Q*bert has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

Video games GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

With a lot of recent releases of classic games such as the "Atari Flashback" I've wondered why Q*bert hasn't been re-released like this. Anyone know?

There could be licensing issues. Last I checked, Q*Bert was owned by either Columbia Pictures or Sony Computer Entertainment... ironically, they acquired the character before the ink was dry on the Playstation blueprint. Sony doesn't seem to know what to do with the character... the last game starring Q*Bert was released by Hasbro's Atari back in 1999/2000, for both the Playstation and Dreamcast. It wasn't very good, and there hasn't been a Q*Bert sequel or spinoff since. M.Neko

The only game that was missing from the article, has been added.

P.S. It was released for MAME by the man who made it so that fans could have a chance to play it finally after all these years.

Any thoughts on how to pronounce "Q*Bert"? I have always pronounced it "Cue-Bert", but I have heard it pronounced "Kwe-Bert". I expect there is no "correct" version, but to me, "Cue-Bert" seems to fit with the "cube" theme of the game.Preacherdoc 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Preacherdoc[reply]

It's "cue-bert"Cfive 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone can get "kwe-bert", since it is obviously the letter "Q" and "Bert". Otherwise, Q-Tips would be "Kwe-Tips", a "Q and A" would be "Kwe-yan-day", a Netflix Queue would be a "Kwe-ooo-eee-ooo-eee", ad absurdum. -- 70.56.81.182 (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the official Parker Bros. release, the Atari 8-bit computers had Mr. Cool by Peter Oliphant and Pharoah's Pyramid by Randy Platt.

Both programmers worked at Cinemaware but didn't know of each other's Q*bert clone history until I brought it to their attention. This is described in more detail on the Cinemaware discussion page.

As for pronunication, anyone who says kwe-bert probably needs to be monitored and not allowed any sharp objects.

Folks, looks like we've got a real edit war on our hands. On the one side is a very persistent anonymous user who wants to include a homebrew version in the article, on the other hand several editors that see what appears to be inclusion of possible non-notable subject matter and disregard for WP policy. So, it's time that this discussion moves to the talk page. (See Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle) Mr. Homebrew: If you have an edit that you would like to propose for the page, we're listening. Oskay (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the anonymous IP (Mr. Homebrew), its pretty simple: The guidelines are at WP:VG/GL. They clearly state this type of material as not acceptable. They're not official ports (i.e. that's why they're homebrew), and they violate IP and trademark. The one exception here traditionally has been historical clones (i.e. clones of notability that were released at the time of the original game and add to a historical context). Modern ports do not fall under this. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Q*bert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi. I'm Mm40, and I'll be reviewing the article for GA. If you have any question, concerns, etc., just post them here or on my talk page. The review will take at most seven days (although it nearly certainly won't). Mm40 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first part of the review. I highly recommend you watch this page so I don't have to spam your talk page every time I post a comment. Remember, these are merely suggestions, and I prefer to leave corrections to the main editor, because they know what they're talking about.

• Third sentence of the lead: "avoid" should be "avoiding"
• Last line of first paragraph: "by using" can be changed to "using" or "with" to avoid redundancy
• Second paragraph of lead: "...but Davis removed the game mechanic to simply gameplay." Should "simply" be "simplify"?
• Last paragraph of the lead: "...and the character's likeness used in merchandising" before "used", there should be a "was" or "has been" or something along those lines. Mm40 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited the lead per your suggestions. Except for the last about merchandising. I wrote the sentence so the "and" would distribute the first part of the sentence to the two results.

"The success resulted in sequels and the character's likeness used in merchandising..."

or without the first result

"The success resulted in the character's likeness used in merchandising..."

I believe it's correct, but I'm no grammar expert so I can try to reword it to make the meaning more clear.

Let me know what else you find. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Gameplay/lead: The article says that one must change the cube's color, but it doesn't mention that they have to all be one color.
• File:Qbert.png needs a source.
• Development: "Gottlieb staff had difficulty naming the game..." is missing an 's after Gottlieb.
• Development: "The cost of installing foam, however, was too expensive and it was omitted." What was omitted? The sound as Q*bert fell off, or just the foam padding? Clarify.
• Development: In the quote box: "'bogus points.'" Should the period be outside the quotes as it is in the rest of the article, or is this how the source presents it?
• Reception: "...considered Q*bert one of the more memorable titles during its time." The article says "title", was it memorable for its title, or as a title? I know this is an OK saying for other games, but for one with an interesting title like this, this may be confusing. Additionally, you may want to change "during its time" to "of its time". Up to you, though.
• Reception: "In 2008, Guinness World Records listed it as the number seventeen arcade game." How were they ranked? I know Guinness always does rankings based off of facts, such as money earned, cabinets sold, etc. To say only that something is the top video game in terms of gameplay isn't something Guinness would do.

I am definitely going to finish this review by 21:00 UTC tonight. Mm40 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made most of the edits you suggested above. The ones still needing attention are:

• File:Qbert.png- I've contacted the uploader about that image and File:Qbertsqubes.png, but haven't heard back yet. I think the editor is retired. No source was originally given. I assume it was a screencatpure of a MAME emulation, but I don't know for certain.

• I think you can just add that source onto the image page. Or, if you aren't confident about it, you may want to e-mail the original uploader.

• I wrote "The Gottlieb staff" instead of "Gottlieb's staff" because I believe an apostrophe is needed in this case. I can also always change it "The developers" to avoid the issue altogether if you think would be better.

• What you changed it to is fine by me.

• The Guinness World Records ranked the list on "technical, creative and cultural impact". Not sure how to integrate this though. Any ideas?

• How about: "In 2008, Guinness World Records listed it as the number seventeen arcade game in "technical, creative and cultural impact".

I look forward to the rest of the review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• First paragraph of Legacy: "...characters from the Golden age of video arcade games." I don't think "Golden" should be capitalized, as it isn't in the linked article.
• First paragraph of Legacy: "It also included the other game characters and new characters..." The beginning of this sentence seems awkwardly worded. Maybe "It also included the game's other characters..."
• Second paragraph of Legacy: "Davis is also surprise people still positively remember the game." I think "surprise" should be "surprised"
• Not important for GA: It seems like the second paragraph of Legacy should be rewritten. The 3rd sentence begins "despite its success", and the next contains "however", which seems like it should be a reversal of the previous sentence.
• Remakes and sequels: "The player navigates the protagonist around a plane of cubes, while avoiding enemies." Is the comma needed?
• Remakes and sequels: "Davis later released the game's ROM image for fans to play via MAME, an arcade emulator." Which game; FHMC Q*bert or the original?
• References: Should the game's name be italicized in titles? I'm guessing this is only the case if the source has it that way, but not sure.
• General: The release date is mentioned only in infobox and Remakes and sequels. I'm unsure whether this should be mentioned in Development or Reception (or both).

After these issues and the image situation are cleared up, I'll pass the article. Additionally, I would greatly appreciate any comments you had about this review, as this is only my third so far. Thanks. Mm40 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC) P. S. I've responded to all the comments you've left following the second part of my review (this morning). OK, as all the issues I've raised have been tackled, I'm passing this article. Great job, and thank you for your wonderful contributions to the project. I'd greatly appreciate any criticism you have of my review, as this is only my third (see my user page). Cheers. Mm40 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After going over the primary development sources again, things are looking a bit clearer to me. Hopefully we can sort this out with some collaboration. Here are the parts that gave me a headache trying to sort through because of conflicting info.

• In The Ultimate History of Video Games, Kent credits the beginning of the development to Jeff Lee and the Escher-like cube artwork he created. Kent wrote that Lee began developing a shooting game called "Snots and Boogers". He also quotes David Thiel as saying "Q*bert was kind of a Skunk Works project. ... Warren saw this stuff that Jeff Lee was working on, these shaded cubes that filled the screen, and asked if he could have a copy of the art. He started playing with it and said, 'You know, the problem with this is that it shouldn't cover the screen like this.' So he made a pyramid out of it."
• Edge magazine commented that Lee and Davis's memories of the game's origins conflict, something they've both acknowledged. In describing the origin, Edge quotes Davis as saying "Another programmer, Kan Yabumoto, had filled a screen with an Escher-like cube pattern, and when I looked at it, it occurred to me that you could sculpt a pyramid out of it such that if a ball fell onto the top, it would have two choices of which to bounce, so with one random byte I could create a path for a falling ball." Edge also credits the artwork to Lee—based on the information that Lee was the Gottlieb's only artist and did all the artwork for games—and the creation of the characters. Davis is further quoted as saying "As the game got noticed by others at Gottlieb, everyone seemed to have ideas, and I saw myself as the filter through which all ideas passed. Since I was the only programmer, if I didn't like an idea it didn't go in the game."
• Retro Gamer magazine quoted Lee as saying "Kan Yabumoto, a hardware programmer, had this up and running for his own purposes. While gazing at this pyramid structure from across my drawing board, it seemed to me that a game was waiting to be teased out of it." It then states that Davis saw Lee playing with the pyramid and characters, and asked if they could be used in a game to give him an exercise.

Based on the assumption that a game's development was relatively linear, I wrote the development section as it appears in this version. Looking over things again, it almost seems that the game started in two separate points (Lee's initial concept based on the cubes and Davis's initial concept based on the cubes). And then the two concepts crossed over early on to become Q*bert. Any thoughts or ideas? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'll try and take a look, really busy on a gaming contract right now. My main concern right now though (and I don't know if you noticed it in the edit history) was the recent mass of edits by a Wbdavis, someone presenting themselves as Davis. If it was him, it represents a large WP:COI and if not it also represents a lot of WP:OR. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Warren Davis here. Yes, the guy who programmed Q*bert. Yes, it was me who made a mass of edits to the page, trying to clear up information that is just wrong. The early development of the game was completely linear and Jeff's involvement at the beginning was just in supplying the characters. Kan Yabumoto filled the screen with the Escher pattern, although Jeff may have created that pattern for him. It didn't really require someone with Jeff's skills to create the Escher pattern, since the cubes were made up of solid colors and straight lines, pretty much anyone could plop the pixels down using our tools to create the building blocks to form "cubes". Either way, the idea of having balls dropping down a pyramid of cubes was mine. If there were already a pyramid and balls bouncing down, as has been mistakenly claimed, I would have had no need to learn to program randomness or gravity. When I asked Jeff for permission to use the characters, they were not being used for any other game, although Jeff may have had something in mind for them, but he generously allowed me to use them. The game wasn't put on any schedule until after I had balls bouncing, the Q*bert character hopping and the colors changing. Jeff may have developed a concept based on that early work, but it was never implemented. I was the sole programmer and designer, and Jeff became my collaborator because I valued his opinions and ideas. However, no element went into the game without my approval. The idea that Q*bert was developed collaboratively is absolutely unfounded. I'm kind of confused as to where this myth began -- I suppose it may have been that I was happy to credit others for their suggestions. (Specifically, Jeff and Dave Thiel for various things, Ron Waxman for the colors changing, and Rick Tighe for the pinball knocker in the cabinet). The ideas that people gave me which I discarded could probably fill a book. How does one get erroneous information corrected on Wikipedia? I was kind of surprised to see my changes erased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.98.50 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of issues with regards to why its erased. First, and most important is that such changes must be backed by references that follow Wikipedia's policies on WP:RELIABLE and WP:NOTABLE sources, or they become WP:OR. Additionally, we have no way to verify that you are who you say you are, anyone can log on to Wikipedia claiming to be Warren Davis. And as stated above, if you are actually Warren then there's violations of WP:COI in this case. The easiest solution would be to either A) Write up your own history on your own website, that could easily be verified as "Warren Davis's website", and then be referenced by people here. B) Do an interview with someone at a notable or verifiable site or magazine stating the info, which can then again be used as a reference here. With regards to B, I'd be happy to help out via the GameSpy site ClassicGaming and do an interview with you to be posted there. We can specifically cover any of the material you want to get out there. Feel free to email me at martyg@classicgaming.com (my public email address) and we can go through varification and go from there. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marty pretty much read my mind. I hope we can work this out as I want this article to be as accurate as possible while complying with Wikipedia's rules. To expand on Marty's explanation, your contributions were reverted because it did not match up with the information provided in the sources. The reason behind that is one of Wikipedia's main policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability. It states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That is why changes to sourced content are watched carefully. It is nothing personal, it's just how Wikipedia operates to ensure quality content to its audience.

As far some of the changes you made and the suggestions above:

• I added the "collaborative" statement based on Thiel's quote in The Ultimate History of Video Games, which described the game as a "Skunk Works project". Though after reading your description and the content again, it sounds like the process was similar to regular game development at the time. Which was collaborative-like, but lead by a few people, like most other creative processes in a place of business. So "collaborative" is probably too strong a word. I'll see about rewording that bit.
• Regardless of the skill required to create the cube design, sources attribute the design's creation to Lee. As such, I believe that part should remain as is because such details are desired when writing encyclopedic video game articles. Basically, any info we have about influences should be included to give readers a full picture of the game's development.
• The ball and gravity mechanic is credited to you, and that is how it is in the article. So I see no reason to alter that part either.
• To my knowledge, Lee's initial idea had Q*bert chasing enemies around a pyramid (I actually considered adding an image of the design concept for comparison). Lee called it "Snots And Boogers" and there were no ball mechanics involved, only shooting and jumping.

Marty, I hate to ask this and be a tag along. But if this does lead to an interview, is it possible for me to send you some questions I had while writing the article. I know being able to pick the brain of an involved party would clear some things up. I wish I had that luxury for Robotron: 2084, I'm sure there are few errors there. :-p (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lede

• "It is a platform game that features two-dimensional (2D) graphics."

  Do not all video games feature 2D graphics? Think about it. They are portrayed as 2D (how they are internally portrayed are another thing). This is a common feature and does not seem to be worthy of mention.

• "The object is to change the color of every cube in a pyramid by having making the on-screen character jump on top them of the cube while avoiding obstacles and enemies. Players use a joystick to control the character using a joystick."

• "The game was based on concepts conceived by Warren Davis and Jeff Lee."

• "... and gave Q*bert a large nose to that shoots projectiles."

• "'The success resulted in sequels and use of the character's likeness used in merchandising, including such as appearances on lunch boxes, toys, and an animated television show.'"

• "The game has since been ported to numerous platforms and formats."

  What is the difference between "platform" and "format"?

Gameplay

• "The player traverses a pyramid by moving Q*bert diagonally from cube to cube."

  Where do these cubes from? Basically, these cubes were not mentioned anywhere until now. The pyramid should be described first as being composed of cubes or such.

• "Jumping off the pyramid results in the character's death dying."

• "Coily, a purple snake that chases after Q*bert; Ugg and Wrong-Way, purple creatures that run along the sides of the cubes; and Slick and Sam, green, non-lethal gremlins that revert the color changes that have occurred."

  Sometimes, less is more. Detailing and naming all the creatures (which only one or two are later mentioned) seems a bit overkill, especially when sentence construction is factored into the picture...

• "Other in-game objects include colored balls that bounce down the pyramid; red balls are lethal to Q*bert, while green ones immobilize the on-screen enemies. Contact with purple enemies and red balls results in Q*bert swearing and dying."

  A bit of putting the cart before the horse. It should be explained first that contact with balls or enemies causes an effect to Q*bert. Right now, I am confused if the green balls immobilize the enemies by coming in contact with them or with Q*bert. Furthermore, "results in Q*bert swearing and dying" is a discouraged "noun plus-ing".

• "A multi-colored disc on either side of the pyramid serves as an escape device from danger, particularly Coily."

  How does this disc serve as an escape? Why "particulary Coily"?

Development

• "The basic ideas were created thought up by Warren Davis and Jeff Lee."

• "The character jumped along the cubes and shot projectiles at enemies from a tubular nose."

  The enemies come from a tubular nose?

• "Enemies included a blue creature, later changed purple and named Wrong Way, and an orange creature, later changed green and named Sam."

  What is the point to this (change of the creatures' colors)? Did it affect any way in which the game was developed or how it was received?

• "Lee had drawn similar characters since childhood, based on comics, cartoons, and characters from Mad magazine and by artist Ed Roth."

  Sounds weird: Lee's childhood is based on comics, cartoons, Mad characters and Ed Roth? Suggestion: "Lee based his creature designs on characters from comics, cartoons, and Mad magazine. Ed Roth's works were also an influence." or if the childhood angle is important, change the first part of the suggestion to "Lee had drawn weird-looking creatures since childhood, and based his designs on ...".

• "Q*bert's design later included a speech balloon with a string of nonsensical characters, "@!#?@!?". Lee came up with the idea, but which Lee originally presented it as joke."
  • "it" should be removed as well with that change. --an odd name 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, I went ahead and removed "it". Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Warren Davis was hired soon after to work on Protector. While roaming the office, he noticed Lee working on the game and asked ..." (second sentence added later)

  What is Protector (context)?

  "Action game" was added, but I still think there is a bit of awkwardness here (what is the point of "soon after"). How about "Warren Davis, a programmer hired to work on the action game Protector, noticed Lee's ideas. He asked..." Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "... and asked if he could use it practice game mechanics: randomness and gravity."

  I presume there is a missing "to", but even so, the meaning of "practice" is ambiguous. Did Davis want to play Lee's prototype to practice "randomness and gravity" (whatever that means) or to experiment with the game's code in those areas?

• "... and added balls that bouncinge from the pyramid's top to the bottom of the pyramid."

• "However, Davis did not know what to implement next."

  This does not seem necessary.

• "Vice president of engineering Ron Waxman noticed Davis working on the game one night and suggested that the character change the color of the cubes after landing on them."

  Suggestion: "One night, as Davis worked on the game, Gottlieb's Vice President of Engineering, Ron Waxman, noticed him and suggested to change the color of the cubes after the game's character has landed on them."

• "Davis decided to implement a unique control ... reasoned that a standard orientation did not make sense."

  I feel that this portion should be rephrased. It feels like a blow-by-blow account and it gives rise to an unanswered question of why "a standard orientation did not make sense".

• "Lee's title for the initial concept was —Snots And Boogers,— but was rejected., as was a A list of suggestions was compiled from company employees, all of which were later rejected."

• "... although the rest of the staff ..."

• "... and placed in local arcades to gauge player responses. In addition to seeing how much the game earned, the designers would hang around the arcade to see how players would respond to it."

  A large part of the second sentence is repetitive of the end of the first.

• "Gottlieb also conducted focus groups, with in which the designers observinged players through a two-way mirror."

• "After practicing, however, players eventually acclimated."

  Awkward. Suggestion: "Players got used to the control after playing several rounds of the games."

  To further explain, "acclimate" is more used for adaption to environmental/climatic conditions.[1] A game does not fall into either set. Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The different responses prompted Davis to ..."

  What are the "different responses"?

• What is the point of and context for David Thiel's quote ("We wanted the game to say ... all this highly authored stuff, what happens?")?

• "... components from pinball hardware was machines were included ..."

Reception

• "Q*bert was Gottlieb's only video game that gathered huge critical and commercial success commercially successful, selling around approximately 25,000 arcade cabinets,. and cCabaret and cocktail cabinet versions of the game were later produced. It was Gottlieb's only highly successful video game. The arcade cabinets machines have since become collector's items,; with the rarest of them are the cocktail versions. being the rarest. The game has been well received by critics."

• "Guinness World Records listed it as the number seventeen arcade game in technical, creative and cultural impact."

  Sounds weird ("number seventeen"). Suggestion: "Guinness World Records ranked it behind 16 other arcade games in terms of their technical, creative and cultural impact."

• "... but still felt the character was appealing. Brohaugh felt the main character was cuter than Pac-Man. Cassidy believed the game's appeal lied in the main character, whom he described as cute and having personality. He further commented that Q*bert's personality made him stand out in comparison to other popular video game characters at the time that lacked personality."

  The statement on Brohaugh's opinion come across as somewhat asinine, jarring the whole tone of the paragraph. It (and probably the following sentences) should be reworked; I believe the intent was to segue the character's appeal from its swearing to its appearance. However, it just seems like an attempt to create words around "two reviewers think he is cute and has personality." without answering what is his personality and why was he cute. It can be handled better; if there are no reasons for their thinking so, then perhaps the summarised thought is all that is needed.

Legacy

• "Q*bert became one of the most merchandised arcade games behind video game characters after Pac-Man and Donkey Kong. The character's Its likeness ..."

• "It also includes the game's other characters and new characters, similar in appearance to Q*bert."

  "The game's other characters" are also similar in appearance to Q*bert? Perhaps this sentence should be rephrased and moved after the sentence on changes to Q*bert's appearance.

• "Characters frequently say puns that add the letter "Q" to words."

  Some details (case examples?) seem to be needed, as I am not sure how adding "Q" to a word would make it a pun.

• "Because of its popularity, Q*bert has been referenced in episodes of the television series Futurama and The Simpsons."

  Totally disagree on the leading clause. None of the three sources (of which two are episodes of the television series concerned) state that Q*bert was referenced in those episodes because it was popular. The popularity angle is original research.

• "... expressed pride at the longevity of the game's legacy;"

  I would think that there is no length of time for a legacy...

  • Perhaps "... expressed pride at the continued referencing [or popularity] of the game;". Tweak as needed. --an odd name 16:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Players have also competed to obtain the highest score at the game. One previous record holder, Doris Self, is also credited as the "oldest competitive female gamer" for continually attempting to regain the Q*bert record."

  Some rephrasing is needed; as of now, I am not seeing the significance of competing for the highest score or the "oldest competitive female gamer". How long has this high scoring competition been going on? How old is this "oldest competitive female gamer"?

  Suggestion: "Obtaining the highest score for the game became a goal for players. Doris Self, credited by Guinness World Records Book as the "oldest competive female gamer", set a record score for Q*bert in 1984 at the age of 58. Her record was surpassed, and she continued attempting to regain the record until her death in 2006." Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remakes and sequels

• "Davis considered the ColecoVision home version the most accurate arcade port of the arcade."

• "In addition to 3D graphics, it features ..." (redundant, considering the preceding sentence)

• "It features updated graphics, high-scores posted online, and Sixaxis motion controls."

  Phrasing issue. By featuring "high-scores posted online", the idea that the arcade high score board is posted online when the PS3 version debut. Is this the case, or is the idea that there is a online scoreboard for the PS3 players to post their high scores to?

• Is there a Q*bert series of games?

  In light of the feedback below, is there a potential for a Q*bert (series) article? If so, then the image for Q*Bert Qubes would likely become trivial for this article. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Displeased with the original's level of difficulty, Davis decided to develop a more challenging version in 1983 titled Faster Harder More Challenging Q*bert (also known as FHMC Q*bert)."

  Suggestion: "In 1983, feeling that the original game was too easy, Davis decided to develop Faster Harder More Challenging Q*bert (also known as FHMC Q*bert)."

Sources

• As noted above, the two referenced television shows do not back up the "popularity" claim.

• High Score!: the illustrated history of electronic games

• The General Mills/Parker Brothers Merger: Playing by Different Rules: a bit about Parker Brothers and Q*bert

• The Video Game Theory Reader 2: short blurb on its "dimensionality"

• Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design: could be used to cite some gameplay elements

• The Video Game Explosion: a History from PONG to Playstation and Beyond: short blurb on Q*bert's popularity, second after Pac-Man

• Audio Anecdotes: Tools, Tips, and Techniques for Digital Audio, Volume 1: Thiel's description of how he created the sounds for Q*bert (and other games)

• Steve L. Kent's books have some details of Q*bert's development/workings if you can get them.[2][3] According to Marty Goldberg, Kent did not do a good job in fact-checking though (see: Talk:Pac-Man (Atari 2600)#1981 release?)

• No source is given to substantiate that the game was ever referenced in South Park as claimed in the "Legacy" section. (BLStevens (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Any information currently cited to less reliable sources that can be replaced by the above should be done so.

Images

• File:Q-bert Poster.png: requires a stronger FUR to tie in with its purpose as principal identification of the subject.

• The other two images (screenshots of this game and Q*bert's Qubes, which I presume fails to be notable enough for its own article) are a bit weak in their FURs but still adequate in my view for GA. The Qubes screenshot might still be contentious as there is no information in the article that gives critical commentary on its differences with Q*bert; the article is only talking about a difference in gameplay based on graphical differences.

Some sections come across as blow-by-blow account (he did this, then he did that) in some parts, when a concise approach should be adopted. Overall I think there are quite a few issues here before I can support the article for A-class.

Some replies

• The lead
  • As you pointed out, there is a distinction between a 2D game and a 3D game. Given that 3D games are common place now, I think this old format is worth mentioning.
  • I just remembered why I included "format". The pinball and tabletop VFD aren't really video game platforms. But if you think this still unnecessary, then I won't add it back in.
• Gameplay
  • I'll give it another sweep to see if I can tweak the content.
• Development
  • The characters' color change did not affect development to my knowledge. It seemed like an interesting detail. I don't see any real reason to omit it.
  • The comment about Davis knowing what to implement next was to explain that he hit a wall in the development. Waxman's suggestion is what help the game progress past it.
  • Davis felt that a standard orientation (left, right, up, and down) did not make sense because the Q*bert moves exclusively in diagonal directions. The joystick movement would not have matched the character's movement.
  • The different responses to the play testing were that some people grasped the diagonal control scheme quickly while others didn't. Davis made the game easier in an attempt to make it accessible to the ones that had trouble with the controls.
• Legacy
  • I chose the word "game", because the Q*bert character wasn't the only element merchandised. Also, if I remember correctly, the two sources used for that statement both said "game".
  • The statement about the longevity is from the creators being surprised people still fondly remember the game 20+ years later.
  • In regard to the Doris Self. She became the highest scoring competitor in 1984, but was eventually beaten but other competitors. Since then, she continued to practice at the game and compete for the high score until here death at the age of 81 in 2006. Basically, she made a name for herself from Q*bert competitions.
• Remakes and sequels
  • As far as I can tell, there's only about 4 Q*bert video games: the original, Q*bert's Qubes, Q*bert 3, and the 3D Q*bert (this one is debateable because the main game is a 3D remake, but it has an adventure mode with different level designs). All others are ports. So I guess that'd count as a series of games.

I'll give the article another sweep later. Unfortunately, I'm not sure when because my free has been very sporadic for a while and I'm not sure when it'll be more flexible. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Much of the issues I point above are more of a "blow-by-blow" accounting. Some details seem unnecessary or can be better rephrased. Regardless, I would not see them as detriment to A-class, but they could be improved. Of more concern is the Doris Self reference, which I find to be lacking in context (making her mention seemingly trivial); I hope my suggestion above is accepted or can inspire a greater sentence. I understand your schedule, my time is getting limited as well with changes in my professional life. I hope to see your next sweep before deciding. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update- I think I've addressed most of your points now.

• I rewrote the gameplay content about the bouncing balls and dying.
• I believe the content about Lee's artistic inspirations has been fixed.
• Removed "However, Davis did not know what to implement next."
• Tweaked reception content about the character
• As far as examples of puns from the TV show, I didn't really watch the show so I can't say. I just used the wording ("pun") the original author of this source used. A few examples I found were "Q-burg" and "Q-cart", a cart with square wheels.
• Used your suggestion for the high scoring and Doris Self content.
• I would say there is not much more information about the sequels than what is already in the "Remakes and sequels" section. I could split the content out to trim down that section, but the resulting article would not be that informative in my opinion.
• I updated the FURs of the images.

Let me know what you think. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think the changes are enough for me to support this as an A-class article. Jappalang (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been watching this for awhile, waiting for the article to be in a state I could support A-Class. Well, that time has come! --Teancum (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted the article to A-class. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing these links per guidelines, not "because I personally don't like them". KLOV is just a regular source, with some descriptive information: if any of that is worth including in the article, include it using KLOV as a reference in the normal manner. Otherwise, it is not, as I will quote again: it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Arcade History is the same thing but with even lower quality, it wouldn't even pass as a reliable source. And we don't link to Wikis generally (see the above link) and not game guides especially. bridies (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of game articles which link to StrategyWiki. Also if you don't link to Wikis then why does StrategyWiki have its own template ?

Arcade History is actually of higher quality than KLOV since KLOV hasn't been updated in years and has many errors. Again many game articles link to them since both sites are a database of arcade games. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. These are in many articles, and the templates themselves exist, because there are editors going around adding them to articles even though they shouldn't (per guidelines). Same with all the original reseach, bad information and everything else on here: Most articles on Wikipedia, and on old video games more than most, are of poor quality in general. This one happily is not, so it would be nice if it could be kept that way. As an aside, I agree KLOV is a terrible source, and I believe it's acceptance as reliable per our standards to be pretty tenuous (10 freaking discussions in the archives, which I don't have time to read, and it seems it was finally added as reliable because someone got it through an FAC). bridies (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware about the Wiki thing. I have added StrategyWiki links to other arcade game articles since I saw it in so many of them already. I won't add that particular template any more. As for Arcade History, I created a new template for it since the KLOV has become a questionable source with many errors, see discussion here - [4] - Arcade History is at least regularly updated and they do seem to try to correct errors. That site is also used to generate the history database for MAME. I'm not saying either is 100% perfect but at this point Arcade History seems much more reliable than KLOV. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should also pose that question at either Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. I doubt most people know about the talk page on which you did post (arcade task force?). bridies (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a platform game that features two-dimensional (2D) graphics

Really now, 2D graphics? By that standard even modern consoles only have 2D graphics. 70.124.88.175 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several forum threads around the official PlayStation forums that talk about the game not being available at PSN anymore, apparently since at least 2010.

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PSN-Games-General/Q-Bert-Joust-disappeared-from-PSN/td-p/14918954 http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation-General/What-happened-to-Q-bert-for-the-PS3/td-p/37247702

Not sure whether a bunch of forum posts can be construed as "reliable" sources in any way, nor whether there is any official, citable information about delisted games online. Derboo (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can Q*Bert be rightfully called a platform game? Jumping in this game is merely a matter of graphical representation and has nothing to do with the mechanics. From the Wikipedia article on platform games: "The player controls the jumps to avoid letting the avatar fall from platforms or miss necessary jumps. The most common unifying element of games of this genre is the jump button." Neither of the two apply to Q*Bert. It's possible to fall off the pyramid, but it's mechanically no different from walking into a pit in an action adventure with no jumping. It also doesn't seem to fit the old UK definition of the genre that was "climbing games" in the US. Derboo (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence that was originally added by Dada817 (talk · contribs):

"On November 18th 2012, George Leutz broke the Q*Bert tournament world record live at the Kong Off 2 event at the 1up Barcade in Denver, Co. George scored 3,930,990 points in just under 8 hours, earning 1.5 million on his first life, beating Self's score with a single Q*Bert."

The only source given was a Youtube video of the game being played, which didn't even include the whole session. All I can find in google about it is Leutz himself announcing that he broke the standing record. Are there any adequate sources for this? Derboo (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this sentence back in, and providing a link to the score in the Twin Galaxies database of world records. The scoreboard went down for a while, it is back online now. I put the youtube link there, it is there for reviewing purposes. It is video of the verified world record tournament Q*Bert score, a five lives qbert game that goes on for over seven hours. Other players learn from watching this video, it is instructional and useful as a reference. First life is not lost until three hours into the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanidk (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube video is seven and a half hours long. It shows TGTS play over 1.5 million points over the previous record. It was recorded live at the Kong-Off 2 in Denver, Co. on 11/18/12, with referees present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanidk (talk • contribs) 10:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the section "Updates, remakes, and sequels" has recently been marked for cleanup, I figured I might bring up a point I've been thinking about for a while. With the exception of "Faster Harder More Challenging Q*bert", all the other titles are independent games with different levels and gameplay, so wouldn't it be better to move the current descriptions to a Q*bert series article, leaving only a brief summary in this one? The article on the first game should probably remain the search result for "Q*bert", as none of the others are very noteworthy on their own. I'm not really sure how to do that, though. Derboo (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I expanded this article, I've used the section "Other media appearances" for officially licensed appearances and "In popular culture" for homages and references. That distinction doesn't seem very obvious, as other editors added duplicates from one category in the other. Any ideas to rename the sections to make the distinction clear? Or are the two not so different after all and should be merged into one section? Derboo (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One 2012 game glitched a level that would cause "BONUS LEVEL" and characters from other games (like Q*Bert) to appear. 108.65.81.68 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.122.12 (talk) [reply]

That kind of trivia isn't worth mentioning in the article. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   ++ ---------------------
 | --  - |           
  +=-----------------\rDSAUFSIJSDfsdfsfajsdkfl;sd
fasdfjklsdf
asghklajgdsf
ghnklasdf
afE---ERROR---------
0╬ FILE "PENIS SIZE 29.2 CM" FAILED

fdfsda
asfd

108.71.122.34 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]