Talk:Major League Baseball (video game)

Screenshots
I've added the screenshots, but I think that they look a bit ugly maybe... maybe someone can clean them up a bit or remove one or two? I just wanted to make sure I had all my bases covered (nyuk nyuk) so I took six shots. Canadian Paul 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

DYN?
Seeing as one of today's Did You Know... is "that Major League Baseball for Nintendo was the first ever video game licensed by the MLB?" it's probably important to know that it's not correct. Mattel's |Major League Baseball for the Intellivision at the very least preceded it by eight years. Note the disclaimer text on the |back cover. Perhaps what was meant was that this NES MLB game was the first to use actual MLB teams since the Intellivision MLB game just used generic players. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squirrel Killer (talk • contribs).

Review Validity
The reception part of the review doesn't seem to hold a lot of credibility. It links to some user reviews on large sites to pass them off as the official word of what critics thought of the game. The one that is most concerning is the "Gamespot review" of the title. Since there really isn't a huge online archive of classic video game magazines from that era, the entire "reception" portion should maybe just be a legacy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lava Wolf (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review on hold
Hello. I saw this page on the GA review article and released it hasn't been reviewed in almost a month. I'm trying to clear up some of the backlog on the VG Project GARs and thought I'd help out on this one. This article was a good read, and I think it could be considered GA if the following changes are made: ✅ Cheers, CP 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ And will take a brief look to see if it has a Japan release date. Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ✅ Should I link to other relevant Baseball games in a See also section, or just leave it out? Cheers, CP 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reduce the number of overall images. The images themselves have nice FU templates, but too many can make an article difficult to qualify for fair use.  Try and chop it down to 2 or 3 screenshots that are the most relevant.  You also need to add a source for each image you keep.  If you got these yourself from an emulator, just make a note of it on their image pages.
 * Fix wikilinks to "Sports game" and "Multiplayer game" to avoid spelling re-directs.
 * Fix spelling of "Intellivision".
 * Graphics section, second sentence: capitalize Caucasian.
 * Only the first letter of each sub-section should be capitalized. ("Gameplay Issues" ---> "Gameplay issues")
 * Add a region tag to the release date. If the game only came out in North America, just place the NA tag (NA ) in front of the date.
 * The links to List of NES games/Famicom games aren't needed in this article. Only articles dealing with systems or lists of game require them.

One you've made some changes, go ahead and reply on either this page or my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Good luck! Nall 22:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Good work! I'd say this article now qualifies. A peer review might be useful for improving it further, but for now it has everything a Good Article should. Appropriately the first baseball game GA, too.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

About the "See also" section, if you want to add similar games or series from this era I think that would work, or another sports game from this developer. Nall 00:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! GA status fully deserved. Una LagunaTalk 05:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlus
Atlus developed this game, no? --Hydao (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. What is your source for that? Canadian   Paul  04:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The GDRI site: http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Company:Atlus >> Much more reliable than GameFAQs and etcs, if we are talking about developers... but yeah, I'm gonna ask that site. --Hydao (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that's interesting, along with what you posted on my talk page. I certainly have no attachment to using GameFAQs over anything else, so if something else is uncovered, that's good enough for me. Canadian   Paul  17:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up and it seems Enteractive Inc. wasn't around when this game was released. They formed in 1993, five years after this game was released. The Enteractive here was a brand label that LJN Toys used in their video games they published from 1988 to 1990. I hope this clears everything up. Renelia Richter (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It does. I've updated the article, thanks! Canadian   Paul  20:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception
The Reception section's really lacking right now. Any reason it's so short? czar ♔  02:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Mainly because it's a 20+ year old video game, making contemporary sources difficult to come across, in addition to it not being a very good/popular game, thus limiting the amount of reviews in modern sources that are considered reliable. Nintendo Power is a dead end; there was never any substantial coverage there. But I suspect somewhere obscure out there, there is probably an extra review or two that could help beef up that section. Canadian   Paul  07:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have some leads for offline sources you would like me to help follow, please let me know. Otherwise I'm not sure this can stand as a good article with next to no Reception. czar ♔  11:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's what you feel that you need to do to improve Wikipedia, then I won't argue. Canadian   Paul  22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)