Talk:Blown Away (video game): Difference between revisions

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia’s content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. A request for identifying art has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department) A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department) Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments

@NetherFortress there is one more review listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/PC Gamer (US) if you have access to it. BOZ (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Mobygame reviews page lists several more, and links to Joystick and Power Play. 🙂 BOZ (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

added the Joystick one 🙂 Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• … that the 1994 game Blown Away, inspired by an action movie and themed around bomb disposal, surprised many reviewers by focusing not on action sequences but on puzzle gameplay? Source: pretty much all reviews 🙂 Ex. The Sydney Morning Herald [1], ŚKG [2], Joystick [3]…

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Claiming – Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a QPQ is required. Did one of the reviewers do a DYK that can be used to fulfill this? Sorry, misread – Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• QPQ is fulfilled
• Expanded 5x over the previous version
• Comprehensive enough (I’ve also added ref ideas for reception and development, the latter which is the only lacking area)
• Good hook with adequate citation
• – Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @Timur9008:
Reviews

Development and concept details

Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]