Jump to content

Talk:Ninja Gaiden II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plot

[edit]

there should be a plot page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.214.71 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBFC rating

[edit]

Confirmed to be 18 on site, but the undo of me adding it suggests i was missing a referance i don't know how to add. soneone fix it for me! --93.96.112.229 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referance here. http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/3231a09c056e06dc8025743a005bd493?OpenDocument

--93.96.112.229 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)

[edit]

I dont agree that the page should be called 'Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)', due to the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that it will DEFINITELY be a 360-only title. It should be changed to 'next-gen', '2008 game' or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jericho1337 (talk • contribs) 22:35, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Why isnt it released on the Playstation 3? It isnt owned by Microsoft, isnt it?

On PS3 we have only crap like Ninja Gaiden Sigma, which hasnt neither much gore nor mutilations.

With less than a month before the game is scheduled to be released, I think it is safe to say it will only be for the 360. Shouldn't the title be changed back to "Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360)"? If it does come to another console in the future, the article's title can be changed then. I'll wait a week or so, and if no one disagrees I'll try to figure out how to change the title myself (or someone else can do it). --24.174.107.81 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change it back. There is no indication that it will be released on any other platform. Saying it MAY be is pure speculation, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it IS ported to any other platforms, the title can be changed. ZappyGun (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's been released on the 360 and there are no indications that it will be released for any other platform, except maybe the PC in the (far) future, which I personally find highly doubtful. I also find it very doubtful that a game published by, according to the article itself, "Microsoft Game Studios," will ever appear on the Wii or PS3. In addition, the very image we are using of the game's cover art has a sticker near the top that states, "Only On Xbox 360." Thus, if someone does not change the title of the article by the end of the week, I will try to do it myself. Please read my note below.
WARNING
I have not had much luck with editing Wikipedia and believe myself to be completley incompetent at it. So....if it has been left up to me to try and change the title, I officially warn you all that irreversable damage may occur due directly to my meddling. --204.57.106.96 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game) should be the title as it is more generic than Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nobody can say for definite if it will remain a 360 exclusive or not. As this is the case, it makes more sense to keep the current title which will never need to be changed in the future. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale got cutoff but I moved the page to Ninja Gaiden II (2008) because the words "video game" in the title are redundant. "Ninja Gaiden II" does not currently refer to anything other than the video game. Furthermore, other popular Wikipedia video game pages such as Halo, Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty do not include the words "video game" in the title. DeKreeft27 (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but convention on the wiki is to have TITLE (YYYY video game), so I'm going to revert it back (see Alone in the Dark (2008 video game) for precedent. Mentioning Halo, GTA and Call of Duty isn't really relevant, as (as far as I know), none of them require the (YYYY video game) title. I think it's something worth of discussion over at video game Wikiproject though. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Falcon - I reviewed the naming convention info at WikiProject Video Game and it appears to be optional additional information, not required. Review this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines/Naming) and tell me if you disagree. Given that there is almost no chance of this being confused with something other than a video game and that most major games I reviewed do not use this convention, I think the words "video game" should be removed. I'm not looking for an unnecessary Wikipedia fight, just an objective assessment, so I will wait for your feedback before making any changes. DeKreeft27 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you (I think Ninja Gaiden II (2008) is better than with video game), I just think what you're suggesting has further-reaching implications that you realise. The Article Guidelines don't actually state if you can use TITLE (YEAR), they do say TITLE (YEAR video game). Again, I think it's something to bring up on video game Wikiproject, just to make sure everyone thinks it's a good idea (if you change this one, it might set a precedent for all the others to be changed too, y'know?). Anyhow, hope you get my point - I'm not against the idea, I just think you need to be fully sure of the possible consequences (and check for feedback). Thanks! Fin©™ 23:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be difficult but I can't seem to find where the Article Guidelines state that the convention is "TITLE (YEAR video game)" All I see is this under Disambiguation:
"For original video games: If not unambiguous already, disambiguate using numerics and subtitles when part of the official title (e.g. "Need for Speed: ProStreet"). Further disambiguation can be made by appending "(video game)" or "(YEAR video game)". The former is preferable. Using "(video game)" is prefered over "(computer game)", "(arcade game)" or similar. Using only "(game)" is discouraged." --- This suggests to me that you would only add "video game" for disambiguation purposes.
Even the example games they list under the "Naming" section do not use the words "video game" in their title. Maybe I'm just missing it somewhere on the page but point is I don't see this TITLE (YEAR video game) convention referenced. DeKreeft27 (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Em, "Further disambiguation can be made by appending "(video game)" or "(YEAR video game)"." Not sure if this is what you meant... Anyway, the existing convention seems to include the year and video game - the guidelines don't state if you can just have (YEAR) after it. Bring it up on the wikiproject! I'm off to bed. Thanks! Fin©™ 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the editor Masem, who led the discussion about the video game naming convention and ultimately wrote the current edit, and he does not believe the words "video game" should be in the title. Read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masem#Video_game_naming_convention_final_verdict In light of this, I am going to change it back unless you can point me to a conflicting existing convention DeKreeft27 (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread his reply - (2008 video game) would be preferred. But he also makes the point that there's no article at Ninja Gaiden II, so maybe it could be moved there? Thanks! Fin©™ 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT published by Microsoft games studio

[edit]

Product Info Ninja Gaiden® 2 Developer: Team Ninja Publisher: Tecmo http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/n/ninjagaiden2/default.htm 207.210.20.237 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now says it's being published by both Tecmo and Microsoft Bluezy816 04:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back of the box says Tecmo, so i would assume tecmo is still a part of this. Dogabutila (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

"Itagaki was quoted that he intentionally sold his soul and the game's right to Microsoft during the event as saying 'I honestly didn't think that Tekken sucks, it was the system it's running on that sucks. Now please enjoy the world's best action game, running on the world's best hardware'"

I found this in the article. It sounds like vandalism.

'She has blonde hair and wields gigantic tits.' -Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.181.84 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NG2 Logo.jpg

[edit]

Image:NG2 Logo.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 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 09:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much Easier?

[edit]

The latest edit adds:

"Due to mass amounts of complaining at the difficulty of the first game, Ninja Gaiden 2 is being made much easier with an auto-heal feature to make the game 'more accessible to casual players'."

Articles I've read imply the auto-heal will only heal a fraction of lost health, and I've read nothing declaring the game will be "much easier". Can anyone provide a source or should this be cleaner up?

Cherez —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent EGM (Feb 2008) stated, "The series' legendary difficulty remains intact, too, ensuring that this game--even with a new regeneration-based health system--is still strictly for the hardcore." (pg. 51)

--24.174.100.102 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that they are adding a difficulty level intended for those who are new to the series. It is called "Path of the Acolyte." Itagaki discussed this in a recent Gametrailers interview (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/30395.html). More info can be found here as well: http://xbox360.qj.net/Itagaki-on-Ninja-Gaiden-2-s-new-feature-Path-of-the-Acolyte/pg/49/aid/112525. He stated that it was going to be easier than the "Ninja Dog" difficulty from the previous game. --HeavenlyEire (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you can change the settings of difficulty sweet zarth4 (talk) 08:32, May 21, 2008 (UTC)

I've got no references beyond my experience, and I could probably find a youtube to prove it, but with half the enemies removed from gameplay, then there's six times less of a chance for someone to be hit or even grazed. I feel like I'm stuck playing Ninja Dog mode, even when I'm playing Mentor on this game. As for the auto-heal added since Ninja Gaiden 1, it really only made a person able to get to the next battle. If they did terribly in it, they'd still die pretty easily. 66.108.237.1 (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia

[edit]

Why does Sonia look almost exactly like Rachel? Seems really silly to me because the characters will get mixed up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.91.103 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah they look similar but you'd have to be pretty stupid to mix them up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.177.113 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They wanted a hot replacement for Irene. Extraxi (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does somebody keep removing/changing the reception section?

[edit]

74.60.178.230 specifically. I setup the VG reviews table and summarized common praises and complainants but somebody keeps either removing it or changing it to only include the IGN review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'reception' section is a mess. When all of the major review sites have given the game 7/10 or higher, it sounds like someone has a chip on their shoulder. http://www.videogaming247.com/2008/05/26/first-ninja-gaiden-ii-reviews-published-gets-9-ish/ Howheels (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page called "Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game)"?

[edit]

If the NES game is called "Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos," why isn't this page simply called "Ninja Gaiden II"? Chibi Gohan (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the NES game is called Ninja Gaiden II as well... this helps with clarity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.51.222 (talk) 03:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reolution 585p/720p

[edit]

why is there no resolution in the infobox? is it because it is SD (585) like Halo 3 and Haze or some? Cliché Online (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said three times already, get a verifiable source and you can add 585p. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native resolution, again

[edit]

Continued from section above...

The infobox now lists 585p, but the reference stems back to a few forum postings relating investigation done by an pseudonymous user, with no verification or confirmation. That doesn't seem to be an appropriately reliable source. (Note, the reference itself is to a news story, but the news story cites a forum post without any indication of fact-checking it.)

Does anyone have a better citation, or an argument that the current citation is sufficient? Otherwise, it should (and will) be removed. gnfnrf (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 2 should be split off

[edit]

I move for making a separate article for Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, complete with it's own fact chart, release dates, and other vitals. It can link back to this article too.Super Saiyan Musashi (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, will be coming exclusively to the PlayStation 3 and is set to release in Fall of 2009." I assume Fall means autumn, also, this planet has 2 hemispheres, so autumn could mean September or march. Why not indicate the month instead? 124.171.215.31 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2

[edit]

It's really unnecessary to have it have its own article; I mean, it's mostly a list of differences between the two versions. Remakes may often warrant an article, but remakes don't automatically get articles - Dragon Quest IV on the DS doesn't warrant a remake, because the gameplay is largely unchanged, though it does have some changes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now. I wouldn't call Sigma 2 a remake with all of its downgrades. Besides, if Ninja Gaiden 2 had a Sigma 2 section, it would be.. well... Largely depressing. I say we try and keep it distanced. 66.108.237.1 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be kept separate. With the large number of differences, there's no reason to have a direct comparison in what should be an impartial setting(wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.209.209.129 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we need to have a separate article for a list of differences in a same-generation remake that can be summed up in two paragraphs. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merger, both games are different hence the titles. each deserves its own article. sigma is hd, the xbox game is sd and there are additional content in sigma. also both games covers have the "exclusive" label on it. Cliché Online (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It's different" is not a valid reason to be separate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I consider two topics being different reason enough to have separate pages. Else, wikipedia would consist of a single article. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...So your logic is that we should have an article about every single different thing in the entire world. Cool! Better go make an article for every single port, remake, compilation ever created. Having differences is by far one of the weakest reasons to have a separate article about a video game. Can it be adequately covered in the main article? Yes. So at what point is this article remotely necessary? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would prefer to have separate articles for remakes and compilations (though I think ports could be in the same article). I think having differences is by far one of the strongest reasons to keep articles separate. I remember saying this to you before somewhere - just because articles can be merged doesn't mean they should be merged. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that we should have articles made about things that don't need articles just because they have a handful of differences. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all - "things that don't need articles" and "handful of differences" are both your perceptions. I think we should have articles made about things if they deserve to be separate. Like I say above, I don't think that everything that could be merged should be merged! Thanks! Fin©™ 19:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't it? It's so special because of its poor writing? Its lack of references? Its lack of any development section? Its huge lead? Its original research? Its references in the lead? Its "list of changes"? There are a number of problems with the article that not one person has fixed, and judging by their involvement with the article, will never fix. Basically, in such a case where an article can be merged but cannot make GA, it should be merged. If you want to rescue the article be my guest, but don't just say "No this article should stay" and leave it to stagnate in its current, mediocre state. Super Mario 64 DS - great, Pokémon FireRed/LeafGreen - great, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 - awful. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It" meaning this article? I've no problem with merging this one, a paragraph or two in the original one would be fine. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Well, this discussion was kinda pointless. @.@ - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "it's different" wasn't a valid reason to keep two articles separate, I disagreed =p Thanks! Fin©™ 20:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Ninja Gaiden II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2

[edit]
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> Aye, this change I propose for Ninja Gaiden Sigma, as well as Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2. Head to Proposed merge with Ninja Gaiden Sigma for details on the proposal. Kyo~ (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) <End of discussion>[reply]

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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ninja Gaiden II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ninja_Gaiden_II&oldid=1200564006"