Talk:Hyper Force

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: KGRAMR (talk · contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 02:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It's really great to see you continue to draft articles to a high standard. Some initial remarks from me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Headline

• No need to parenthesise the acronym for ISF here if we don't use the acronym later in this section.

 Done -- Removed acronym from the headline section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Gameplay

• What are tech items?

 Done -- It's pretty much items in the form of several pieces of technology but i decided to just stick with items. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Suggest we use Trans Con organization at its first mention and then have later mentions be just Trans Con.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Development

• To clarify the chronology, do we have a date for E3 1995?

E3 1995 was hosted from May 11, 1995, to May 13, 1995. I did not include it because none of the sources state the dates when E3 1995 was hosted. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• The phrase would publish it as future tense is confusing here: we can clarify the game was due or announced for publication.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• ...despite Visual Impact hoping it would be can probably be dropped: 'had high hopes' is merely idiomatic for disappointment, and it's obvious a developer would have preferred the game were published.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Despite the AtariHQ sourcing saying Hasbro's open system plans may make the platform "become public domain", do we have a source more clearly and directly stating this was the effect of their announcement? There seems to be one on the console's page.

That is explained in the second paragraph. Which is covered by these sources: (1), (2), (3 features scans from GamesTM talking about that particular event), (4). Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• We're told where Visual Impact was based, but is there any background to Carl Forhan? Where is he from, at least?

Carl Forhan is from the United States but since the sources do not touch upon where his company his located, i decided not including it. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Reception

• There are enough reviews for thematic reception per WP:VG/MOS, but there's no need to radically rewrite here. If there were common sources of praise or criticism, it may be helpful to lead with these.

• This may help break up the repetition of X praised this and critiqued this; Y praised this and critiqued this in the section. Again, the number of reviews aren't so substantial to make this a big deal.

• I suspect the citations for the game receiving "mixed reviews" don't say this and are miscellaneous review citations that didn't end up in the prose. It may be better to take the above approach rather than shoehorn them in.

That's an approximation of the reviews that gave the game scores. I am waiting for a fellow Jaguar fan in France who has access to the ReVival magazine which features a review of the game so i can fully integrate it into the reception section to futureproof the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• If there's enough content, could we separate contemporary from retrospective reception to make their context clearer?

Okay so there's the following: GameFan, Video Games (DE) and ReVival (2000), GameSpy's Jaguar Front Page News and Atari Entertainment (2001), the book by Andy Slaven (2002), the book by Atari Times (2005), neXGam (2009), and Retro Gamer (2013). I organized the reception section based on how more or less the reviewers felt about the game and the scores they gave to it. I could use the GameSpy Review in the reception section to go along with the other ones, but i am still waiting for a fellow Jaguar fan who has the ReVival issue with a review of the game. Perhaps i can organize the reviews based on the dates to separate it from each other. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

(P.S. - Allright so, i organized the reviews section in the following manner: a paragraph for 2000-2001 reviews, and another for reviews or commentaries about the game starting from 2002 onward. All that's left would be JFPN review by Dan Loosen, who reviewed a few games for Atari Times and it's actually the guy who ran The GOAT Store and still runs Midwest Gaming Classic to this very day). Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces:First pass done! I'll await for further comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks for actioning the feedback where supported - I agree where there aren't sources to add explanation, there's no need to go further. The article is self-evidently up to GA standard in prose, structure and sourcing quality. I have also in the process of going through the article done a spot check of sources as I go, and checked the attributions for the images. The only important feedback I have is that the cover is misattributed to an AtariAge screenshot of Protector and not Hyper Force - this will need to be amended, then we're good to go. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vrxces:Cover art link mistake ammended. Everything should be good to go now. Thank you for taking the time to review the article! Roberth Martinez (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Fantastic. This was a breeze to review. Great work! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.