Talk:Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)

Peer Review 2008

I have done a major brush up of the article and put it up for peer review. Please post comments in there after reviewing the article (link is in the WikiProject Video game banner above). Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Yes it's shorter, but it's much more messy than before... --Mika1h (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... any ideas on how to mantain a short but tidy table? The issue with the one line for each term table (the previous one) was its length; it extended roughly 1050 pixels down excluding box art (old ver) , and has lots of boldings and whitespace. The current infobox text is roughly 650 pixels. Perhaps we can cut out certain information, or compress the release dates? Is it acceptable to use a (region0 dd mm, region1 dd mm, region2 dd mm), yyyy format in the infobox? Jappalang (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need media and input sections. It's obvious that the game can be played with a standard controller and was made in DVD/Bluray. If it differed from that norm it would be noteworthy. Also we could cut ratings for USK and PEGI (Finland), they are not essential since this is English Wikipedia. --Mika1h (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with cutting out the media and input sections (there is usually no deviation from the norm for the Xbox/360/PS3). While I agree with cutting out PEGI ratings, USK might still be relevant since it is involved in Ninja Gaiden getting censored for the PAL versions (the same goes for CERO). What about "picture format"? I have asked on Infobox Video game talk on getting a proper documentation on what it should be, and have received no conclusive answer. Should we just list the maximum supported screen resolution, or just eliminate it? Jappalang (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about picture formats as I don't own HD TV or next-gen console. --Mika1h (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think cutting out the few ratings that were the same would be fine (as would be cutting out the PEGI-FIN and USK ratings). The general format (vertical) should remain intact though, everything's impossible to read when wrapped around the infobox. Fin©™ 00:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Falcon9x5, thank you for being bold but I have to revert your edits to the infobox. For one, Black never received a CERO D-rating. (Stupid me, Black was rated CERO 18+ on release. Some time after CERO's reorg, it was updated to a CERO D-rating.) Two, in another article's FAC, a reviewer stated we should avoid specifics on box cover art if they are very similar. We should discuss further on the infobox. I am pushing this to be discussed on the article's peer review. By the way, I have restored the official sound tracks site as it complies with WP:EL in offering useful information which is not in the article. Even though the description is in Japanese, the track listings are in plain English. Jappalang (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden Infobox Option 1
Box cover art for Ninja Gaiden
Developer(s)	Team Ninja
Publisher(s)	Tecmo EU: Eidos Interactive (Sigma)
Designer(s)	Tomonobu Itagaki Yosuke Hayashi (Sigma)
Series	Ninja Gaiden
Platform(s)	Xbox PlayStation 3 (Sigma)
Release	Ninja Gaiden NA: March 2, 2004 JP: March 11, 2004 EU: May 14, 2004 Ninja Gaiden Black NA: September 20, 2005 JP: September 29, 2005 EU: October 21, 2005 February 11, 2008 (Xbox Original) Ninja Gaiden Sigma JP: June 14, 2007 NA: July 3, 2007 EU: July 6, 2007 AU: July 13, 2007
Genre(s)	Action-Adventure
Mode(s)	Single player

Ninja Gaiden Infobox Option 2
Box cover art for Ninja Gaiden
Developer(s)	Team Ninja
Publisher(s)	Tecmo EU: Eidos Interactive (Sigma)
Designer(s)	Tomonobu Itagaki Yosuke Hayashi (Sigma)
Series	Ninja Gaiden
Platform(s)	Xbox PlayStation 3 (Sigma)
Release	Ninja Gaiden NA: March 2, 2004 JP: March 11, 2004 EU: May 14, 2004 Ninja Gaiden Black NA: September 20, 2005 JP: September 29, 2005 EU: October 21, 2005 February 11, 2008 (Xbox Original) Ninja Gaiden Sigma JP: June 14, 2007 NA: July 3, 2007 EU: July 6, 2007 AU: July 13, 2007
Genre(s)	Action-Adventure
Mode(s)	Single player

(redent) I am offering two suggestions for the Infobox (the differences are in the Ratings section). I am using the Hidden Infobox option and a free public image for this talk page, but will use the full display and correct cover art for the article. Take a look and suggest which is preferable. Comments, critiques, and suggestions are welcome. Jappalang (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 2 is definitely the clearer one. And I still think the media section could be cut. --Mika1h (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Option is better alright. Not pushed about cutting the media section. If it has to be to cut down on size, no bother. Fin©™ 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Okay, option 2 with the media section removed it is! Jappalang (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page's Table of Content

Eh, anyone has an idea why the Table of Content for this page has disappeared, and how to get it back? Jappalang (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TOC, the table of contents is automatically generated for pages with more than three sections. I previewed a test edit with an additional section, and the TOC was displayed. Flatscan (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Incredibly stupid question

I'm not here to troll or anything. I know that this is one of the most stupid questions you can ask about this game but me and someone are arguing on MSN and he is claiming that Mission Mode in Black is a fighting game within the game. He claims it to be a single player fighting game since you have an avatar and you are placed in a battle with no scenario. Can you guys please support my argument and prove this guy wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakoma.B (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Per request, I've taken on a copyedit for this article. I'll post comments and questions below, under their appropriate section headers, and add to the list as I go along. EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• It might be wise to check citations for text I've copyedited. I'm very careful about keeping text and citations together if I move stuff around, but mistakes can happen... :P

Lead

• I'll leave this until last, as it may need to reflect changes to the article ;)

• OK, I've copyedited this now. I don't know how you feel about citations in the lead - personally I think that as long as assertions are cited in the body, citing the lead as well is unnecessary (WP:BLPs excluded), but as I'm sure you know some FA reviewers will ask for them. It should be easy enough to add sources from the body if they're needed in any case! EyeSerene^talk 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "...typical action-adventure manner." Do we need to expand on this? What is a 'typical' action adventure manner?
  • The "typical action-adventure" has the protagonist starting off weak. As the player delves deeper into the game, his/her character gains experience and finds items that makes him/her more powerful. The sentences after "...typical action-adventure manner" were to explain this. Jappalang (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Are there links for "Ninja Gaiden Black" and "Sigma", and would it be reasonable to describe them as 'updates' rather than 'remakes' (I'm assuming they were modernised versions of the game for newer platforms).
  • The two games are basically updates of Ninja Gaiden with additional stuff. They used to have articles but they are at heart the same game as NG and so were merged into here. Jappalang (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Are there other modes of play other than story and mission? I think we need more evidence to justify using 'various modes of play' in the first para.
  • The games provide only Story and Mission Mode. Fan communities add restrictions to create speed (fastest completion times) and karma (highest scores) runs but these are not official and are irrelevant to the mode of plays available. Jappalang (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is the comparison with Zelda necessary? I'm not convinced it adds anything to the article.
  • Team Ninja was inspired by Zelda for NG's adventure elements. Can the mention be reworked? Jappalang (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• "The games industry praised it for having one of the deeper combat engines among Xbox games." needs explicitly citing (although how we cite the entire industry is another question - maybe rewording would help too!) Reworded it anyway ;)
  • General reply to all the above - I've tried to work these clarifications into the article. Hopefully they are now basically correct (I'm sure I'll tweak the grammar as I re-read it though!) EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Plot and setting

• Should Dead or Alive be abbreviated to DoA rather than DOA?
  • DoA would comply with Wikipedia's MOS. The game industry, however, uses DOA. I have no preference on abbreviation to use. Jappalang (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should stick with DOA then (until someone insists otherwise!) EyeSerene^talk 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Which is preferred, the Hayabusa village, or simply Hayabusa village. I've been changing the former to the latter (one wouldn't say the New York city), but it crops up a lot so I thought I'd best check ;)
  • I have no preference either way. I am unsure if the concerned village is a definite article. Your example of New York City is very persuasive (plenty of cities were named after clans or personae), so I will support having Hayabusa village as a zero article. Jappalang (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)]
    • I see what you mean - it's the village of the Hayabusas, hence 'the' Hayabusa village. I think if that's really the name it's known by though, leaving off 'the' makes sense (it just reads oddly otherwise!)EyeSerene^talk 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• In the guidelines for video games article WP:VG/GL, "playable" is considered a gaming jargon that may be unfamiliar to the general reader. Are there other possible rephrasings that can be used? Jappalang (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll reword it. Thanks for catching that! EyeSerene^talk 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "...the player takes control of Ryu as he invades the Shadow clan fortress." Is 'invades' the best word here? From the context he is just visiting his uncle.
  • Players often raised the humorous question: why does Ryu need to slaughter his uncle's ninjas on a visit? Recap of chapter one's gameplay: After watching a cut scene in which Ryu jumps off a waterfall and backstabs an unwary ninja, the player takes control of Ryu and moves up the mountain path. He slaughters ninjas standing in his way before moving into the ninja fortress. In the fortress, more ninjas rush up to attack Ryu. After getting a key to the Inner Sanctum, Ryu enters to find Murai waiting for him and they start a fight without speaking a word. It is only when the player reduced Murai to a fraction of his health that the fight ends and they start talking about family affairs and the Dark Dragon Blade... End recap. I tried to reconcile his murderous rampage with the concept of a visit with "invade" but perhaps some better phrase can be found. Jappalang (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes... well, no-one says games have to make sense! I'll see what I can do with that EyeSerene^talk 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think one or two items in the plot summary could do with clarification: where does Ryu get the Dark Dragon Blade (presumably when he defeats one of the fiends or the emperor?), and I've assumed the Dragon Eye was part of this blade?
  • The story behind the two blades are explained in greater detail in the opening movie of the game (removed from Sigma). The Dark Dragon Blade (DDB) was long ago made from a bone of the evil Black Dragon (note that the dragons were like gods in the game's ancient history). This Dragon was defeated by those of the Dragon Lineage (which the Hayabusas are the last descendants of) wielding the Dragon Sword, which was made from the fang of one of the good dragons. In the game, the Hayabusas were the guardians of the DDB until Doku stole it for the Emperor. The Blade was in the Emperor's realm and Ryu took it back after defeating the Emperor. I hope that makes things clearer. Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That helps, thanks! EyeSerene^talk 13:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Oops, missed out the Dragon Eye. The Dragon Eye is a jewel that when fitted onto the end of the Dragon Sword's hilt, it transforms the sword into its most powerful form, the True Dragon Sword. The first time it appeared in the game is in the cut scene in which Kureha was cut down by Doku in the Hayabusa village raid. However, it was not mentioned that the jewel Kureha was clutching was the Dragon Eye. It is only later in the game that Muramasa tells Ryu that the Dragon Sword lacks the Dragon Eye to reach its full potential and that the jewel is still in Hayabusa village. Jappalang (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Development

• I don't know if the paragraph about Australian ratings is really relevant, as it states that NG was never released there. I'm assuming its implication is that, due to the strict rating system, Tecmo didn't bother even trying for a release.
  • Yes, that is correct. The rating was strict enough that they released it in Europe but not Australia (Europe and Australia are lumped together for PAL releases). Jappalang (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks, I've tried to clarify that. It doesn't look like the sources given explicitly say that was the motivation for Tecmo's decision (though I'm sure it was!), so I hope I haven't gone beyond what we can source.

Master Ninja Tournaments

• I'm pretty confused about this section. Were tournaments 1 and 2 region specific? Do they include the online play & score posting, or is that how players qualified for the tournaments? If tournament 1 was not open to Europe, how could there be a regional winner? I count 4 competitions... basically, I'm lost! It would help greatly if you could walk me through each competition, if you don't mind. I'll leave this section for now, anyway ;)
  • The section was more detailed before I was advised to cut it down in size. Looks like my cuts took out more than they should...
    1. Tournament 1 was only verifiably open for the North Americans (definite no, no for the Europeans, and no sources regarding the Japanese). Their top three received the bokkens.
    2. Tournament 2 was open to all three regions. However, only the European top three received bokkens.
    3. Tournament 1, 2 and the Finals were all part of one championship. Tournament 1 and 2 were the playoffs for the Finals.
    4. Tournament 3 was not part of the championship and took place after the championship.
  • I recommend this version for the original unadulterated version before the cuts. Jappalang (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a big help, thanks! EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Remakes and merchandise

• I think I'm done with this section, though I did add a date (2007) for the Sigma demo which I think is correct but might need checking.

Reception

• "He said that there are games so hard that players get mad in trying to beat them and stay mad even after doing so." (from the penultimate paragraph). I don't see this in the source given - am I looking in the right place?
  • I paraphrased it from his first and last two paragraphs.

Some video games are hard. Some are really hard. And some are so freakishly, spoon-bendingly difficult that they take 10 hours of solid play before you've even begun to master the basics. Whenever I slip one of these nasty little backbreakers into my game system, I usually discard them in frustration after a couple of hours and wonder: What's the point? What adult has the time to master this stuff? Could it ever be worth it?
...
But just because a game is hard doesn't mean it'll have a payoff. Many games are arduous for all the wrong reasons: They have overly complex rules, enemies with no weaknesses, puzzles whose solutions do not follow Earth logic. Grind your head as long as you want against Resident Evil 3: Nemesis or Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation, and they'll still suck. There's no point wasting time on them, just as there's little point struggling through many works of literature that are touted as "difficult" but have little aesthetic or intellectual payoff. (How much Ezra Pound does anyone really need to read?)
So, sink 40 hours of your life into a hard game only if it's already been widely praised by game reviewers and game blogs, the folks who play everything. I rely on these selfless warriors the same way I rely on film buffs who visit every benighted film festival on the planet until they've discovered the true indie gems. They suffer so that we don't have to.

• • Jappalang (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it can be read that way, although I think what he's really arguing is that one is more likely to give up in frustration if there's no payoff to balance out the difficulty, unless you're a reviewer whose job it is to play even the unrewarding games (and can warn the rest of us about them!). I'll reword a little, and see what you think (if you need to change anything back, please do!) EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I like your sentence and believe it is truer to Thompson's text than my interpretation. However... perhaps it is a bit long and runon-ish (49 words separated by 3 commas)? Could it be broken into two sentences? Jappalang (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're right, I'll tweak it ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, done that - hopefully it's better. I'm not sure about the word 'beatable', but I've got a mental block and can't think of the word I'm actually after. If you can suggest anything...? EyeSerene^talk 13:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
          • How about from "However, where a game also rewards a player's perseverance by becoming beatable as the appropriate skills are acquired, the player will have the motivation to finish the game." to "However, where a game allows a player to defeat it on acquiring the appropriate skills, it motivates the player to finish the game and becomes a reward for the perseverance shown." or something (the last part of my suggestion is awkward pertaining to "the player"—I wanted to avoid gender pronouns.) Jappalang (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Yup, I think you're right in that it needed reordering, though I reordered the first bit rather than the last. It's certainly closer to what I was after ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regional Censorship

The section which discusses the games censorship status in Australia needs to be reworded. Sources have been included by myself and yet somebody is continuing to revert the section back to it's original wording and thus this section is inaccurately reflecting the true nature of the games status in Australia. It is certainly NOT illegal to to "own' unrated games in Australia, nor does the OFLC "usually" refuse to rate such games. This is evident by the fact Gears of War, Dead Rising, Ninja Gaiden II and many other games have been released totally uncut in Australia. Please do not publish blatantly incorrect information in the future. 220.238.160.242 (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording is according to the reliable sources. The OFLC "usually" does refuse to rate such games according to GameSpot and other sources commenting on the situation in Australia. They might have passed Gears of War and Ninja Gaiden II, but that does not invalidate the "tough" reputation OFLC acquired from banning "Dark Sector, Manhunt, Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, Reservoir Dogs, BMX XXX, Blitz: The League, and Postal 2" nor refusing numerous others until they were censored to receive MA15+ ("appeals and editing have allowed numerous others that were initially refused classification to fit into the maximum MA15+ rating as outlined by the National Classification Code and to go on to be sold legally").[1][2]

Furthermore, the article did not say that it is illegal to own "unrated" games. It is referring to "games that were refused classification", per "The retrofitting of an RC (refused classification) rating made the product illegal to sell, rent, own, advertise, or publicly display in Australia, and it remains banned from both sale and foreign import under threat of heavy penalties (including fines)." Jappalang (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Gamespot is wrong. Why don't you have a look through the OFLC's database and see for yourself rather than relying on media hyperbole? It is illegal to import banned games but it is not illegal to OWN banned games. There is a key difference. The OFLC does NOT "USUALLY" ban such games. Compare the amount of banned games with the same content to the games which "haven't" been banned. You will find that the majority of them are available UNCUT in Australia. You are ensuring blatantly false information is available to the public. Do you understand that the point of an encyclopedia is for it to be a source of FACTUAL information? Gamespot does not provide factual information on this issue, the OFLC (the body that classifies the games) DOES on the other hand. Should you change the article again you will be reported for vandalism. 220.238.160.242 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. It is indeed illegal to possess games that have been refused classification, as I stated on this post on Whirlpool.
See Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (page 79, PDF page 97):
"102 Possession or control of level 2 prohibited material in prescribed areas
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person has possession or control of material; and
(b) the material is level 2 prohibited material; and
(c) the material is in a prescribed area." Spik3balloon (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mate, you are actually referring to legislation introduced to apply within Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. Hence the term "prescribed areas" which refers to the emergency intervention the federal government undertook. Outside of aboriginal communities it is NOT illegal to own material which has been refused classification (excluding child porn of course). What you have mentioned is completely irrelevant. Please be sure to link to the correct sources in the future. 220.238.160.242 (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I stand corrected. Obviously I should do more research before I jump into anything. Spik3balloon (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries mate, it's all good :) no hard feelings. 220.238.160.242 (talk) 14:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, you are incorrect in assuming that Wikipedia is based on fact. It is based on verified information from reliable sources. The ideal objective would be towards facts, but that is not how Wikipedia operates. What I did was not vandalism, and your response was unhelpful by assuming bad faith on me. If you had supplied the sources stating the error of GameSpot, we would have known much earlier that the gaming site was wrong in regards to the legal ramifications of refused classification material ownership in Australia, and things might have gone more smoothly. Jappalang (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you were incorrect, Jappalang. I believe things will go more smoothly for you if you gracefully accept defeat when required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.85.41 (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect in what? Defeat in what? Is the Internet or Wikipedia some battlefield or race? Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Justify it to yourself however you please, you were wrong and you must accept that. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.85.41 (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Split articles for Sigma

Ninja Gaiden Sigma is not a port and yes a remake based on original. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 was just announced the Sigma series deserves independent articles. --Ciao 90 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge Ninja Gaiden Sigma

It's been out for quite a bit of time, and it's still of low quality. The gameplay sections do nothing more than say the differences between this game, so how independent can this article really be when it depends on this subject for its content? Once you condense the content to the required stuff, it would hardly even clash with this article's contents. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Issues found

• YFor the first three references, ensure that you use the |quote= parameter rather than including the quote in the title.
• YPer WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE, anything in the lead should be in the body, and references are not needed in the lead, therefore please move the references out of the lead.
• YPer WP:LAYOUT please combine the two paragraphs in the Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Legacy sections to make one paragraph in each section. Also, please merge the last two paragraphs under the Combat system section
• YGame Informer is a magazine, and thus should be italicized in any prose or references
• YThe reference "Eidos picks up Ninja Gaiden Sigma" is malformed
• YGame Rankings should be GameRankings (no space)
• YConsider adding {{Portal|Video games}} to the top line of the External links section
• YGenuinely asking here, but why is the Ninja Gaiden Black box art necessary? It doesn't seem to offer anything unique to the reader, and likely does not pass WP:NFCC
• YPlease reference the last line in the Ninja Gaiden Sigma section
• YThere are a few dead reference links. If at all possible please replace or archive these.
• YArmchair Empire is an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS
• YOddly IGN's references do not have IGN wikilinked, yet most all other references have their publication linked
• Quotes in the reception section should cite the reviewer. The website/publications (such as IGN) have no mouth to quote from.

Overall this is an exceptional article. Fix the issues found and this is an easy pass. Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 14:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfect references are not needed for GAs. The lead can be iether unreferenced or referenced (The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.). --Niemti (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Granted. I've marked the completed issues I saw. Still looking the article over a bit more. Thanks for covering those. --Teancum (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is some kind of a bug in the table after I removed Sigma content. --Niemti (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

[3] is blocked for harmful content. --Niemti (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've archived the URLs, add the Video games portal and wikilinked all IGN references. All that remains is to cite the reviewer instead of the publication in the Reception section. --Teancum (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's already done. --Niemti (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. You're right. Passing this article! Y✓ Pass --Teancum (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ninja Gaiden Sigma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No one objected.

---

<Start of discussion> So, this also extends to Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, but for now, I'm just proposing for this. As per WP:NN and WP:PAGEDECIDE, there isn't really any significant coverage on the Sigma page that requires its own article. A large chunk of the article is already discussed within the original article, like the story summary. The other information for the port could easily be on the same article, as we've seen with pages like Dynasty Warriors 4, with its own section as we already have for the next port on this very page. There isn't enough notable content here on its own to warrant its own article. Kyo~ (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) <End of discussion>

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.

Orphaned references in Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GR":

• From Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball: "Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball for Xbox". GameRankings. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
• From Dead or Alive Xtreme 2: "Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 for Xbox 360". GameRankings. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 2014-10-26.

Reference named "MC":

• From Dead or Alive: Dimensions: "Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS Reviews". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 2012-12-21.
• From Dead or Alive Xtreme 2: "Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 for Xbox 360 Reviews". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 2014-10-26.
• From Devil's Third: "Devil's Third for Wii U Reviews". Metacritic. Retrieved August 26, 2015.
• From Fire Emblem Warriors: "Fire Emblem Warriors for Nintendo Switch Reviews". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved October 30, 2017.
• From Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball: "Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball for Xbox Reviews". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved 2014-03-02.
• From Hyrule Warriors: "Hyrule Warriors for Wii U Reviews". Metacritic. CBS Interactive. Retrieved April 4, 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20010114183800/http://www.zdnet.co.jp/gamespot/news/9905/15/news05.html