Jump to content

Talk:Astaroth (Soulcalibur)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAstaroth (Soulcalibur) was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 21, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Gameplay

[edit]

Okay, this is pretty much just like the old character analysis section from before. I'm removing these for the same reason people from before deleted the character analysis section. If you want to find out why, check out Taki's and Kilik's talk pages. If people want a strategy guide, they should go to fansites. Mythmonster2 (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Man

[edit]

Alright here's the deal. I don't mean to sound like an arrogant asshole or anything, but any player that says Astaroth has "easy to master gameplay" or is "used as a crutch by less skilled players" doesn't know shit about Soul Calibur or fighting games in general and probably hasn't been playing them for very long.

Most characters that are the slow, powerful type like Astaroth are considered low tier by competitive players. Astaroth is a rare exception because he's considered a pretty effective character, but the faster, speedier characters are still thought of as easier to use by most players. So the opposite of what the article says is actually true, Astaroth is thought of as a skill character by most Soul Calibur players.

This source you mentioned is Jive magazine and they are in a very small minority, so small I've never heard of it lol. Anyway that's how they feel so whatever, that's not the issue here. My problem is that the opening section of this article makes it sound like it's a widely agreed fact by players, and it isn't (because it's not true).

If you still disagree with me about this, there's a website filled with competitive Soul Calibur players called 8 Way Run, and another one with competitive fighting game players in general called Shoryuken, and I'm pretty sure they'll back me up on how crazy it is to say that Astaroth is a crutch for less skilled players. And these are players that know their shit and have been playing these games for years, not some guy writing for Jive magazine who has played maybe five matches in his life.

Anyways, write me back and tell me what you think. - Chris 98.82.102.242 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's reception. It's not our place for us to decide "oh, they're clearly wrong!" based on original research. They're being cited for an opinion, not for stating a fact outright, and 8wayrun and Shoryuken aren't reliable sources for the purposes of this article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


My problem is not with Reception, my problem is the opening section that I keep editing and you keep reverting :) The opening section doesn't say anything about Jive magazine. All it says is that "Astaroth has been described as having easy-to-master gameplay." By who? That implies that Astaroth is commonly described that way, and he isn't. In fact Astaroth is described in the exact opposite way by most players. See what I'm getting at now?

Likewise it says "However, these aspects have also been a source of criticism towards the character, with complaints that the character serves as a crutch used by less-skilled players of the games." Criticism by who? Again, this implies that it's a common criticism and it's not. It's a criticism by a single magazine, it's untrue, and the overwhelming majority of players would tell them they're full of shit.

I don't know much about Wikipedia's policies but I do know that articles are supposed to represent a worldwide view or a common view of the subject. Right? Well this article represents only Jive magazine's view.

I hope you get where I'm coming from now. The issue I have with the article is that it represents a practically nonexistent view of the character. 98.82.102.242 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he actually undead?

[edit]

He was in the category undead but I don't think so. Golems are not zombies or anything. --Niemti (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astaroth (Soulcalibur). 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) 03:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astaroth (Soulcalibur). 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) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Astaroth (Soulcalibur)

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-forma GAR to delist following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur). CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astaroth_(Soulcalibur)&oldid=1247672699"