Talk:Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space

Complete rewrite
I've gutted a very very large portion of the content of this page as rather bad violations of WP:NOR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NPOV, WP:FAN and more. This article desperately needs to be rewritten per the guidelines at WP:VG/GL. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Release dates
I've changed the release dates in the article to correspond to what I've found in reliable sources. The README shipped with the original floppy version (1.0) has March 11 1993 as a dateline. However, to corroborate this date, there's also an Interplay press release dated April 29 1993 announcing the game's release.

I'm not sure where the 1992 release year came from. It might be a simple mistake (other websites have dates ranging from 1992 to 1995), the year that development finished and Strategic Visions sent the completed game to Interplay, or maybe an early projected release date seen in video game publications (I know Computer Gaming World had BARIS on the cover of its December 1992 issue).

1994 is less certain for the CD-ROM release, but it's based on the article in COMPUTE! and the information on Amazon. Unfortunately, the CD-ROM's README wasn't nearly as helpful, nor does there appear to have been a press release announcing it. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Having just read parts of the BARIS Companion, pages 344-347, I feel extremely confident that the floppy release didn't come until early 1993, and that the CD-ROM release wasn't until sometime in 1994. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception info
Well, I don't have quite enough info for a fully-fledged "Reception" section yet, but I'm gonna aggregate stuff here, and I hope others will assist until there is enough. Basically I think below should go a bulleted list of facts, sentences, etc. about the critical reception of the game, followed by an attribution (hopefully in a citation template) for easy inclusion into the article when there's enough.


 * BARIS was listed in the "Top 10 Strategy Games" in COMPUTE!; the list wasn't numbered as far as I can tell, but it's at the 7th line from the top. However, I'd take this with a grain of salt; a similar article in the same issue that mentions BARIS is just a buyer's guide.
 * BARIS is listed in the "Other finalists" in the "Strategy" section of the "Compute Choice Awards" for 1993
 * PC Gamer UK gave BARIS a 90/100, with the comments, "Atmospheric, entertaining and informative, with excellent footage - although the full-screen visuals do take some getting used to. A superb strategy game, and a fascinating guide to the real space race".
 * A reviewer for The Age remarked that the game would be impossible without the nitty-gritty details on the game's mechanics specified in the manual. He also commented that the game AI gets its funding with "no strings attached"- implying that the computer's funding doesn't depending prestige like a human player. Though this seems like a lock for an article saying the AI is ridiculously difficult, he says at the end that you can play multiplayer if the game gets "too easy".
 * A reviewer for The Atlanta Journal and Constitution says the game is "far too complex for younger children". He also says that the manual is "sparse". It also includes a very nice synopsis of the gameplay.
 * The Guardian described the game as being "rather lifeless" despite its "neat user interface" and "digitized footage of actual missions".
 * In The Age, BARIS was #6 on the top 10 best-selling game titles for the week of 1994-07-31 and in the #10 slot for the previous week.

I've really not found much/anything else on this, even after scrounging through damn near every publication database I could find, and that includes trying to find reviews on defunct VG mags' archived websites. I suspect the game may have by and large gone under the radar; considering some of the early promotional material, it was billed as edutainment rather than an actual game. It also might just be a consequence of the era. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At long last, I have the elusive CGW article thanks to CGW Museum. 3 page "sneak preview" in the issue. Unfortunately it's not OCR'ed and it looks like there are other CGW issues mentioning the game in mid 1993 (according to Google Books). Figured I'd take a look at this again now that I've got some academic database access once more.
 * CGW #101 (Dec. 92) pages 8-10 gives a "sneak peek" at the game. CGW #109 (Aug. 93) pages 58, 60 reviews the game. I'm slowly checking other issues. CGW #110 (Sept. 93) pages 98-100 is a strategy guide (coauthored by Bronner and possibly discussing the Companion). Google Books gives me reason to think there are one or two more articles on BARIS between #108 and #113.
 * Review of both BARIS and Star Fox in Omni from 1993 (75+% of the 700-word article is on BARIS).
 * Review of three games, including the BARIS CD-ROM edition (only 3 paragraphs on BARIS, discusses the changes).
 * Can't find anything on Fritz Bronner or LIFTOFF!. If Strategic Visions existed after this game, the evidence is quite well buried; it appears Strategic Visions was also the name of an international relations journal, and it's used at least once in a SEC form 10-K filing as a term.
 * Sales figures probably aren't going to be easily available. What's out there has pretty much been hit. And since Interplay didn't go public until 1998, it's unlikely that any of their SEC filings even discuss BARIS (I checked some of the early ones: there's nothing).
 * "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space" gives zero hits on WestlawNext, Lexis Advance and Bloomberg Law. There are four hits on Hein, but these are all index hits in a book on Library of Congress Classifications (GV1469.25.B87; I think that's just the companion book though).
 * Forbes article linking up BARIS with the newer Slitherine/Matrix game.
 * This at least finally gives us a published source for the "BARIS" abbreviation (though I think it's just from a poster paper that was on display at the conference)
 * There might be what's roughly a book review of the Companion here:
 * Seems like a short review here (I have no clue whether this is a book or a bound volume of periodicals):
 * Byte called it the Game of the Month sometime in 1993 (volume 18, one of the issues numbered 9-13).
 * There seems to be something about Strategic Visions in this book (though they call it "Creative Vision").
 * Google Books says it's in 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die, but no preview and no indication of page number.
 * This book calls "Vortex Media Arts" the developer of BARIS. For some reason I remember a Vortex Media splash screen on the game (it's been a few years for me). Google Books gives no page number.
 * There's a mention here. I don't have access though.
 * Appears to be related to the previous one; I can access this one and it's a fairly minor description of the game (among with a laundry list of other games including Zelda and FFVII).
 * It looks like a few of these are dead ends, but I'm pretty sure at this point we're looking at just about everything contemporaneous that ever got digitized. Maybe someone will do more primary research if the BARIS remake gets a lot of press, but otherwise best hope would be that Bronner or McCarty kept a scrapbook of the press they got. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogames assessment
The article is not going to be suitable for C-class promotion until the absent reception section is built, at the very least, though a development section would also be desirable. Here's some suggestions:


 * The article lead is something to focus on when all the other sections have been built as much as possible, currently the lead is big enough for a large article, yet this one is missing those two sections mentioned above.
 * Since you've dug up all the sources you can, just do what you can to build as large a relevant reception section as possible.
 * Gameplay is uncited.
 * Are two separate sub-headings needed for 'planning' and 'mission' phases? Unless you are going to considerably increase what's in each, they're breaking the flow for no reason. They're both gameplay after all.
 * The 'Versions' heading is redundant, I would create a section called 'development' or 'development and release', and leave that information at the end of that section.

This is an interesting subject and the article is shaping up well, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your work. Please resubmit the article to assessment when you'd like another appraisal, thanks for what you've done so far. Someoneanother 14:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Someone another. I'll try to bring this together. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Move
I've requested this page be moved to Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space since it appears the word into is capitalized in all the game documentation. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2008-09-04
As it stands it's got enough for C class, just for a few reasons:
 * The development section feels a little skeletal still. The material is there, but it needs to be fleshed out a little more, namely a few of the smaller paragraphs combined where you can.
 * Realism...that section feels like it should be built into the development section directly. It's short enough that it doesn't need it's own header and could fit right in there once you work it out.
 * Can the reception section be expanded? I know for games of this sort can be a pain to find such sources for, but if it can be built up it should.
 * The See Also section seems kinda not-needed, no?
 * Might remove the Underdogs link. They tend to host copyrighted games and some folks will get steamed about it.
 * Just a section, but you can just rename "Notes" to "References" and remove the current References section. That works fine for most articles of this size and looks smoother too.

If you address these, gimme a shout on my talk page directly and I'll be glad to take another look at the article. It's really got some potential.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the assessment and advice! I'll work on building up the article more soon, though I believe apart from the CGW article there isn't much left. I'll have to ask around within the fansite circles if there's much else. As to the notes and refs section, the main reason I went for that is because of the BARIS Companion reference- it seemed silly to be constantly repeating the same citation template for the book when the pages changed, but the other option is to have all but the first ref use the "Bronner 1993" which feels a bit too much like ibid. I've got one or two ideas for how to fix it... hm. I'll have to give it a shot tomorrow. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you add sales figures to the Article, i.e., number of copies sold and sales volumes in dollars? The commercial dimension would round out the article, though I appreciate how hard it can be to dig up the information.--84.176.65.38 (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't searched for that particular information, and it's possible (I suppose) to find it. Though honestly, I'm not sure it would be digitized. Maybe Interplay published this info at one time or another. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (The previous comment made by an IP was mine; I had forgotten to sign in.) I notice that Interplay is still in business, despite some intervening difficulties. In other words, there may yet be people around who can supply the old sales info upon request. There is also another angle to consider: You may not be looking for a job right now, but a couple years down the road, who knows? The more contacts you have in your notebook, the better. Calling Interplay, displaying interest, showing yourself to be well-informed on the industry, and then following up with a thank-you note, all these actions are bound to make them remember you if and when you should approach them again at some point in the future. Just make sure that you do not make "un-keepable" promises such as "I will make sure that the Wikipedia article presents your company in the best light." (But you knew that already.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * Fritz Bronner is working on a massive reboot to the old board game Liftoff! Race to the Moon & computer game BARIS called LIFTOFF! 2.0. It is coming as a board game for 1-4 players, with new data & features.
 * www.liftoff2.com 198.251.44.66 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723104500/http://cgw.vintagegaming.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2&id=90 to http://cgw.vintagegaming.org/galleries/index.php?year=1992&pub=2&id=90
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/raceintospace/CopyrightInfo.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)