Talk:M&M's Break' Em

Note about sources

The review from Nintendojo seems to demonstrate notability when combined with IGN and GameZone, but although [1] proves the review existed, it doesn't seem to have been archived. However, the score and a snippet from the review has been preserved on Mobygames. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:M&M's Break' Em/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: The Green Star Collector (talk · contribs) 02:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 05:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This one is a fun one to review! I plan to have some comments back this weekend, but looks simple. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

First impressions: this is actually quite a tricky article to assess for GAN! As a GBA/DS shovelware game, there is not a great deal of sources. The substantive content of the article is founded on only four sources: the DS review articles that provide significant coverage about the game. This isn't a problem for notability as the reviews are in-depth, but it is a bit of a problem for GAN. The review section dedicating two paragraphs to Adams' review is a good indication of the undue weight this limited sourcing has on the article's composition. Also, a lot of the remaining sources get wrapped up into details around other licensed M&Ms games which are not really relevant to the game's headline or development - this isn't a series, so previous licensed games don't have much bearing. At the end of the day this seems like it's a short, succinct article pretending to be a large, comprehensive article on the subject matter. Some of the fat could be trimmed, especially in the reception section and the overemphasis on other games irrelevant to this one. I'll return to this and provide some more specific feedback soon and next steps.

Second impressions: OK, looking at the GAN criteria, I think short, appropriately sourced articles are fine and the trick is just to trim this one so that it's (1) focused on the subject; and (2) not giving too much weight to individual reviews; and (3) doing a spot check on the sources.

General

Does the article...

• ...comply with the manual of style? Y

• ...have correctly attributed media?   Sort of - a direction of the cover image to a reliable source instead of a wiki would be preferred. A gameplay image would also be a nice addition to the gameplay section, but not necessary. Image added and proper attribution has been given.

• have missing sources that may assist? There is really very little out there about this game. GameFAQs suggests that an Australian issue of Nintendo Gamer provided a review around June 2007, but this would appear to be unavailable online. There's also a manual, but it's generally advisable to use secondary sources before using this, but could fill in some details. Additional sources identified have been added where appropriate.

Sections

Infobox

• The game seems also to have been distributed in the UK for the DS by Zoo Digital, which can be properly cited and substantiated by the below Cubed3 source.

Headline

• The short description of the game doesn't actually outline what kind of game it is: from the Gameplay section, it's clear it's an action-puzzle title in which players control a bouncing M&M to break grids of colored tiles and avoid hazards to clear a series of levels.

• Let's explain to make the point about Gem Smashers self-explanatory to a casual reader i.e. The game is similar to Gem Smashers, a 2003 title by the developer featuring tile-breaking gameplay. It's fairly obvious that the game is an adaptation, but as the sources aren't clear on it, that's about all we can say.

• Gem Smashers was developed by Frame Studios in 2003 for the GBA. The Wii version came out much later. That suggests this is an asset flip, but that's not something we can really discuss here.

• For concision, consider ...the Wii in 2007 and Nintendo DS in 2008.

Gameplay

• As the article's sources are largely only reviews of the DS version, there isn't any information about the GBA version. Is it identical to the DS version? How does it control without the touch functionality? This seems to be something that would be necessary to address to properly cover the subject matter.

• What do we mean by 'frame story'? Is the game really juggling primary and secondary narratives in a way that needs discussion of literary techniques?

Plot

• Not a WP:AUW situation, but other than gameplay terminology in the Gameplay section, I don't think we need to wikilink what common terms like chocolate are anywhere in the article. I would be concerned if someone knew what M&Ms were but didn't know what chocolate is. Or what an island is.

• The text is usually its own source for this sort of thing and doesn't need citation, but have we checked the quotations?

• Avoid editorial language i.e. "supposedly" - the plot shouldn't be inferred by the editor, just described.

• Consider active language i.e. "The M&Ms discover that Mr. Runch is using..." rather than "It is discovered that...".

Development

• Perhaps we can cite the background of Frame Studios as per their archived website. We can also see that the game was announced on 4 April 2007, but this may not be particularly vital detail.

• For concision, consider ...GBA on February 6 2007, and Nintendo DS on March 25 2007.

• We should clarify that Zoo Digital was the UK publisher of the DS title.

• I'm not sure it's relevant that the studio worked on unrelated GBA titles or ports. I'd focus on putting the Gem Smashers content here as discussed in the IGN article, as it does provide context to understanding the background of this game.

• Consider wikilinking List of M&M's video games where we mention the M&M's game. I was going to say that this may not be a remarkable thing to mention, but it looks like this is the fifth licensed game!

Reception

• This section can be addressed more concisely and effectively by synthesising the comments from the reviews together, which will address the undue weight given to the IGN review. What are the common threads between the three reviews as they apply to graphics, sound, gameplay and controls? Alternately, just provide shorter summaries of the reviews in linear order.

• Remove the wikilink for candy.

@Vrxces: Thank you for all of your feedback. I believe all of it has been implemented:

• The infobox image has been attributed to a more reliable source, and an image from the same source has been added to show gameplay.
• The UK release date has been added to the infobox.
• The headline should make it clearer what the game is about, specifically in terms of gameplay.
• The manual actually reminded me of a few aspects of the game (extra levels, speeding and slowing down M&M's, the differing power and speed stats, etc.), so I added information about those. To my knowledge, the only difference between the GBA and DS versions is the use of the bottom screen/touch screen in the letter, which can be ignored entirely in favor of using the D-pad.
• I've checked the quotations for the plot section. The actual line from the opening cutscene is "We think he wants to kidnap them to make himself a special chocolate coating to hide his rotten skin".
• The info about Frame Studios's previous works and ports in the development section has been replaced with info showing how similar the gameplay is to that of Gem Smashers. It has also been clarified that Zoo Digital published the game in the UK.
• I've restructured the reception section so that each paragraph focuses on a topic rather than one or two reviews: gameplay, audio and visuals, and miscellaneous criticism, respectively.

Please let me know if I happened to miss anything, or if the article can be further improved in any ways. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll do a spot check of sources tomorrow and after that I think we've done as much due diligence as we can for this game to get to GA. Appreciate it! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Spot check and additional comments

Almost there! Just some minor additions below:

Gameplay

• Some of this can be probably simplified per WP:VGSCOPE P3 on avoiding detailed instructions - it isn't necessary to detail specific controls, settings or save files, unless helpful to explaining the nature of the gameplay. The sources support the text though!

• P1S1 - Let's have the IGN and GRY sources support this sentence, instead of the citations appearing in the next sentence about the levels. Otherwise this section looks good.

Development and release

• P1S4 - Only the IGN source is drawing comparisons between the two titles, so let's put that as the citation for the comparison points, and the other sources to support a brief explanation of what Gem Smashers is.

Reception

• All citations support the text.

• WP:VG/REC suggests to avoid scores and statistics in prose. Let's cut those out.

• Also, thanks for organising the paragraphs a bit. WP:VG/REC suggests best practice is to signpost each paragraph with a topic sentence but to avoid generalisations. As there's only three review sources, it can be as simple as Reviewers critiqued the game's visual presentation and audio.

• I don't think you need to write anything more here, but encourage editing down a little more where possible, as the section is still quite long for what is essentially a synthesis of three reviews. You've definitely done due diligence on this though!

@Vrxces: Once again, thank you for your feedback. I've cut out any info in the gameplay section not important or relevant for understanding the gameplay itself, as well as added topic sentences for the paragraphs in the reception section, removed all statistics excluding that of GameRankings, and condensed the section altogether, especially in the first paragraph. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for improvement. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's it! Thanks for all your improvements to the article and taking the feedback on board. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.