Talk:Aperture Desk Job

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aperture Desk Job/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)

Sections

Headline

Gameplay

• This section could benefit from a gameplay image that demonstrates a discussed aspect of the game. Make sure to attribute correctly.

• Strange, none of the articles actually mention what genre it is beyond tags. Can you find any that explicitly call it a puzzle game?

Synopsis

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.