Talk:3D Tetris

Stubby?

Can anyone else think of anything to add? --Thaddius 17:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Should this be merged?

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.

---

I don't see this article expanding anytime soon. Is it notable enough to sustain it's own article? I think it should be merged, personally. --Newimagekirby (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tried doing research for other articles on virtual boy games and there's not a lot of information out there. Unless someone can expand this article at lest three-fold, I'm all for it bing merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 16bitz (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm conducting some research on this title. It's hard to come by, but I did find a review by the LA Times as a start. If any of you have access to ProQuest or similar research tools, they can be useful for finding information about games like this in mainstream sources. Perhaps the best resource I've found is at a fan site and is located here. It's provides something this article critically needs - a thorough explanation of the gameplay mechanics. I wouldn't call the source notable, although it's better than nothing. Nintendojo also reviewed the title here and thoroughly reviewed the different mechanics, although to be fair the Nintendojo article has been considered for deletion since 2009. I do think there's room to write about this game, though, since it isn't particularly rare and was released in the relatively recent past. CaseyPenk (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the article reaches the VG guidelines on separate articles, and should stay separate. At the very least CaseyPenk should be given time to try and improve the article, seeing as they appear to be the only person to have tried in the year that this nomination has been open. There's obviously no rush for the merge, so granting an extra couple of months shouldn't be a problem. - X201 (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Reassessment

Coming here via the reassessment request in the project template; New Age Retro Hippie recently bumped it up to C-class and I agree with that. Some ideas for improvement I noticed while looking through the article:

• There's a citation needed tag
• 'Development' is a bit scant
• 'Reception' mentions a "range" of scores, but then only mentions a few; in fact, the template lists 3, though there a a couple in the text that aren't listed there
• 'Reception' is so bereft of sources that there's one guys opinion presented in its own paragraph. You also shouldn't have single-sentence paragraphs
• The lead doesn't summarize the article well; it chops reception (1 of 3 sections) down to one short sentence, for example
• Really, overall, gameplay's alright (though it could use a copyedit pass) but everything after that is just short on content. I know this is a '90s virtual boy game, but that just means that you have to look hard for offline sources- there are plenty of '90s GAs out there. If this is all the sources there are, well, it could still be cleaned up- for example, reception should be organized by theme (graphics, gameplay, etc.) not by reviewer
• Smaller details- the date formats don't match in the references, there are a lot of unlinked publishers in references, the period goes outside the quote unless you're quoting a full sentence, a copyedit is really needed ("A reviewer for magazine Videogames"; "Points are gained based on the number of blocks in, the complexity of and the height of the symmetrical layer" - this whole sentence is hard to parse)

--PresN 03:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:3D Tetris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alexandra IDV (talk · contribs) 14:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this~!--Alexandra^IDV 14:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• The developer is variously referred to as "T&E Soft" and "Technology and Entertainment Software" at different points in the article, it should probably be consistent. I am not familiar with the developer, so I can't say which variant is most appropriate here.
• ポリゴブロック should be romanized as Porigo Burokku.

Gameplay

• It is not immediately clear what the difference between a game mode and a game type is - there is some clarification later on, but the reader is left wondering for a while
• Consider re-organizing information so that the game modes' introduction comes immediately before their definition.
• The image caption is pretty wordy and spends time on describing the image as an image rather than what's depicted. I would consider something basic like "The player moves falling blocks to fill up a three-dimensional well."

Development

• I don't think it is necessary to repeat the Japanese spelling and romanization of Polygo Block (but if you do, the romanization is missing a double consonant here too)
• Was it only released in the US, and not Canada?

@Abryn: Some issues, but not too many. I've put the review on hold for seven days - contact me if you have any questions or when the issues are addressed.--Alexandra^IDV 09:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Abryn: Thank you! I went ahead and made one further minor change myself, and think the article is looking good now. I'll promote it to GA in just a moment~!--Alexandra^IDV 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)