Talk:Aperture Desk Job/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one soon. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Will let you know when I'm done, but some comments are below. Feel free to tick em Y if done or make comments   as needed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vacant0:, I had a little misadventure - I will return to reviewing this now. Apologies for the delay. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sections

Headline

• Valve's new handheld console -> this makes it seem like the article is contemporaneous, which it won't be forever, suggest rephrasing given the second para largely goes into this.

• tech demo > as below; your call

• show off > suggest showcase

• It's normal practice to summarise the key aspects of a game's reception: here we might like to say something like that the game received praise for its narrative and sense of humour and its demonstration of the controls of the handheld.
  • All  Done.

Gameplay

• This section could benefit from a gameplay image that demonstrates a discussed aspect of the game. Make sure to attribute correctly.
  • Added.
• Strange, none of the articles actually mention what genre it is beyond tags. Can you find any that explicitly call it a puzzle game?
  • Removed.

Synopsis

• P1
  • Whose name is up to them to decide - a little unclear, is this player-selected? If it's not really a prominent aspect to the plot, we can refer to the player in the generic sense.

• P2
  • Aperture prison > Aperture Prison ?
    • ALL  Done.

Development

• P1S1 - The wikilinked phrase tech demo means something different than what the source is attempting to describe, which is demonstrating the features of the Steam Deck to new players - as cited in the Verge source more clearly.

• P1S2 - The unannounced nature of the release is worth capturing, but we need to confirm the details to figure out if it's remarkable.

• • For instance, is it useful information to say Verge was told no Steam Deck title was on the cards six months before release?

• • However, it is worth directly citing the Verge reference to Newell's statement in April 2022, which was circulated in February: ([1]). . But is this remarkable because the Verge thinks so? Game release dates are subject to NDAs and surprises all the time. Your call on this one.

• P1S3 -

• • The quote "lightning-spanked, endorphin-gorged world of sitting still behind things" is in itself cryptic and repeating WP:PROMO. It seems to be satirizing the game's self-description as a reimagined walking simulator, which it sort of isn't anyway. Suggest remove.

• • If the quote is used, it should be cited, and made clearer it refers to the game and not the Deck, given the sentence length.

• P1S4 -

• P2S1 - The statement that the game was created a tech demo for the Steam Deck has been reiterated three times by this point. Again, it's not quite a tech demo, even if a source has called it as such.

• P2S2:

• • - Let's use the correct citation for the interview rather than the reference to it in GamesRadar+.

• • - Let's also clarify 'the reason' is to showcase the features of the Steam VR without reiterating the 'tech demo' point again.

• P2S3 - Are the comparisons substantive or are we repeating the point that the game is similar to The Lab and Aperture Hand Lab because it is also a tech demo? If they are, what comparisons?

• P2S4 - We can wikilink the names of the actors and the character Cave Johnson, who has his own Wikipedia article.
  • All  Done. Cave Johnson is already wikilinked in the Plot section.

Reception

• It's a bit light on actual reception. From what I can see, there's three generally reliable reviews: TheGamer, Rock Paper Shotgun, and PC Gamer, and these make the game comfortably notable but barely. Are there any other reliable review sources out there?

• • I've tried looking for more reviews but these were the only ones that I was able to find.

• The Polygon and IGN sources are being misrepresented as reviews of the game when it's the authors reacting to the announcement trailer, which feels a little misleading.

• Gamepressure isn't praising the game's graphics, it's just saying it boasts a "similar graphic style" as previous Portal games. The site is reliable per WP:VG/S, but it feels clear the article is being written by someone that doesn't seem to have actually played the game, as no gameplay details are described.

• Steam user reviews are WP:USERG. Per WP:VG/REC, these are unreliable unless it's remarkable in secondary coverage. This probably should be removed unless the object of broader coverage.

• The Rock Paper Shotgun > Rock Paper Shotgun Y (by RFNirmala (talk · contribs))

• Per WP:VG/REC, the template is not necessary. Here it captures only one review, so its utility is quite low and should be removed.
  • All  Done.

• the best > one of the best - RPS isn't ranking them sequentially, it's one of 30

• Not sure the nice warm bath comment from the RPS review is really illustrating the key points of praise for the game, i.e. "fun" due to jokes, subtle "bits of visual storytelling" and visual design. These might be more helpful cues.

• Normally, WP:VG/MOS suggests you do these sections thematically by praise/critique of certain elements in the game. You could either (1) keep the humor/story paragraph and assimilate the other points in a separate paragraph rather than two unconnected ones with random points; or (2) summarise each review one by one.
  • All  Done.