Talk:Bullfrog Productions

Founding year
From Retro Gamer, quoting Edgar (emphasis mine):

Furthermore, the article author denotes:

Given that it comes directly from a founder, and is pretty recent (like 2007/2008), I am to believe that it is correct. Either way, the founding year should be mentioned and sourced in the body, this is a GA after all. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 07:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have at least 2 (probably more) sources that say 1987, but I'm away right now so can't check them. Also, as discussed above, the Retro Gamer source is confused about the disestablishment year, so I'm not sure about its reliability for dates. Adam9007 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Their website says 1987. Adam9007 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize that most sources say that 1987, and as you point out also sources from the company itself at the time, but that makes we wonder just more why Edgar would state something like that in an interview. Me might have meant Taurus, but we'll never know I guess. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could be. But to make matters even more confusing, the "Silicon Valley" source says 1988, and Les Edgar's Edge interview says 1982! I find the latter highly unlikely. Adam9007 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it be worth an efn note? Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be if so many sources say so many different things. Adam9007 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need both the Lionhead and Pelit sources?
I'm 99 per cent sure they are the same article. If you check Pelit's Google translation and compare it with the Lionhead source, you'll see they they match almost exactly, with the differences typical of a machine translation. In fact, as soon as I saw the Google translation, I knew at once what it must be, and I was right (I once saw a French version of the article in Génération 4. In fact, I actually cited it as a source in Lionhead Studios!). Adam9007 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Pelit is certainly on our list of reliable sources, so I don't see any issue with it, and it's not citekill either. It is the place where I originally found that designer's name so I was at first inclined into keeping it, but if you feel likke it is superflous, sure, go ahead and remove it. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Source

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160322194410/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg056.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322193639/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg057.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322200358/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg058.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322203114/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg061.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322205923/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg062.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20160322205716/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1995_06_pg063.jpg
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160322223345/http://scans.roushimsx.com/PCGamer_1997_10_pg079.jpg

Excessively detailed
Pinging User:IceWelder who objected to my placing of the "excessively detailed" tag. Allow me to explain my reasoning.

I think this article has too much small, biographical detail that don't contribute to what a normal reader might be interested in reading about. What I think people want to read about is the video games they made (some standard details such as when it was released, a bit of info on how or how long it was developed for, critical reception or sales, etc.) What I don't think belongs in this article (and instead should go to the articles about the individual video game) is small details about how the game was developed, or personnel decisions or an individual / almost biographical account of what the company did to develop its games. The level of detail is admirable, and certainly well cited, but I don't think it's encyclopedic. Perhaps this belongs in a published book about the company - but I don't think an average reader about a video game company is interested in reading about, for example, merger talks that did not go through. This company simply isn't big enough for abandoned mergers to be worth discussing.

For example, I object to the following sentences or phrases:

"Populous was difficult to publish at first due to lack of recognition—the god genre was, according to Bullfrog, "misunderstood by everyone".[8] Despite this, Electronic Arts were willing to publish the game."

"Edgar took note of the game's success, and gave developers such as Imagineer licences to create ports for platforms such as the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) and Sega Mega Drive, which enabled the game to gain traction in Japan."

"... and had around 20 employees.[6] Bullfrog were starting to gain a reputation, so people started to want to work for the company.[3] Molyneux searched for staff himself, and employed artists and programmers. He travelled to universities, including Cambridge, where he offered computer scientists and banks the chance to come to the gaming industry." (The first part of the quote, "After Populous, Bullfrog moved into the Surrey Research Park", I think is worth keeping.)

"To get the best deal, he believed Bullfrog should also talk with other companies such as Sony and Virgin.[6] He explained that Electronic Arts was the obvious choice as Bullfrog already had a positive relationship with them.[6] According to Molyneux, Bullfrog received numerous offers, expressing interest in purchasing the company. The offers were not taken seriously until major companies, such as Electronic Arts and Philips, made contact; it was then thought that the acquisition by one of these companies would be inevitable." I would delete this and keep the next sentence: "Bullfrog was bought by Electronic Arts in early January 1995."

A lot of the stuff here I think should be kept and I wouldn't trim it. Sentences like:

"Theme Park and Magic Carpet were released that year,[8] the latter being the best-selling CD game that Christmas, and winning Game of the Year awards in the United Kingdom and Germany.[8] Theme Park proved extremely popular in Japan,[17] and was a best-seller in Europe.[4]"

"In 1998, two games were released: Theme Aquarium, and Populous: The Beginning.[11] Theme Aquarium was an attempt to "cross barriers" between the United Kingdom and Japan."

etc. Let's discuss this, because I'm pretty convinced that some (but far from all) of the detail in this article is not necessary here, and lots of it could instead be moved into an article on the individual video game. In your objection you said that the details "'connect the dots' between the individual games or serve to paint a completer picture of the studio" but it's not clear at all what this greater picture is supposed to be. If anything, this greater picture you aspire should be its own section and justified there - so the details (that I think are unencyclopedic in the first place but whatever) should go there instead. What exactly is the encyclopedic picture that these details contribute to? I'd appreciate your thoughts. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. While company articles should indeed include the releases of their games, other events that impacted the company (partnerships, key individuals' actions, corporate growth, etc.) are also part of a company's history and should be presented with some context (where available). The sentences you mention as objectionable form part of the timeline. For example:
 * > Bullfrog struggles to get a publisher because of the experimental nature of the genre but finds a partner in EA. This leads to a long-term partnership and, after successful growth, acquisition talks in 1993. While EA is their best choice, Les Edgar wants eye better deals and contacts other companies for a potential buyout. EA ultimately buys the company in 1995.
 * > The game's success leads to business partnerships (releases in Japan, etc.) and Bullfrog's reputation to increased interest from potential hires. Molyneux makes several hires, including students he personally sought from nearby universities. The company expands and thus relocates to Surrey.
 * This is what I meant with "connect the dots": Providing further information and context for certain events and detailing the outcomes of others. While I did not write any of that content (I copyedited it a bit in 2018; the actual author unfortunately retired two weeks ago, so he won't comment), I can get behind most of it. It also became a GA like this.
 * I'm not sure how these elements are unencyclopedic (not failing any guidelines that I know of) or how you could move such information to a single game's Development section, as it rarely pertains to just one. Consider comparing this article to the behemoth that is the Sega article, which was rigorously reviewed for FA status last year. It shows a lot of parallels, although its quality is obviously greater. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, I understand your POV better. I'll back down most of my objections, but I do generally find the paragraphs on this article really long and perhaps could benefit from being trimmed down - for example, "At the time, interest in acquiring Bullfrog grew, as they had around 35 employees.[3] By the time of Electronic Arts' acquisition, their workforce had expanded to around 60.[8] As a result of the acquisition, this number increased to 150 within months of Electronic Arts' expansion of the studio" could perhaps be trimmed to "interest in acquiring Bullfrog grew: before the Electronic Arts acquisition Bullfrog had 35 employees, but months after the studio's expansion, Bullfrog had 150." I suppose that would be copyediting or something. Perhaps this is unnecessary..? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, copyediting is always appropriate where required. The sentence did indeed read awkwardly, so I reworded it to:
 * Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)