Talk:Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)/Archive 1

Plot summary too long, picture misleading/inappropriate

Hi, excuse me but I think that the plot summary is just way too long... Well about the picture, shouldn't it rather be the box cover for the original Ninja Gaiden, I think that the picture of the BLACK game box right there in the beginning of the article, I think it would confuse many. Maybe add it in its seperate section? --Jonathan 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK the plot summary might actually be pretty good it's just the rest of the article's sections that need more content. --SoloReX 08:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DOA3 and Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) connection.

Its very simple.

One victory phrase Ryu has in Dead or Alive 3 is the following chant (from the Ninjutsu Kuji-in): Rin-Pyo-Toh-Sha-Kai-Jin-Retsu-Zai-Zen. Those characters also make up the life-upgrade bar in the Xbox Ninja Gaiden (As well as Ninja Gaiden Black).

When you use an item "Life of the Gods", each use lights up a character in the bar. And when all 9 are lit, you get a health upgrade. Of course, getting a Lives of a Thousand Gods upgrades it anyways, but thats not the point. --Jinjo Ghost 16:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the victory phrase to the article, paraphrasing what you said. --Xeon25 14:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a explanation of what it means.

Unencyclopedic-ness

I don't think the list of weapons (with a a minor description, occasionally location and/or price) is very encyclopedic. The article doesn't need a piece on each weapon, a high level description of the types would be fine. Any thoughts? +Fin 11:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It would fall under Wikipedia is not GameFaqs/a game guide, by the way. +Fin 11:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think modifying them toward gameplay element/design would be better, and no, GameFAQ-ish content shouldn't be here, but I don't think we should just wipe them clean either Kenimaru 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I was afraid that might've been the case. If it's all the same, I'll remove the "how-tos" and leave only a description of the weapons. --Xeon25 15:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! =) +Fin 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure that is what you all say. Wikipedia is a great website. The problem about it is, the editors. It says anyone can edit, which means anyone. The people here (editors like you), come to Wiki every damn day. And you all claim it, then you start to control the newbies around what to do and not to.

Don't play dumb with me...I have been here once and I know the pattern! Each move a user makes and types, will always be redirected to that user as a evidence.

If a user makes an edit on an article, people like you will say that edit is GameFaQs, vandal and so on. Editors like you are the real trollers, now I know why other wiki members who have been banned come back and vandal articles. Editors like you claim articles, because you login every fucking day, edit the same article, if that article gets edited adding new info, you will delete it.

I am the key to bringing this kind of editors down..or maybe the whole Wiki.

To the editor that created those weapon sections and others, did a wonderful job. People like you get jealous and say it is wrong (GameFaQs), then you delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.95.152 (talk • contribs)

Hi. See What wikipedia is not. The following section applies to parts of Ninja Gaiden: Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. +Fin - 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To "87.74.95.152", thank you. I have removed the "how-tos" and "wheres" that didn't belong in the article, leaving simple descriptions of most of the weapons. --Xeon25 13:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's look much better now, good job! +Fin - 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Murai's Clan

Might I kindly advise that those editing the plot section (re)read the manual? It clearly says that he is the leader of the Shadow clan. --Warp L. Obscura 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of us don't have manuals, you insensitive clod! (And I did point out in a comment that I wasn't sure what clan Murai led, although I do remember some bizarre journal entries about the leader of the spiders intending to make the Dark Dragon blade food or something like that). --Gwern (contribs) 03:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to refrain on commenting on how someone can own the game and "lack" a manual, and I did say "kindly advise". If I wanted to be an "insensitive clod" I would have slapped down "RTFM n00b" instead. --Warp L. Obscura 08:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

removal article 8

can we get an admin to remove number 8 in the main article, and ban the IP for vandalism. thanks--72.202.129.98 10:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden 2?

In the section on Ninja Gaiden Sigma, it says "However, Ninja Gaiden 2 is still scheduled for release on the Xbox 360". I wasn't even aware that Ninja Gaiden 2 was confirmed, let alone confirmed as a 360 title. Is there a source for that, and if there is then could someone add it to the article? Thanks. Rabish12 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's confirmed for release as a PS3 title. For example, this piece from 14 January seems to assume it is confirmed... --Gwern (contribs) 06:28 21 January 2007 (GMT)

That article is talking about Sigma, which is confirmed for PS3, but Sigma's a remake of the Xbox Ninja Gaiden and not Ninja Gaiden 2. Looks like someone removed the bit I was talking about from the article though, so it's fine. Rabish12 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Ninja Gaiden Sigma

Since we also have BLACK in here, I think it would only be naturally encyclopedic to have a section about Sigma as well. Agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Solo Rex (talk • contribs) 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Agree, but the article title needs to be changed because Sigma is for PS3. Maybe Ninja Gaiden (2004)? --Mika1h 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this new title and to merge, though Ninja Gaiden series (2004) might be better, considering Black and Sigma came out later than 2004. 206.19.210.7 07:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait before we decide. Black made sense to keep in this article because it didn't differ all that much from Ninja Gaiden, but Sigma possibly could differ quite a bit. An analogy might be how Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes is a separate article from Metal Gear Solid. --Gwern (contribs) 00:10 17 May 2007 (GMT)

Actually Sigma has features removed as well as added. Anyway, Sigma, story-wise, and gameplay-wise is just as much as of a change from Ninja Gaiden as Black was from Ninja Gaiden. Sigma falls well short of being radically different from what Ninja Gaiden is.

MGS:TTS can change the way you did things in MGS, but things done in Sigma are still the same as you did in Ninja Gaiden.12.47.224.8 08:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Sigma, MGS TTS had some parts removed, and the game was far easier due in part to MGS2's gameplay engine. The layout was exactly the same, so both Sigma and TTS are equal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.138 (talk) 03:13, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this article long enough as it is? Let's clean up the article called "Ninja Gaiden (Xbox)" before we incorporate information about the PS3 version into it. Pele Merengue 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ngblack.jpg

Image:Ngblack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden Black cover art

What the... I've never seen that box art before. Mine is completely different and coincides with gamespot's and other site's boxarts for the game. Can anyone confirm this is real or just a prototype for it or something? Dabomb691 02:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Discussion whether to movie Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) to Ninja Gaiden series (2004)

Discussion

• I approve the move, but oppose the name. Seeing that is simply an article about a single game with only two remakes and only an announced sequel, Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) is more suitable. Jonny2x4 04:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

I'll keep this article at Start, Low. Here's why:

• This article is too long and appears to describe three games, not the 2004 video game as the title suggests. If it doesn't get smaller (the guidelines are to try and keep an article around 30-35kB - you can see this figure by looking at the history tab for the article) I would seriously recommend splitting it up into several articles. The following sections could do with some condensing:
  • 1.2 - Story
  • 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 - Hurricane Packs
  • 1.4 Master Ninja Tournament
  • 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 - Changes, Additional and Removed Features
  • 4 - Gameplay.
    • Gameplay section goes into too much detail, as per WP:NOT#GUIDE. If a piece of information isn't useful to someone who doesn't intend to play the game then remove it.
• Sourcing is good in parts. See WP:CITE. Sections 1.4 and 3.1 seem to be well-sourced. Some other sections have citations, but there do not appear to be enough.
• You might want to covert your citations to the cite web template at WP:CIT, which makes it much easier to see at a glance what each source is. Yes, it'll take forever and it'll be tedious, but it's worth doing.
• You might want to go through and do a copyedit. See WP:MOS. Examples:
  • Incorrect use of the second-person "you". Use "the player" or something similar instead.
  • "Collectors Edition" should probably be "Collector's Edition".
  • Current layout of quotes in the "Reception" section isn't as nice as it could be. Look at some VG featured articles to see how they've tackled the "Reception" section.
  • Some paragraphs are quite short - only one or two lines. Consider merging paragraphs together to reduce the chopiness of the prose and thereby make it easier to read.
• Lists should be avoided whenever possible:
  • The weapon lists shouldn't be there. Describe the most notable weapons in regular paragraphed text.
  • "Homages" and "Dead or Alive references" should have their lists converted into regular prose.
  • All lists in sections 1, 2 and 3 should be converted to prose and condensed.
• More screenshots would help, and the quality of the current one is pretty poor. The box covers also need fair use rationales.
• If you do end up splitting up the article, you're likely to come under fire for making direct comparisons between the original and the remakes. Articles should primarily focus on themselves and make few comparisons with other games. You'd also need to go through and write gameplay, reception, development etc sections specific to each version of the game.

Sort out the length problem (and split if still necessary), add more screenshots and references, then you'll have a B. Feel free to ask me any questions if there's anything that you're not entirely sure on. Hope this helps, UnaLaguna 15:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledgement and comments

• Length: I agree this article is very lengthy. Attempts will be made to chop this down in length by critically summarizing and taking out extreme details (details only of curiosity to the hardcore). Title can be changed later to an appropriate form with further edits to the article.
• Sourcing: What are the failings for the other sections?
• Citations: Agreed, set as a task.
• Copyedit: Noted.
• Lists: Lists can be eliminated by removing the minute details and summarizing only the major changes.
• Screenshots: Box covers have rationales added, screenshots are pending.
• Split: As the two later games are simply offshoots of the first, very little is available to make unique well-stuffed articles for them without copying a lot of the original content (gameplay, story, etc) unless one is going to go into deep technical aspects and details which are of no interest to Wikipedia or its target readers (as pointed out in your earlier comment). The two offshoots will be edited, as pointed out in "Length" with the format of the article modified to befit one chronicling the Ninja Gaiden game, to (hopefully) alter the reading experience of this article.

Thank you UnaLaguna for your assessment and suggestions.

Jappalang 07:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional work done as of 28 August 2007

• Length: Cut down to 64k, minute details should be trimmed out, and size is less than quite a few FA-class articles
• Lists: Either eliminated or reworked into article
• Screenshots: Added in in-game screenshots and photos of Tournament for better illustration.

Jappalang 03:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Shortly after Sigma's release, someone listed Thorn Gallas' absence, which isn't truthful. I've changed this error twice since the game's Japanese release and and it keeps getting listed. There is no way to verify this other than playing the game on Hard mode or above, which I and many other player assure you that they're in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.135.102 (talk) 16:45, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Thorn gallas were removed from Sigma. That is a fact and known to players who have played the games. There are the normal gallas (two-horned flame breathing dinosaur like creatures) and the thorn gallas (spikes-all-over flame breathing dinosaur like creatures). If you are saying the latter exists in Sigma, please produce the proof of them in Sigma. In any case, this thread is pretty pointless as the article has been rewritten to eliminate minor details only of interest to hardcores.Jappalang 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Currently this structure is adopted to reflect the topic as the Ninja Gaiden game, regardless of the platform it is on. It follows the structure as seen in the FA-class video game articles such as Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X, Devil May Cry, Halo: Combat Evolved, where the plot, settings and gameplay are discussed before going into the development. This structure serves well to get readers acquainted with what the game is, before going into details of development which I believe, most people would rather be reading as a follow-on to the game details.

This article's structure has been set such that it displays well on screen resolutions from 1024 pixels wide to 1600 pixels wide (i.e. no unseemly breaks or white spaces). The infoboxes has been shifted down instead of at the beginning of the articles as they introduced unsightly breaks, and each version can be accorded their own infobox without unsightly formating, and providing useful information right at the section. Jappalang 06:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG Assessment (2)

I am going to make the few changes that have to be done myself in a moment, mostly considering section structure. One thing I will not do, however: the lead needs to be expanded to conform WP:LS. Once that is done, list it for re-assessment and I will propose it for A-class.

In general, the article does some unorthodox things, particularly in the area of referencing, style and structure, but I think these are good. User:Krator (t c) 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In the gameplay section, a gallery of fair use image was present. This is forbidden - please use the images within the article text, or not at all. User:Krator (t c) 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed to A-class. --PresN 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

False information regarding German laws and Ninja Gaiden Black release in Germany

First of all, there absolutely is no law in Germany that "forbids the decapitation portrayed in the game". This information is misleading and downright NOT true. Ninja Gaiden Black has been released in Germany in two versions - a censored version rated 16 and the uncut one, rated 18. Both are not "indexed" (German equivalent to the American AO rating) or banned.

http://www.gamezone.de/news_detail.asp?nid=53610

http://www.amazon.de/Microsoft-Ninja-Gaiden-Black/dp/B000BL3A7I/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/302-4540100-5099263?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1190209720&sr=8-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slang126 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

According to a German friend, Ninja Gaiden Black has only been released as USK-18. Ninja Gaiden was released as USK-16. Even the Amazon link shows Ninja Gaiden Black as USK-18, and the USK site itself only gives one singular rating (USK-18) for Ninja Gaiden Black, whereas its record for Ninja Gaiden shows two: USK-16 (UK), and USK-18 (DE). That news article likely grouped Ninja Gaiden and Ninja Gaiden Black as the same game. In conclusion, the news article made a mistake and the current statements in the wiki are still accurate in describing the discrepancy between the no-decapitation USK-18 Ninja Gaiden and the with-decapitation USK-18 Ninja Gaiden Black. 219.74.69.221 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

OR sentence

"Using only the control stick and three buttons, the player is able to make Ryu block, dodge and attack with ease". "with ease" sounds like OR, I think it should be referenced or removed. --Mika1h 23:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is referenced by Reference #1 which is attached to the statement before it "You will find out right away how easy it is to use the combat system featured in Ninja Gaiden, but also how hard it is to master." by Sean Nagasawa from GamingWorld X. Jappalang 05:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also Hurricane Pack 1 is mentioned twice in the development section. Sounds redundant to me. Also I think the tournament stuff should go into its own section, now the development section seems overly long and messy. --Mika1h 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, split off the Master Ninja Tournament section into its own. Thank you for the comments. Jappalang 05:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I saw this article on the GA nomination list and had begun to review it. But after looking at the talk page, I see it was recently promoted to A-Class. Anyway, I had a quick question; with this article currently listed as an A-Class article, is a GA Review no longer necessary? If so, then it should be removed for the GAN page. If not then, I will proceed with the review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Please disregard my statement above I found my answer and will proceed with the review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

GA Review on hold

GA review in accordance with the GA criteria

1. Well written?: Overall this article is pretty good. But I think some of the content could be more organized.
   • There are multiple cases of 1-3 sentence paragraphs that should be combined to form full paragraphs.
   • Some of the sections seem a bit misplaced. The "Merchandise" section is very short and in the "Reception" section though the reception of the merchandise is not mentioned. Perhaps rename "Versions and expansions" to "Versions and merchandise" and put the merchandise info under a main paragraph there.
     • Good idea. I will try to edit it in later. Since there would be three subsections in this section, I can put in a section lead-in and rewrite the Black and Sigma sub-sections as well. Jappalang 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  Done
   • The "Regional censorship" seems like it should be under development, I understand why it was put where it currently is, but it still seems a bit out of place.
     • I will see what I can do with it, pending on the Black and Sigma section re-writes. Jappalang 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
       •  Done Moved "Regional censorship" to be a sub-section under "Development". Jappalang 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
   • "Ninja Gaiden Black" and "Ninja Gaiden Sigma" are rather long and both may need a sub-section. Either that or have some of the information moved to the "Development" section.
     • Both games are practically the same as Ninja Gaiden (with Hurricane Packs) such that if given their own pages would be rather identical to the original article or very short stub-like structure, thus the basis for including them here. It can perhaps be re-worked as pointed out above. Jappalang 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)  Done
2. Factually accurate?: Has an excellence amount of sources. But some sections have very few citations; the lead section, "Gameplay", "Plot and setting", and "Reception". They don't need a lot, but a few more than what is there would be nice.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers the major aspects of the topic and then some.
4. Neutral point of view?: Some if this is neutral, some is not. Some sections read more like an enthusiastic game review rather than an encyclopedic article. (Admittedly though it did make me want to play the game)
   • The "Combat system" section has a lot of this. Ex. "Ryu's defence is unbreakable to most attacks, though he has to be wary against grab attacks. He can also dodge attacks with a well-timed 'reverse-wind' (tumble and roll)", "Flails and staves let him show off flashy but useful attacks"
     •  Done Thanks to Geoff B for doing this. Jappalang 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Ryu is consistently referred to as a "super ninja".
     • This is what Ryu has been referred to in the interviews and promotions. Would using this titular be going against NPOV? Jappalang 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
       • Hmm..., that's a tricky one. I think the wording naturally lends itself to sounding like like POV, however if there is sourcing for it that complicates things a bit. I think the prudent thing to do would be to mention it in the "Characters" section under his description. I'd source it too so there wouldn't be any disputing it later and minimize the usage throughout the article. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
         •  Done Added in references. Jappalang 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Other statements include "Ryu cuts a bloody swath through the streets of Tairon, leaving death and destruction", "and is a mere shadow of its old self, with a couple of new enemies having moves specifically to punish usage of it against them"
     • Second statement  Done. First statement is in the Story section, and I am afraid I fail to see why its prose is of question. Clarification? Jappalang 02:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
       • Reading it, it is very exciting and descriptive. The descriptive part is good, but the exciting part is a bit over the top. Basically it read like a game review instead of an encyclopedic article. Even if it is in the "Story" section, it's still a part of the article. I'm not saying it has to be dry and boring; it can be exciting and enthusiastic, but just within reason. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
         •  Done Geoff B made some changes, and I followed on. Jappalang 14:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Article stability? Doesn't seem to be any edit wars.
6. Images?: Pictures have proper fair use rationale and licensing tags. The flying swallow image needs a different caption than "Ryu's Flying Swallow meets a bayonet in his gut"
   •  Done Jappalang 02:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is pretty close to GA. It's pretty well written, very informational, and has passed most aspects of the GA list. Once the issues above have been addressed within 7 days, I'll be more than happy to award GA status. If anyone has a problem/comment/question, please reply in this section of the talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

GA Pass

GA review in accordance with the GA criteria

1. Well written?: Meets the requirements
2. Factually accurate?: Has an excellence amount of sources. But some sections have very few citations. Not enough to fail though.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers the major aspects of the topic and then some.
4. Neutral point of view?: Meets the requirements.
5. Article stability? Doesn't seem to be any edit wars.
6. Images?: Pictures have proper fair use rationale and licensing tags.

GA Pass

The most pressing issues were addressed. All others are minor details and not enough to withhold GA status.
Suggestions to improve article if going for FA. 1) There are multiple cases of 1-3 sentence paragraphs that should be combined to form full paragraphs. 2) The content could use some more organization to help with the flow. 3) The more you source, the harder it is for people to dispute content. There is already a more than sufficient amount of reliable sources, though some sections are lacking in citations. I'm sure most of the current sources could be used for additional citations throughout the article.
All in all this is a very good article that is well on its way to FA. Good job to the editors, keep up the good work. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Kyoiori RyuVsDoku0000.png

Image:Kyoiori RyuVsDoku0000.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done matter has been addressed. Rationale has been updated. Refer to the image's talk page for details. Jappalang 00:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)