Talk:Guilty Gear X

Guilty Gear X has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 7, 2015. (Reviewed version).

Video games Low‑importance

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Gilman Louie (1 participant)
Yoshimitsu (1 participant)
Dr. Wily (2 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (2 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (4 participants)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (6 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (7 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

story

i resently bought guilty gear x after looking it up on wiki it has endings for the game but when i played arcade mode there where no story endings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.109.29.142 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Petit and i-mode games

I'm not sure the Petit games really belong here. Also, the article on the whole series suggests the Guilty Gear Club game is based on the original GG, not X. I know nothing of this game personally, but the name 'chaos gauge' supports that, as well as the character selection. --Elcalen (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted those sections since now they have their own page. Jotamide (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guilty Gear X/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have this done soon ☠ Jaguar ☠ 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

"It was released in July 2000 for Japanese arcades, and re-released in different versions for different platforms: Dreamcast, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2 and Game Boy Advance" - doesn't say when the release of the console versions were (something of a norm for VG articles)

Done. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"criticized for their replay value" - replay value sounds like a good thing? It might sound clearer as lack of replay value

Haha, missed this one. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The Advance Edition includes tag-team" - is the game actually called The Advance Edition or is it referring to just the GBA version? I thought it must be capitalised for a reason

Yeah, it's called "Advance Edition". Later on, "Development and release" it's clarified, isn't it? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Guilty Gear was successful after its initial May 14, 1998 release " - I would link the first game here as it caused me confusion to which game it was referring to

Reworded but didn't link it here because it's linked on the plot. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"it was about two years in development" - which game was in two years development? The first one or this one?

Clarified. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any sales figures for the PlayStation version to be mentioned in the Reception section?

Guilty Gear X Plus is the PlayStation version. It's there. I couldn't find anything on the GBA version, though... Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is an excellent article, I'll wait for those minor issues to be clarified but after that this should be good to go ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've done an edit. Can you take a look, Jaguar? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, it all looks good and should comply per the GA criteria. I've also realised the confusion regarding the Advance port. Yep we should be good to go

☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]