Talk:Dead or Alive (franchise)

--Aeugnewtype 22:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took out some of the more non-neutral phrases in the article, since there's the advisory at the top and I kinda noticed that also. But the whole section of criticism/optimism is completely not neutral, but it is the point of that section, I don't know if things like that are left alone since it's sectioned off.

People... the seperate DOA pages contain more specific information about the series. I am for keeping the style it is now. Why only merge the series and not the characters too. There is simply not enough space for it all.

--S&T Kawaii Love 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The optimism section is a little iffy, there's no particular reason for Wikipedia to hype up the game. -- Anetode 09:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for the merging; this article is comprehensive enough to speak for the whole of the series, and the article on DoA 2 is small.

--Bobquest3

Also a DOA fan please check my profile or mail me:

Greets!

--S&T Kawaii Love 16:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a huge effort for someone not working in their native language and you deserve a lot of credit for coming back to it so much. However, I think you need to work on developing an NPOV style of writing. The spelling and grammar are easy for native speakers to tidy up but NPOV is harder to attain when one doesn't know the story as well as you do. Clearly, DOA fans can get emotive about their passion but you need to refrain from making allegations of things like bribery which are criminal acts. Any time I've deleted sentences, it's been when the meaning was unclear and looked like it might be hyperbole or unsubstantiated but there is still a lot of work to be done. Stick with it though and your writing will keep improving. Gest 13:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recent revert

I recently reverted from this edit to this edit. Since there were several small changes made, I'll just explain my revert. Its wikipedia policy to link most important and relevent words, certainly sometimes articles go overboard, but things like mythology, assassin, sniper, amnesia, etc should be linked. Also, in text use "and" instead of "&". Lastly, the other edits were either incorrect or removed clarity or information from the text. —siro χ o 15:53, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

This article should take into account the differences between the American, Japanese and European releases of DOA3. Significant gameplay revisions were made for each release, which raises the possibility of the initial release being rushed for the Xbox console's American launch (November 2001).

Edit 28/07/2005

Edited: The message boards of the spanish internet site which showed the first screens of DOA4 was elotrolado.net and not electrolado.net. In fact, there is no videogame site named www.electrolado.net.

this article doesn't seem that professional. it sounds like a fan's (and hence partisan) overview of the series.

redirected doa2 to main doa article

the doa3 article already redirects to the main doa article so I redirected doa2. the info on that page was about technical specs anyhow and was irrelevant.

Endings

I have played alot of DOA3 and Im thinking of adding information of most of the character's endings. Should I?

As long as they have a spoiler warning, then it will be OK. Also remember to make it from a NPOV. --Dynamo_ace 11:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Critisism: Button Mashing

--Hakusa - Wiki addict: 03:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
A while ago I posted a critisism that I had heard some people talk about, bottun mashing. They said that the game could easily be won by mashing a few bottuns. I did some forum research and remembered a mention of this from an edition of Official Xbox Magazine. So naturaly not seeing this under critisismsI decided to post it, however my post was quickly erased. ThisWas my entry and you can just scrol down to critisisms you can see my entry. (It's the third.) I just wanted to know if I sould have wrote it different, or you guys just don't like the critisism.

I would like to mention this is not my opinion.

Every beat 'em up could be criticised as a button-masher. Also, some people posting on a forum is not really a could source for an encyclopedia. My suggestion would be to write a general piece at fighting game linking to button mashing. That article could do with a little work, too. violet/riga (t) 08:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Hakusa - Wiki addict: 00:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Although DOA isn't a beat'em up, it's a fighting game. But thankyou.

Depends upon your use of the terminology! violet/riga (t) 10:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have dissolved the "recent developments" section. --Philip Laurence 18:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Game pages

Should the DOA games have their own page? I'd say yes because it's starting to clutter the main DOA page and it would be much organized if the DOA games have their own page. --Snkcube 21:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it would be nice but before when they had their seperate pages they were edited so unprofessionally. --Philip Laurence 04:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

But I think if we work together a bit more on them, then it should turn out great. --Snkcube 9:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

to be honest though I do not feel that the articles should be split up. the article has been cleaned up nicely and is comprehensible. also I should note that I added the npov check. my note is in the page's history. --Philip Laurence 11:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite

The article needed some cleaning up. Some parts were ungrammatical, details were duplicated, sentences never ended, and so on. Anetode 11:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead or Alive Ultimate now redirects to the main DOA article. The stub offered no extra info, save for the cvg infobox. Anetode 00:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merging character pages into this article

most character articles are nothing that this article already explains. the only real character article i've come across that I think should stay is helena's. should we merge the character articles into this page? --TBH 09:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a precedent of fighting series characters getting their own page. Since, however, many of these really don't offer a lot of info, I think that they could be merged into a List of Dead or Alive characters (as per List of Soul Calibur characters or Tekken characters). The Character section in this dead or alive article could then simply offer a link to that index. Anetode 03:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting up articles

as per the notice on the page, I do not feel that the main article should be split up into seperate articles. the reason doa1,doa2 etc. are on the main doa page is because they never had anything relevant that wasn't already was on the main page. if we split them up they'll all turn into stubs anyway. --TBH 13:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you TBH why did you redirect some of the charscter articles to this page? -- Psi edit.

they've been fixed a long time ago. since nobody else has voted on the split tag should we just remove it? --Phil 23:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if anyone's interested, I'll be glad to make seperate articles for each DOA game. In my humble opinion, I do believe that each DOA iliteration warrents its own article.-MegamanZero 7:35 1,December 2005 (UTC)

to be devil's advocate, I don't. Dead or Alive doesn't exactly have one of the best stories in video games. it hardly changes each game. --Phil 06:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very true statement. The first DOA's story and character's motivations were hardly reasons to hold a tournament, the 2nd was even more ridiculous, the 3rd made no sense at all, and Beach Volleyball...well...nough' said. Still, the articles could be enough to warrnt a page in thier own right for gameplay and anylitical reasons. -MegamanZero 8:03 1,December 2005 (UTC)

If you can get lots of info on the games, then I'm fine with splitting up the articles. --Snkcube 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, it will take WAY too much information to make it worth a split. And from what I can tell, every game has essentially been covered to its own extent, and any further information would require a good deal of speculation. If it is achievable, maybe one article, linked to via the main article, covering the storyline may be of interest. Other than that I dont see much use for it, certainly not a disambiguation page's worth.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. But I think each of the games already listed here need to be wikified.-MegamanZero 05:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In what way specifically?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the games go into detail about the (cough) story and/or character rooster, etc.-MegamanZero 06:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True. What do you think about this. Leave them on the main page, but include in either the infobox or body text (whichever is easier), A list of characters on DOA(original) and for every version do the same, but listing the changes only. And funny about the story. It actually does exist somewhat if you REALLY get into it. I mean, it didn't that much until DOA Ultimate came along, but with that, I get the feeling that there is A LOT more story injected into the game with that though. Its almost notable now. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to do it, but I'm working on overhalling the cast-of-thousands KOF character articles. So, I won't get to it until later.-MegamanZero|Talk 08:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of it in the next couple of days. Just figured I'd run it by.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finished the KOF charater articles for the time-being, and I'm going to go ahead and start making the DOA character articles. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dont we already have all the character articles? -- Psi edit

Oops, typo. I meant I was going to start making seperate DOA game artocles, which I have done. DOA4 is not out yet, so we can't give a proper analysis as of yet; I'll construct an article on it when it's released. -MegamanZero|Talk 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

It took me awhile, but I finally got around to overhauling all of the DOA character pages, as well as creating new ones. If possible, take a look at the character pages and tell me what you think of my efforts.-MegamanZero 11:24 25, November 2005

I think you did a very fine job. You added lots of new info about the characters, which is nice. You also re-arranged some of the articles and made it flow better. --Snkcube 23:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Now, I'm gonna split up the tekken articles into respective pages and overhall those character pages too.-MegamanZero 23:15 28, November 2005

Release dates

I am informally requesting that everyone cease removing the word tentative from the release date until the game is actually being sold. Every announced release date, no matter what game or how official the announcement, of ANY videogame, should be considered tentative. Release dates switch so much it is ignorant to call them anything but tentative until the game is released.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I have created a new template for all DOA related articles. please include this code: {{Template:DOA}} at the bottom of each article. --Phil 18:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question. Where are templates formed? -- Psi edit 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just like a regular article, except the article begins with Template: --Phil 18:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Character article titles

I think we can rename some DOA character's articles. like Lei Fang (DOA) to Lei Fang, Bass Armstrong (DOA) to Bass Armstrong or Bayman (DOA) to Bayman. there aren't going to be other people with these names for a long time, if ever. if there are in the future, we can simply reuse their "(doa)" articles. --Phil 01:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]