Talk:Ninja Gaiden (Atari Lynx)

This redirect 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 articles

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Merge proposal

Ninja Gaiden for the Lynx is a port of the 1988 arcade original. Now, if it was an adaptation like say, like the Game Gear and Master System iterations, which are completely different beasts altogether, this stand-alone article would be fine as it is. However, this is just a straight adaptation of the arcade version to Lynx. Heck, just checking some of the reviews listed at MobyGames (https://www.mobygames.com/game/7703/ninja-gaiden/reviews/lynx/) pretty much label the Lynx port as a conversion of the arcade original. Therefore, the info here could be merged into the arcade article without issues. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the bit ratio, and some other coding problems, they didn't port the game, they had to adjust huge amounts of recoding. The Atari Lynx version isn't a true port. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The only "unique" info here is the critical reception, which is covered along with other conversions in the main article. There's no development info available, and the gameplay and story is the same. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB: Taken from the Atari Lynx user manual, which was a poster, which I put in this article. "sacred silent city in his quest to destroy the darkness and restore order." However from the other article, cite 4, has a slight different story. Although the story is limited. Regards, Govvy (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well unless RSs are discussing the story and their differences, it's not much of a factor to consider. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas, Cukie Gherkin, IceWelder, Masem, and Shooterwalker:I wanted to have more opinions regarding this discussion (and i'm sorry for the sudden tagging!). My reasoning can be seen above. We are in a discussion regarding if the page for the Lynx version of Ninja Gaiden should be kept as it stands right now or be merged into the arcade page. You're all welcome in giving your opinions! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge. Without any significant expansion around development, the brief tidbits on reception can be included in the parent article. --Masem (t) 02:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'd have to say merge per the above. I think this game is missing some levels from the Arcade version, but I feel like these small changes can be touched upon in the other articles prose. Unless there is something bigger than this i'm missing, merge sounds okay to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Support per above. IceWelder [✉] 08:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support for better organization, and to build consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Lynx version seems to be defined by differences that can be easily summed up in the main article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons mentioned. Timur9008 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret:Sorry for tagging you in this but is there any way to close the discussion or i have to wait a certain time period for it? Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KGRAMR Typically 7-14 days is enough time. With no opposition expressed and no new comments for three weeks, I'd say you're in the clear to move forward. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]