Talk:Border Down

Organization:
I generally like the "Plot --> Development --> Release --> Reception --> Legacy (optional)" organizing structure. It makes it easier to find information on sales data and re-releases. Reception should just be for reviews and that alone. For this article, there needs to be more contemporary reviews. That means Japanese mags, which are hard to track down. Dorimaga supposedly reviewed it, Famitsu and Dreamcast mags probably did as well. Harizotoh9 (talk)
 * I wish. There is a draught of reviews because it was a late Dreamcast release. By 2003, the official Dreamcast magazines in the US, UK, and even Japan were all out of publication. The system was dead in the west so it's a miracle Edge covered it. Maybe Famitsu covered it, and yea there is supposedly a Dorimaga review but late 2003 issues are unavailable on the web. For these reasons, I think including the contemporary reception with its release history tells a more fascinating story, but I can live with how it is now. Just saying, we don't always need to put critical reception in its own section like it's some kind of rule. TarkusAB talk 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Dorimaga review
I've been checking out the list of issues for Dorimaga at SegaRetro and if my assumption is correct, their review of Border Down might be between issue 19 (2003-09-26), issue 20 (2003-10-10, 24) and issue 21 (2003-10-17 extra). Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)