Template:Video game reviews/doc


 * Things to remember:
 * 1) This template is not required in video game articles.
 * 2) This template is meant to supplement a reception section, not replace it.
 * 3) Not every review score in existence is needed.
 * 4) The scores should not be repetitive.

One of the required elements for a video game article on Wikipedia is a reception section, which itself should include critical response to the game. One of the tools that has been developed to help with this is the template, which allows one to include both aggregate sites (MetaCritic, etc.) and individual site scores for a game. This template should be used as a support for a good reception, but not as a replacement for it. That is, it is very easy to pile in every possible review score you can find into the box and write a couple of supporting sentences to go with it and call it good, but this is not the best approach.

Guidelines
The following is some advice to help improve the use of the template and the reception section.


 * Consider if you even need to use
 * For some older games or games that never made it to Western countries, traditional reviews, or those that provide some type of score, may be few and far between. (For example, Space Invaders and Defender.) If you only have a couple such reviews that could be used to fill the table, consider foregoing the table and instead simply state these in the body of reception text.


 * Only add a score if you cite it with a reference.
 * For further information on video game sources, see WikiProject Video games/Sources.'


 * Every single-site review source should be used within the reception section
 * Putting a site's score and reference without using that reference elsewhere is just purposely loading that table for no reason. This does not apply for the aggregate scores references.


 * Consider the game's scoring breakdown.
 * Once a game has enough reviews (15 or more), it is a good idea to review how the game review aggregate sites qualify these, and then to look at the breakdown of those scores. A game that has received a similar grade across all reviews likely needs only a few data points to support it; a set of scores like 7.8, 8, 8.2, 7.9, 8, and 7.9 does not offer much to the reader when they can simply look at an aggregate score that is 80%. On the other hand, a game that had a wide variance may need more, particularly at the top and bottom levels - after all, you are going to want to use these extreme points to pull good and bad points about the game into the reception section.
 * A good rule of thumb is to consider what grades fall out of a +/− 5 or 10 point range from the aggregate average (e.g. for a game that scored 75 on average, one would look for scores above 80 and below 70 as outliers) If there are only a few, then the game has received relatively equal acclaim and only a handful of sources are necessary, while if there are variances, these definitely should be focused on if they are generally accepted sources.
 * Also be aware of how those rankings break down. A game that has received a 90 from 15 sources (give or take a few points) and a 60 from a single, reliable source has a strong outlier that needs to be considered in the body of the article, and it is important to understand the reasoning of the low grade from the source and to see if that can be used to meet up with other minor complains that the other 15 sources stated. Note, however, this should only be for those gaming review sources that are reliable. If the outlier score is from a source that is not strongly reliable, caution should be taken before including it. However, do consider reading that review and identifying what their praise or complaints are, as this may lead to search terms to find other, more reliable reviews that reiterate them.


 * Stay with the "usual suspects"
 * Barring unique cases described above, the following is usually a good selection of reviews that will help to scope the table, provide references for an in-depth reception section, and yet prevent table bloat:
 * Metacritic − aggregate
 * GameRankings − aggregate with slightly different input feeds and method than MC.
 * IGN
 * GameSpot
 * 1UP.com
 * GameSpy
 * Eurogamer − Used for non-North American input
 * VideoGamer − Used for non-North American input and covers all gaming platforms
 * Game Informer − One of the few print magazines that cover all gaming
 * Edge − Used for non-North American input and one of the few print magazines that cover all gaming
 * One of the platform specific magazines: Nintendo Power, PlayStation: The Official Magazine, Official Xbox Magazine, PC World, or similar titles, appropriate to the platform for console-exclusives.
 * Occasionally, a game is released or re-released on several platforms, but the different versions received different receptions. (For example, Ōkami.) A platform specific magazine would be appropriate in this case.
 * For games that are first released in Japan, a Famitsu score is usually helpful.
 * Using these will give most tables 2 aggregates, and 5 to 6 scores. This is not meant to prevent adding more references to the reception section, but I have found that between these, you usually will have a good picture of any game's reception without additional work.


 * Never ignore traditional non-gaming sources
 * If your game gets reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, or other major national newspaper, Wired, the BBC, or such other sources that normally have limited game coverage, these by all means are extremely valuable to include as they usually are written as reviews directed to the non- or casual gaming reader. They may not have scores (and thus not included in the table), but will likely have good, concise statements of why a game is good or bad, and other details.

Usage
All of the following fields are optional (though a 'Review scores' section will always appear even if empty):


 * title
 * can be used to provide a custom title for the table, otherwise, it will default to "Reception".
 * subtitle
 * used to add additional text before the collapsible section. This is necessary to add if want a longer title, as long titles via the "title" parameter will not center correctly.
 * state
 *   –  the table will be collapsed (hidden) by default. This is useful for very long tables.
 *   –  the table will start out collapsed if there are two or more tables on the same page that use other collapsible tables. Otherwise, the table will be expanded. For the technically minded, see MediaWiki:Common.js.
 *   –  the table will always be expanded and the [hide]/[show] link on the right will not be displayed.
 * If set to blank, the table will always start out in an expanded state.
 * rev1–7
 * these are for custom reviewers. Use with rev#Score.
 * agg1-2
 * these are for custom reviewers. Use with agg#Score.
 * award1–12
 * these are for any awards that the title has won.
 * width
 * sets the width of the table; default is 23em.

Star system
If a reviewer uses a star system instead of a numerical rating, you can use the rating template to create the stars. However, this is not required and regular numbers can be used. If the reviewer does not use a star system, please do not replace their number system with stars.

Examples: