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I've mentioned elsewhere that it would be really helpful to have a WPVG guide on where to look for Atari 2600-era reviews, if only because I'm an outsider to what's available. Anyway, I was able to find two more sources by luck on Internet Archive: Electronic Games and Videogaming Illustrated
Incorporated Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't preclude 1a, but a lot of the prose was superfluous—see the lede copyedit for some of the things I took out (the rest of the article could use a similar treatment)
"If the player touches the beams from the creatures": they have beams? explain
Yep, they shoot at you. Clarified Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
what are lives for and how do they work? wikilink would be good too
Done Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you get points and what do they do?
Done Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
what is a variation? This section is unclear (also it's generally bad form to begin sentences with numbers that aren't written out, but that's not a GAN concern)
A gameplay variation. I changed it around. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Did Roper fly Salvo to CES specifically to see this game, or was it something he found there? Unclear. Also would be better phrased actively with Roper wanting X so he did Y and this person did Z
Well, the source isn't clear either: Salvo says "Pat actually flew me out to CES in Vegas to see Demon Attack. He was very impressed and wanted one just like it" so I just followed what he said. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I would take that quote to mean with the intent of seeing Demon Attack czar ♔ 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
titles of games like Space Invaders are italicized, not quoted
Out of GA scope, but the Reception could use some cleanup to be more to the point. The Arcade review repeats the infobox score and says it's positive too—lots of redundancy. The score outside of the infobox is superfluous. What is "just a lark"? The quotes can also be greatly reduced or paraphrased
I'll work on it. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources from above should help with broadness
Yep. I'm going to be incorporating them into the reception section shortly. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Two-player mode not mentioned in prose
Images were marked as low-res but their length times width was greater than 100k, so I tagged as non-free reduce
Would you know who owns the copyright to these games now? I can inquire about getting free-use images
Not sure. Games by Apollo copyrighted them, but they went out of business. None of their programmers appear to still be active in the video game business. I'd say it's a gray area, and I certainly would have no idea where to go about contacting people. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
So I gave it a shot, but Salvo isn't publicly on the Internet, Digital Press had no real means of contact, and searching for the interviewer just got progressively weirder and weirder so I'm letting it be for now czar ♔ 01:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is close—just some clarity concerns, a bad source, and could use some extra perspective for its broadness czar ♔ 21:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've begun working on these. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: I didn't agree with your decision to move the stuff about the closure since it had little to do with the development, so I put it back. Care to discuss? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it's a content issue unrelated to the GAN, we can do it on the talk page. Let me know when you're finished with the rest of the review czar ♔ 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, Weiss mentioned Shaggy Marsupods as an enemy type. Not sure if that's something worth including with the Electrosauri. czar ♔ 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I believe I've addressed all of your points. Thank you for the review. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay variations still need to be explained. Are they separate gameplay modes that are chosen? How do players shuffle between them? etc.
"just a lark" still needs to be clarified or removed
czar ♔ 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Taylor Trescott, ping (just in case) czar ♔ 12:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Czar, ping Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 Good work czar ♔ 21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As the dev section is usually the section for follow-ups to the game content, I thought the bankruptcy info fit best there. If the argument is that the bankruptcy was due to reception, I could possibly see it going in that section, but that connection wasn't made. My 2¢ czar ♔ 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a followup to the game. It's more of aftermath to put the game into context. I feel it is appropriate in the reception section. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
But it has nothing to do with Reception...? czar ♔ 01:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The word "reception" can mean "receipt <the reception and distribution of funds> as well as "response, reaction <the play met with a mixed reception>" [1].  Reception means what happens after it was released, while development is before.  So I think it works best in the reception section, which is currently titled "Release and reception".  Dream Focus 06:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggested elsewhere that the one sentence of "Release" be merged into the end of Development, which is a tiny section anyway. In all the VG-related articles I've touched, I've never seen Reception used for more than how it was received by critics and how the product sold. Legacy and Release/Development usually cover how the company fared and how they reacted to the Reception (did they make DLC, did they leave the company, etc.) I understand that it looks nicer to have the bankruptcy be the last word, but I think that's a different stance than the one given. I put the bankruptcy part back at the end of Reception. Though I still don't think it makes sense, it doesn't look like further discussion of it will be fruitful czar ♔ 12:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! I just shifted the bankruptcy information before checking the talk page. Feel free to move it back, I suppose, if that was the consensus. But I do agree with Czar that it fits better under "development". Frankly it really doesn't fit too well into this article at all. It is an important fact in relation to Games by Apollo, but it has next to nothing to do with Space Cavern. But in my view it's much more appropriate under development than reception. -Thibbs (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I just started a discussion on this exact same topic here: Talk:Lost Luggage (video game)#Bankruptcy paragraph. Please weigh in if you are interested. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Per "what does a Certificate of Merit mean? runner-up? winner? honorable mention?", I have to confess I don't really know the details of the specific Arkie Awards awarded. I do know that at the 3rd Arkies the "Certificate of Merit" didn't exist and instead they awarded "honorable mention" awards, so I suspect it means something like that. But I have no idea why they changed the name of the lesser award. Details like that might fit better under the article on the Arkies themselves, though. -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thibbs, are there other winners in the category in the source? – czar 01:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The "Best Action Video Game" was awarded to another game, and the "Certificate of Merit" in that category was awarded to Space Cavern. In the source listed, the category winner is given a 1- or 2-paragraph blurb describing the category winner but the "Certificate of Merit" is just listed at the end.
Thus an example category might look like this: "Best Action Video Game: Thibbs Adventure - This amazing adventure captures the imaginations of a generation of action gamers. Blah blah blah. Blah Blah. Blah blah. That's why it's truly a great action game. Certificate of Merit: Waiting for Thibbs".
Previously (3rd Arkies and earlier) the lesser award was called "honorable mention". Perhaps if it's not considered too problematic in light of WP:EASTEREGG, we could just link "Certificate of Merit" to honorable mention. -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I would think it should be fine to scrap the mention of the Certificate and just call it an honorable mention, like it is – czar 14:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The manual is pretty consistent in capitalizing "Electrosauri" and lowercasing "marsupod", but it does look a little odd. The reviews I read (in Video magazine) used lowercase in all cases, but I'm not sure which would be the higher authority on proper naming style. I'd tend to trust the primary sources in this case, but I also wonder if they hadn't erred in their inconsistent use of case. Interestingly both species seem to have a descriptor in the manual as well: "Savage Electrosauri" and "Shaggy marsupod". I'd say we're fine with leaving them both capitalized as they currently are in the article. -Thibbs (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. For what it's worth, MOS says to follow the source material's lead. – czar 14:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)