User talk:Mara/Multiple-platform mockup of 1984

You may have misunderstood me slightly. If a company's list of games is only one or two games long, I don't think we gain anything by putting a special preface statement about platforms above the list. When the list is short, why not put the platforms in their usual slots in the game reference? -- David Welbourn 16:34, 7 September 2006 (EST)

As for consisently using a preface even when redundant: I liked how it added some visual structure, and shortened the game reference (especially for games with a long list of credits). Anyhow, I revised the mockup and removed most prefaces.

Well, firstly I was trying to avoid lines from growing too long, especially for games with more than a few credits. Consistently employing a platform header seemed like a good way to prevent this, and it felt less cluttered. I've updated the mockup, put platforms into their usual slots where economic. --Mara 17:03, 7 September 2006 (EST)

Also, I notice that this arrangement seems a bit two-tier for some companies, and introduces a new source of confusion. I think maybe the Multiple Platforms section might have to be Commerical Games, and move Infocom's and others down into it. Unhappily, this might also mean that the platform sections ought to say things like "See Polarware, Trillium, and Unisoft below." or "See also (etc.)" as applicable. -- David Welbourn 16:34, 7 September 2006 (EST)

True; Infocom is a fortunate exception, since we simply file them away as Z-code releases, irregardless of their actual distribution as a packaged product. Since it's considerably harder to establish a "virtual platform" for nearly every other release (apart from, perhaps, The Quill, Level 9 and Scott Adams games), this confusion is unlikely to disappear. --Mara 17:03, 7 September 2006 (EST)