Template talk:Video game reviews

This template would benefit from detection of unsupported parameters like |rev 1= and |rev1score=, both of which are in use at this writing or were recently in use. They currently fail silently with no message to the editor, which is not ideal. Because there are so many possible combinations of supported parameter names, this detection should probably happen in Lua code rather than on the Template page, as would usually be done. The standard category name would be Category:Pages using Video game reviews with unsupported parameters, and should be applied only to pages in article space. I hope that someone has the time and ability to implement this improvement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jonesey95: Thanks. And that problem is because of case sensitivity, so maybe it would be worth changing the manual to more explicitly state that. Another item is that I guess the manual is mistaken, saying that the template only supports 10 custom reviews, but all 11 of them are rendering on Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (video game)#Reception! lol. Should that sentence be deleted from the docs or what? — Smuckola(talk) 00:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the docs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

The current instructions state that "If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores."

Similar to how this was discussed with averaging out Famitsu scores, we should not be doing this per WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.". By averaging out a score, we are implying that the magazine gave a game an overall rating, which would be false. I would suggest simply removing this statement from the instructions page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

100% agree TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agree completely, yeah. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The problem becomes how to show the scores in the review table, because for the older games where this type of scoring was common, we'll run into layout problems with long tables. At least with Famitsu, we have other RS that tell us the summation approach is the most common means of aggregation, but I don't know if that can said for reviews of this scoring style. Masem (t) 20:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, the table is not a requirement, it's an aid to collect the scores from prose to summarize for readability. So if the details of a score cannot easily by summarized in the table, then just keep those scores in prose. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 20:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Masem:. I've taken a stab at this for some older games already. Depending on the scale of the table, I've adjusted them for games like Otogiriso, Donkey Kong Country and Super Mario World. I'd keep in mind that people will be reading this in various formats (i.e: text siE and scale on Wikipedia, on their phones over on a wider computer screen) so it's probably difficult to find one that works for all possibilities. I would just try to apply it as it best fits depending on the scale and scope of the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That has some weirdness to it. First, Famitsu in reliable sources is normally suammrized as the sum of the scores, so breaking that apart is weird. But when you compare that format like "10/8/8/8" for one review source and have that next to a "90/100" that looks to me like the "90/100" is two scores, a 90 and a 100. I don't think you can use that same format that way. Masem (t) 04:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Often I hear the argument when we do something new or transitional on wikipedia that it looks "weird". The original source has published it score from four unique reviewers for decades. I did leave a hat note on some sources that explains their rating scheme. Otherwise, it is a transitional period and we can find a best fit.

Combining the material makes us lose the out on key information. For example, Super Mario World reads as 9/10, 9/10, 8/10, 6/10 instead of 32/40. As we're supposed to only use reviews in the infobox with prose (something I rarely see with Famitsu reviews), we lose out on the key detail that one Famitsu reviewer gave the game a relatively lukewarm rating, which has been the only non-overtly enthusiastic review to the game I've found at its release. Currently the set-up for Famitsu in the infobox standards is to not average them out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying to average them but to sum the Famitsu scores because that's how I've seen it most commonly done in reliable sources (with the prose to discuss the breakdown if that was the case).

but for others, its the use of the "/" in one case to distinguish between scores and to represent a x out of y score, that makes it confusing, trying to view this from someone that would not be familiar with how review scores are normally presented. If you have multiple scores without a published overall score, it may be better to do something like "8/10, 9/10, 9/10, 7/10", which at least tells me that there are four different scores, each some portion out of 10, and would make a solitary "90/100" also consistent. Masem (t) 12:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Masem is right that there's an implementation concern IMO. It's not simply that the core idea is unworkable – it's that this way of presenting the information looks confusing when the slash is also used to detonate fractional scores (e.g., 8 out of 10 vs an 8 and a 10). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty happy with having it listed as "8/10, 9/10, 9/10, 7/10" for now. To clarify, it's already been established previously that we should be spreading out the Famitsu reviews from a previous request so its a bit off topic to what we are getting at. As the unique four reviews of Famitsu are not always available or we only have a source publishing the overall score, then I suppose its okay to limit it to that, but keep in mind we're only supposed to be putting reviews in the info box if there is prose to go along with it. The main request here was to change the ruling to not tally up other information (i.e:" Graphics 4.5/5, Difficulty: 3/5, Fun: 4.5/5" that displays a review of 80%) which is bridge too far in stating what a publication/reviewer has claimed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I retain my usual stance of indifference in these situations. I don't really see the shuffling around of number values in these instances to be that big of a deal, but I also have no problem with stopping it either. Bigger fish to fry, forest before the trees, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What if it was just a footnote in the score field but there was no sum or averaged score? We'd only being presenting the individual scores in the source, so STICKTOTHESOURCE wouldn't be violated. It's actually a big deal if we can't list scores from Nintendo Power or GamePro, because those are some of the biggest gaming sources in history. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There appears to be no argument for combining the scores per the discussion above. As I feel the discussion has mostly turned to be about the best way to show when publications have multiple reviewers and scores with no average, we can organize that in a separate discussion, which I'm sure we could tie up sooner than later. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to chime in and say that only use the 40/40 format if Famitsu tallied the score in their old cominy website before taking it all down. Like in Cyber Citizen Shockman 2: A New Menace, for example. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

While I do see that they do that there, the original reviews do not. As it's a Japanese language magazine and the editors of the English Wikipedia are not going to have easy access to the original materials its difficult, but we're also not supposed to include scores in the infobox unless we pull content (i.e: the reasoning behind why they did or did not like the game) from the reviews itself, which the original website seems to only sometimes have and sometimes not (at least from my experience). As I showed above, the average score loses the forest for the trees, like that one lower score for Super Mario World for example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

While the article did jump topics, I do not see any major discussion against the removal of the phrase to average out scores. I will change it following this post. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Description of suggested change:

The "notheme" class (currently at line 232) was a temporary measure, and is no longer necessary. Can we please remove it, which will improve/fix the presentation of the table on mobile apps. Dmitry Brant (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because Linux is also a PC. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Critics do not separate PC reviews by operating system. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Description of suggested change: Per the recent talk page discussion here. I believe we have consensus to remove this statement: "Individual component ratings: If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc, add all the components together to reach a single score like 12/15, and add a footnote listing the individual scores." I would suggest either removing it, or replacing it with "If a review scores components of a game separately (but does not give an overall score) e.g Graphics 3/5, Sound 4/5, Gameplay 5/5 etc., do not average out its scores (see WP:STICKTOSOURCE). " I'm open to other phrasing if this is too similar to the previous (and opposite) statement. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion is still active... – The Grid (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

it was open for a month and discourse there seems to have settled down. perfectly fair to bring up here now. Masem (t) 16:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we are adjusting language we should explicitly call out Famitsu as to spell out the individual scores if that information is known, otherwise the typical "xx/40" reporting we otherwise see will have to do. Masem (t) 16:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

While I agree on this, that sounds like a separate request. Probably would have to change the phrases "Collective scoring: Publications such as Electronic Gaming Monthly and Famitsu review games among a group, with each reviewer offering their individual score. Using the average or cumulative score from these publications will result in the loss of that breakdown, so include the individual scores, either in the table itself or in a footnote." and "0 to 40" parts. This one is more about not combining scores related to graphics/fun/etc, less so about combining different scores from unique critics within a publication. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think its the same thought. "If a review uses separate scores for parts of a game, or has multiple scores reflecting multiple reviewers for the game, do not aggregate them." with an EFN about the situation that sometimes we lack the individual scoring that Famitsu used. Masem (t) 01:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: This is not a request to edit the template, but to edit the template's doc subpage. That subpage is not protected and does not need edit request. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair. Would it be acceptable to go forward and change it based on the discussion ferret? Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've made no evaluation of the discussion itself. Edit requests are for when a page is protected and you can't perform the edit. The doc subpage is not protected. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Description of suggested change: Change the link from Sega Game Gear to simply Game Gear, as that is what the article is now titled. Probably can change SGG to simple Game Gear as it's a very short name for a system already. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Diff:Reply

Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Changing the code would break all uses of it. That would require a bot run. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done. I bypassed the redirect and also created a new 'GG' shortcut so that the existing ones did not break. Feel free to update any relevant documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

We now have two potential parameters for the same platform but with two different abbreviations. I don't think this is useful and potentially leads to diverging usage. We should rather keep only the old parameter and just update the visible link. IceWelder [✉] 17:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK with me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah having to say SGG for the shortform is slightly annoying, but its more annoying to have to change it manually for all of them, so I think how it is now is for the best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. May I ask why there isn't Sega CD, 32X and CD 32XX as platform fields? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd guess it'd be due to the combination of relatively small sizes of their respective game libraries coupled with the even less likely scenario of someone adding a platform-specific review for that platform. For example, there's apparently only about 40 32X games out there, and many, like Knuckles Chaotix and Kolibri wouldn't need it because it's a 32x exclusive and needs no such designation.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've encountered multiple cases where a magazine reviewed both the Genesis and 32X version of a game, and give them different scores. NFL Quarterback Club (video game) for example User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh for sure, it definitely happens. Just not all that often. I believe all the presets are for the more common platforms. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I was going to ask the same. While I agree its not a common platform, some historically important or popular titles are ported to systems like 32X or Sega CD that had been previously available as Genesis games, or in the case of the 32X, Genesis games. (i.e: Mortal Kombat II, Night Trap). The current version of the Virtua Fighter article even makes its own "fake" review box so it can include the 32X for comparison ratings. I do believe including both of these would be useful for comparisons sake. I'm working on the Mortal Kombat article (User:Andrzejbanas/MetroidII if you want to take a peak) and the critical reviews of the Sega CD version do come up. They are generally lukewarm to bad because critics at the time were like "this is basically the same as the genesis one, and I just bought that last year and its 1994 and I just want to play MK II already geez!!!). I've been shoving the SegaCD scores into the Genesis review box, but its getting very busy there. Allowing us to add these up might be a good for this case and other than its uncommon, I don't really see a downside? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Even if it did happen the minority of the time, it still happened. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was neither my decision, nor do I even know who/where it was decided. I'm merely brainstorming. These platforms have been out for 30+ years and have highly developed content on Wikipedia, so I doubt it was merely a case of no one ever noticing until now. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Clearly at least some editors did notice Serge, as it led to them creating their own make-shift box to include it as the Virtua Fighter article does. This has similar helpfulness that another unpopular system that had high cover it in its heyday with the Atari 5200, which also mostly a lot of ports and few new games. I would suggest adding them as clearly they will be just as ignorable for users who don't care as they will be for users who do think it'd be the best way to display some information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you read my comment correctly. I was saying that it was not the sort of scenario that would go unnoticed. They're platforms that get a lot of attention by experienced editors on Wikipedia. Which was what lead me to believe that was this was not some sort of oversight, but rather, done for a reason. Which lead to the brainstorming. Which I guess I should have kept to myself, as its only lead to people trying to argue with me over something I didn't do, enforce, or propose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That Virtua Fighter makeshift box is a really bad idea/example. There was an editor years ago (Now a twice cbanned sockpuppeter) that whenever the template didn't fit exactly what they wanted, they would just substitute the template and edit it instead of engaging this page or the project. They did this in isolation on their own, and other project members have been cleaning the mess up for years. This means that table is never updated with any formatting changes to this template. I'm personally not a fan of the multiplatform format of this template, because like on the Virtua Fighter page it tends to leave a lot of blank cells. But it's easy enough to just add the other systems if they are needed and its appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply