Talk:Lego Creator (video game)/GA1

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 18:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Doing! Ping me if there's not a review within the week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)Overall this is a small but fairly comprehensive article for the scope of sources I've seen. A few comments: General:

• To me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put the "Sequels" before the actual release/sales section. Especially because there's more that can be said about how the game's success helped spur more Lego games (see note further down.) Y

Prose:

• The gameplay section feels like it could use a bit more introduction and context. The lead says it's a sandbox game, but that's not information actually found in the article body. Y Added this to the front - Allgame mentions it's a game without objectives which is a good fit.

• • Did the game really include every set in existence? One review when checking verification mentioned that, but it's perhaps hyperbole. The bit about being able to recolor the bricks seems relevant though. Y Thank goodness - the Allgame description page fortunately mentions this.

• • The reception section reads a little choppy, partially because it's doing a lot of selective quoting. I think you're better off looking to summarize and then use quotes a little more judiciously when it more succinctly captures mood. Y I've tidied it up slightly

Media:

• • The fair use rationales for the non-free images could use some beefing up. Y Added an expanded rationale.

References:

• It looks like the Allgame reference from the {{refideas}} template on the talk page is included, but are the other two reviews worth incorporating?   They are valid WP:NONENG sources but in terms of unassessed non-WP:VG/S type reviews, they aren't a substantial opinion to have omitted on pedigree, I didn't see any detail they'd add to the article and the reception section is already quite broad.

• I did a quick ProQuest search and found a few more reviews, as well as some additional sales info (it was the #6 best-selling game its debut week in the US) and additional context regarding the edutainment sector before and after which I think make sense to evaluate for inclusion. If you send me an email I can forward you PDFs.   I have access to ProQuest via the Wikipedia Library, so if you have the titles of useful sources, I am happy to add them to the article.
  • Sources that could merit some integrations: "Lego Media Launches First Three Software Titles, Back by Fall TV" (Brandweek, July 13, 1998); "Lego to build CD-ROM library in response to 1998 success" (Discount Store News, April 19, 1999); "Multimedia Roundup: Software Firms Gear Up For A Smash Follow-up to 'The Biggest Year Ever'" (Billboard, February 20, 1999); "PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY; With High-Tech Toys, Lego Is Building for the Future" (Los Angeles Times, September 21, 1998); "A block buster; Games" (Sydney Morning Herald, May 8, 1999); "Building Lego blocks on screen" (New Straits Times, Jan 18, 1999); "SCREEN SHOTS" (The Washington Post, December 25, 1998); "Never mind the quality, feel the pitch Trusted logo lego makes 'edutainment' status, but does it live up to its pc rebranding" (The Guardian, Dec 3, 1998); "BESTSELLERS" (The Washington Post, Dec 7, 1998). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:12, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Y Cheers, thanks for your patience mate. I've added these in the article. VRXCES (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 21. Y

• • Given the original source is in German, I think I would paraphrase Livingstone's quotes rather than representing it as exactly what he said. Y

• • It's a little nit-picky, but probably should have a post-release source used for the release date. Y Fortunately Bits 'n Bricks, which is an official Lego podcast hosted on the Lego website, does, in fact, recount the release date of the game.

• • Otherwise sourcing looked good, and no issues with close paraphrasing. Y

• For the purposes of readability, the refbombs for the general critical sentiment could either be bundled up, or just cut to 3-ish reviews each. Y Happy to do this: the intent here though was to verify across all reviews: as it would be easy to take three positive reviews in a mixed game and paraphrase a positive position.

• I'm annoyed because while clicking around I found a review (for another one of The Lego games?) that mentioned most traditional gaming outlets didn't focus on these games because of their supposed kid/edutainment focus and thought that would be a good ref to add, but now I can't find it. Shucks. Y That's ok - I think with seven cited review scores, there's enough here for the article to not have to explain limited coverage; this is actually pretty great review coverage for a 90s kids game. Y

• I noted that a Lego Creator II was announced in sources-- did this turn into Knights' Kingdom, or was it cancelled? Any sources on that?   Do you have a link to this? I can only find a Billboard reference in 1999 for upcoming 2000 releases, which would strongly suggest it's a working title for the 2000 Knights' Kingdom game. I've found no evidence for a direct sequel, so have just stated there was an originally announced title as Lego Creator II.

Vrxces any updates? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for the patience - I think I've addressed all above to the best of my ability. VRXCES (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)