Jump to content

Talk:Dead or Alive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Inclusion of Samus

Is there any proof that Samus Aran of the Metroid series is actually appearing in this game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.164.139 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

death to characters

Who ever wrote that some characters might die, can you please site your work, because if that's just your opnion, don't post in the article, post it here.

Platform

There (as far as I know) hasn't been any indication of what platform it's going to be on, as likely as X360 being the target is, there's not really any proof. Removing, for now. 59.101.97.250 09:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

The only known characters are Ryu Hayabusa and Hayate. Unless someone has proof of the other characters listed are confirmed, then only Ryu and Hayate are allowed in that section only since they are the first to be in that trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.38.247 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Sarah being revealed and confirmed at E3? 82.3.48.129 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception at this point

You can propose previews or lists to add to the article. --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dead or Alive 5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Altava (talk · contribs) 09:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The following sources, to my knowledge, are not explicitly considered reliable on Wikipedia: Facebook, Crunchyroll, Youtube, Nowgamer, Thegamingliberty, Play-asia, Complex.com, and several others. Please back them up. See WP:VG/S for further information. And for OR, I'm specifically referring to this: "Further on one could expect some increases in both income and units sold related to the christmas holidays and future DLCs."
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    For 3a, the problem lies with the Plot and Characters section, neither of which appearing to provide all relevant information regarding the entirety of plot and characterization. The latter can at least be handwaved with the linked articles, but a short description of the most important characters would be helpful regardless. For 3b: too much emphasis on reviews. There is no need for anywhere near as much detail as the reviews currently provide. Pull a few quotes, mention major positives and issues, and then briefly touch on anything else important. Triviality is what the box next to this is for.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Sure.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    A fairly recent game. This in of itself is far from fatal, but it appears that in the last two weeks alone there has been several conflicts of varying severity and a very large number of edits. This leads me to believe the page is not stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I have no direct objections to the images used; however, both appear to have slightly incomplete NFC rationales, specifically with criteria 1 and 2. Please fix them.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article is going to need some work should it seek GA. I am willing to give seven days to fix the above issues. Should they not be addressed, the article will be failed. Emmy Altava 09:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Criteria 1

  • as well as vastly improved graphics and more realistic visual style than its predecessors.

"Vastly" is not necessary, and the sentence feels redundant.

  • The game has three main modes: Story (the main Story Mode and bonus missions), Fighting (offline modes, including Versus, Arcade, Time Attack and Survival), Online (various competitive modes) and Extras.

Depending on how you count, I'm seeing either four or seven. If you're not counting "extras", word it differently. Also, just cut the specific three names and say something like "The gameplay is divided into three main categories: the game's main story, offline modes such as Versus, Arcade, and Time Attack, and online fighting modes.

  • The fighting gameplay is similar to this of Dead or Alive 4, with several innovations

Similar to 'that.' Also, 'innovations' is not a very neutral word - try 'changes' or 'updates.'

  • fights in Dead or Alive 5 are based on a rock-paper-scissors like interruption system,

Awkwardly constructed. Try "an interruption system like rock-paper-scissors."

  • where the new feature called Power Blow

'A' new feature.

  • has undertaken task of rebuilding DOATEC but wants

Undertaken 'the' task. Also, comma between DOATEC and but.

  • and presented in "hyperlink cinema style"

what the heck is this

  • Rumours about the game being developed also for the PS3 have circulated already by January 2010

To my knowledge, it is not currently 2010. PS3 is informal. Try for "By January 2010, rumors about the game being developed for PlayStation 3 had already circulated."

  • Development as a whole

You don't need to give specific dates for everything. In September, in June, in July, in late August... that would suffice.

  • An exclusive item from the online retailer ShopTo.Net

Sounds like an advertisement, almost. Axe "exclusive" somehow.

  • Reception as a whole

Don't put (8/10), (7.7/10), et cetera after every review. It looks unprofessional, especially when the information is in a chart directly to the right.

  • Speaking of that chart...

Shorten it. You shouldn't need more than twelve reviews. There are, of course, special circumstances, but you shouldn't put EVERY review in the box.

  • As of October 29, the newsupdate of DoAWorld states that it has been sold 580 000 copies worldwide. This makes the game a 10,9 million $ operating profit, not including the income from precent DLCs. Further on one could expect some increases in both income and units sold related to the christmas holidays and future DLCs.

News and update are separate words, 580 000 should be either "580,000" or "580000", "10,9 million $ should be $10.9 million", present should, I believe, be 'present', and the last bit is full-on crystal-ball OR.

So yeah.

There's nothing wrong with Complex or Crunchyroll, Play-Asia is simply selling this stuff, YouTube and Facebook are all official accounts. This last stuff was added by somone else recently, I rewrote it completely. --Niemti (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like some solid changes have been made throughout. I'll reexamine it momentarily. On the subject of Complex and Crunchyroll, I will accept them. For Youtube and Facebook, I'm afraid I may not - that was not me, but merely consensus reached by parties of which I am generally independent. On that subject, although Play-Asia is acceptable for proving that an object exists, even in that circumstance it would be ideal to have another source. While I will not fail the criteria on this alone, it's something to consider.
It's, ort should be, really obvious that GameSpot's YouTube account is exactly as reliable as GameSpot is. Tecmo Koei official stuff is just Tecmo Koei official stuff, no matter where and how relayed. Also - what is linked is all only the game's trailers, and the release date announcements. --Niemti (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the policy you linked to talks only about "blogs, fansites, or forum posts", as OPPOSED to "official sources" and "information released by the game developer"! (Maybe you linked to a wrong one.) --Niemti (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story's up now. --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Assessment of GA1

I'll give you a slight time extension, because I'm a slowpoke. However - I linked to the correct policy. It details "official information" published in "unreliable sources", which can and does include Facebook and Youtube. It lists "blogs, fansites, or forum posts" as examples of this.

Despite intentions of examining the article a bit earlier than this, sometimes life conspires against one. So I'll re-examine now and give you 72 hours from the posting of the reassessment. Emmy Altava 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Okay.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    See below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The main issue here comes up with, again, the Plot/Character section. But it's the opposite thing this time: you've solved 3a by giving the information, but now you've heightened 3b by giving too much information. For the Character section, you only need to give details on the characters who are critical to the game's story - for instance, Kasumi - and maybe any new characters that were introduced. And for the Story, you mainly just need to give a brief summary of the most important events. I realize that Dead or Alive isn't exactly known for its gripping plots, but it seems like that would only make it easier to give a very dry, unemotional, and concise retelling of the parts that actually almost matter. If this paragraph comes off as intimidating, the situation here actually isn't too bad - just a bit of trimming all around should do the trick.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yes.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Assuming nothing catastrophic happens, the article should be comparatively stable at this point.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The same issues addressed in the first review persist: no rationale for NFCC #1 and #2. Otherwise acceptable.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Criteria 2b

The following sources are of undetermined reliability. Can more reliable ones be found?

  • Dead or Alive World
  • Eventhubs
  • Facebook
  • Justpushstart
  • PlayStation LifeStyle
  • Shoryuken
  • ThisIsXbox
  • Youtube
  • ZOMGPlay

Facebook is a 100% official account of Team Ninja. Look, here's a link from their official website teamninja-studio.com: [1] (also to their twitter). Same for the YouTube accounts. You misunderstood this policy - it's about unofficial (fan-made) Facebook and YouTube accounts, something that anyone can start with any content.

There was really only a problem with Eventhubs one, because they forwarded an info from a Blogspot blog which in turn took it from a forum, and this is where the trail abruptly ends (I didn't add nor check this one before). The rest is fine, especially since many of them just post the trailers, and the pre-order offers were taken down after the release and in case of of doaworld.com one can't link directly to Amazon because Wikipedia blacklists it. --Niemti (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so? And yes, the story is brought down to the most important stuff (it was over 2 hours of cutscenes), and I had to explain things for everyone who don't know anything about any of these characters (and how they relate to each other, at the start of the game). You know - "all relevant information regarding the entirety of plot and characterization". --Niemti (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish it

I'll gladly do this one, since I'm getting to know Niemti and to prevent it from going to another pile at GAR, I'll take this one up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No disamb links, none to fix.

References are dead. Ref 8 and 19 to andriasang. The Facebook link I cannot access, though for what it is referencing it is fine. Ref 33 redirects to PCworld, so its broken. Please fix those.

Let's go through the prose. The lede seems just fine.

Gameplay:

"The game has four main modes: Story (the main Story Mode and bonus missions), Fighting (offline modes, including Versus, Arcade, Time Attack and Survival), Online (Simple Match, Ranked Match and Lobby Match) and Extras." - Should be fixed and condensed. The parenthesis make reading it dull from the get go. And is the option really called 'Fighting'? Is 'Extras' really a mode?

"Training Mode has more features than the previous Dead or Alive games." That is a statement that doesn't do anything for the reader. Explanation is is order of why it has more features.

"Online modes include an ability to organize and host tournaments for up to 16 players, Spectator mode enabling users to chat with other players while watching fights, and Online Dojo, a training mode where one can practice with other players." Almost seems like a run on sentence. It is a dull reading, let's go with a more active tone.

"Extras include Spectator, where players can watch replay of their matches, or watch fights between two AI players, and also take photographs from a position and angle of their choosing with a fully controllable camera." So its not a 'mode'. Its just replays and photography, right?

Fighting system

"The fighting gameplay is similar to this of Dead or Alive 4, with several changes." Awkward wording 'is similar to this of'.

"Like in the other games in the series, fights in Dead or Alive 5 are based on an interruption system reminiscent of rock-paper-scissors, in which strikes (normal attacks) beat throws, throws beat holds (interception attacks), and holds beat strikes, all of such counterattacks causing extra damage.[6]" I've not played the game, but this seems to be a dumbing down of gaming mechanics. Is not timing, movement and range of attacks not important?

"Tag team battles have been retained and the fights take place in interactive and now more highly-destructive arenas." Nix the highly-destructive and explain it. Also 'have been retained' assumes prior knowledge of the series. I'd remove that.

"A new feature called Power Blow (a triggered powerful attack that can be executed when a character's health is below 50%) enables the players to knock the opponent character away in a selected direction, possibly into the series' characteristic Danger Zones or over a cliff in the multi-level stages, which might then initiate a cinematic quick time event called Cliffhanger." Technical overkill and this is all one sentence. Needs to be split, clarified and explained better.

"With Cliffhanger, if a character can grab onto the stage at the last second before falling into a lower level, an action sequence is activated where the opponent character can make an effort to inflict even more damage if the attack succeeds." Again, game mechanic 'coolness' over explanation here. Fix please.

"The game's Critical System features Critical Stuns (after having been hit with specific moves, characters get stunned and are unable to block, but can still perform holds), Critical Combos (striking a character in a Critical Stun state can prolong the amount of time they remain stunned, but the damage that can be inflicted is limited) and Critical Bursts (a specific strike that over the damage limit of a Critical Combo that leaves the target character completely defenseless for a moment)." Run on and has many issues from the previous points. Should be overhauled.

Plot - Needs to be expanded, cleaned up and streamlined to decide on what to introduce and how to introduce it. Seems scattered and discusses more on the plot's story system rather then the plot itself.

Characters and cast - Complete overhaul and clean up. You know what I mean from the previous GAN. Oh and if you could point out their voice actors by JP or NA that would be great for clarity.

Story - Finally the plot itself, never played it but the prose isn't special. Could use some clean up and a run through for effect.

The rest is the usual clean up and such, and do we really need a whole section on comments about breast physics and sexuality? Maybe trim for effect, try and retain a proper encyclopedic tone instead of a GameInformer feel?

Also, the claims and prose such as this, " Asked "what would you say to those people who think that the bikini-clad babes in DOA5 are sexist," he said their goal was to create "the cutest chicks in videogames" and so they made a lot of effort to develop an advanced breast physics model that works differently with various types of clothing." No part of that reads like an encyclopedia, quotes must always be cited, but only when you need them. Not for every comment.

There are more problems, but lets start with this. Its a lot of work to cover. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breasts physics and stuff is what the series is famous and infamous for (no, really - and it's in all reviews of the game, too; there wre also some major controversies including underage characters, including one recent game being banned in Scandinavia over Swedish child pornography laws, and then in Australia too), they first tried to change this, and then came back and embraced it all over again. What's "a GameInformer feel"? Also the words that he used after a 180 turn from his previous talk about "real women", "high class" and what not is very telling and "the cutest chicks in videogames" reversal thing was even in the original interview's title (and it was noted by several other publications, and even commented that, to quote, "once again, Team Ninja proves the amounts of fucks they don't give is the stuff of legends"). --Niemti (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For prose, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia should. The 'amounts of fucks they don't give' is a prime example of the tone that shouldn't be in the article. Many of the quotes should not even be quoted. I can take a shot at this a bit later today, but in all fairness, the prose is not up to par with GAN standards. You did a lot of good work over at the Mortal Kombat pages and did it right. The article needs to be written with the concerns of WP:TONE. All other points... let's use that triangle system instead of 'rock-paper-scissors', wouldn't hurt to be technical and clean up the wording a bit. The cast and story bit, will need fixes for tone and such. I'll see about starting on it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not in the article :) The supposed change with DOA with DOA5 was like if MK guys said "OK, so we're done with that ultraviolence that we're famous and infamous for, it's getting old you know, let's try something else now," and then completely backed up on this and said "and so we're trying to make the most brutal game ever, and let me tell how we worked to make the blood effects more realistic". (Australia banned both MK[2] and DOAD in 2011, just for different reasons.) --Niemti (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to fail this. It needs a lot of work and it hasn't been addressed. Its languished for too long anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You just vanished for 2 weeks, I did "a lot of work" in the meantime, but with no comments from you (I was waiting patiently). The plot will NOT be expanded, because it's already very long - even as I tried to keep it short to begin with (and at first didn't even want to write to down) and then worked to cut it down repeatedly, and the sam about the character section, which is purposedly made to be as short as possible (while relaying all the bare info) but is still very long anyway. And more about "a lot of work" since this review started (2 months ago, and I thought it was good already), the article has grown from 31 to 55 kb, and from 70 to 105 refences (it was also being constantly kept up-to-date, including DLC, the Vita version, nominations, and so on), if it wasn't "a lot of work" I don't know what is. I also fixed pretty much eveything that was pointed out specifically, while explaining why this totally abandoned change in direction (due to a negative fan reaction, and they tried this obviously because by 2011 they were getting into a lot of trouble internationally) was a very important part for the game's the development (and then waiting for 2 weeks to hear if you're satisfied with this, but you just never responded at all). --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone needs to transcribe the plot

Apparently. (No, even Wikia doesn't have it.) --Niemti (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rough story (about 90% of it)

The game begins in an unidentifed war zone, with Bayman's patrol being ambushed by a mysterious hooded attacker of superhuman speed, cutting them down with a Japanese sword before dissolving into thin air. Few days later, Bayman meets Helena aboard Freedom Survivor to discuss the incident, as he is suspecting DOATEC's involvement, which Helena denies, suggesting it might be rather the work of Donovan's breakaway faction. After Bayman leaves, Helena is approached by Kasumi who is looking for information regarding Alpha-152, with Helena promising her help in finding Alpha and wondering about Donovan's plans. Helena sends Zack to bring Hayate to her yacht. Back at her yacht, Helena arranges a meeting between Hayate and Kasumi, who insists the pursuit of Alpha is only her fight, rejects Hayate's offer to help by their clan and sets out to find more clues about Alpha's whereabouts. Kasumi approaches and defeats Lisa Hamilton in the New York City, where she is also forced to fight off Ayane. Few days later, in the Antarctica, Kasumi fights and defeats Bayman, who was following her. Helena tells Hayate him she will stop at nothing to find Project Alpha and invites him and his associates to a new DOA tournament, but he is not interested. In a South American jungle, Ayane comes upon Hitomi, who informs her she enters a new tournament. In China, Ayane is molested by the drunken Brad Wong and is informed by Eliot that he is also joing the new DOA tournament. Eventually, Ayane arrives in Antarctica, where she fights Bayman when he stops her from chasing after Kasumi.

In Tokyo, Kokoro sees Helena's announcement and decides to join so she can meet Helena again. There and in Kyoto, Kokoro spars against Jann Lee, Lisa and Akira, before meeting Zack. Meanhwile in New York, Mila, who is also is planning to enter the tournament, meets Tina Armstrong, who agrees to spar with her, as do Brad and Eliot. After that, Tina decides to return to the ring, gets recruited by Zack, spars against Sarah Bryant and duels Mila in a ring match. Zack is then seen finding, fighting and recruiting first Jann Lee in South America and then Brad Wong, Jann Lee, Mila and Tina in New York. Meanwhile at Rig's platform, he is paid visit by a mysterious lady who claims to be a woman from his past and to came to "test" him, and who is actually Christie. After defeating her, Rig also fights against Jann Lee and then Eliot. All of sudden, the platform comes under attack by a mysterious helicopter, but Rig and his friend ans spar partner Bass succeed in putting down the fire. Soon, Bass learns that Tina has joined the new tournament and decides to enter it as well, defeating Zack to do this and taking a ring name of Mr. Strong. The Dead or Alive Tournament 5 begins, taking place at the platform, and the father and daughter fight in it against each other and then reunite as a team. Brad Wong and Eliot also decide to join the DOA5 tournament and they spar against Hitomi and Leifang in a Chinese circus. Eliot is being seduced by and fights against Christie at Rig's platform. At the tournament, he fights against Kokoro and loses, after which he reunites with his original master, Gen Fu. The story then follows Leifang and Hitomi, and their own journey of training. The new tournament, for which they are recruited by Zack, gives Leifang a chance to fight Jann Lee once more. Stalking Jann Lee, Leifang and Hitomi travel to South America and then follow him to New York, sparring with each other and with Mila, before Leifang's confrontation with Jann Lee ends with a scene of sexual tension. Meanwhile, Hitomi, who still hopes to see Ein (Hayate), advances to the quarterfinals of DOA5, defeating Mila and then Eliot. During a break, she actually meets Hayate, who spars with her and wishes her good luck. However, Jann Lee wins constructive DOA5 matches Leifang and Mr. Strong, and then defeats Hitomi as well, emerging as the winner from the tournament but not showing up for a championship award ceremony.

Looking for his attacker, Bayman rejects the DOA invation and infiltrates the platform, where he confronts and defeats Christie, who is working for Donovan. It is then reveled it was Helena who has destroyed the DOATEC headquarters to get revenge on Donovan for the death of her parents during the power struggles within the organization. Helena meets Bass at a bar at the platform, where she also defeats Christie. In Japan, Ryu Hayabusa feels evil rising again. He is approached by his close friend, Hayate, whom he provokes into a fight by insulting him, in order to teach him to control his emotions. Donovan, his face hidden behind a white porcelain mask, is seen plotting the final stage of his Project Alpha, Phase Four (Alpha turns out to be identity of the mysterious attacker who killed Bayman's team), whom he plans to sell to "the client". Donovan orders Lisa, who is still working on her research, to go to Tokyo and to find Miyako, who is part of their organization, MIST, to join them in the lab. In Tokyo, Lisa is confronted and defeated by Ryu, who learns about their plans and then refuses an invitation by Zack, defeating him too. Frustrated with her failure to track down Alpha, Kasumi returns to Helena and demands to be told truth. Helena sends her to the platform, telling her that she has sent Hayate there too. Few days later, Helena meets Kokoro, learning that her mother Miyako has just taken a business trip somewhere, and defeats her in a spar fight. The next day, Helena notices the arrival of Miyako accompanied by Lisa, whom she defeats too. She welcomes the arrival of Hayate and Ayane and tells them and Ryu that Phase Four will see a mass production of Kasumi clones in order to sell them to the top militaries around the world, and how she has sent Kasumi to the location, after which they embark there too. Feeling that something is wrong with Kasumi, Hayate orders Ayane to follow her and discover her real intentions. Few weeks, later, back at the platform, Hayate fights Bayman for the right to be the one to follow Kasumi, who is his "mark". Defeated, Bayman leads him to Kasumi, before leaving her to them. At the platform, Kasumi is menaced by Rig, but manages to defeat him. Kasumi infiltrates into the lowest level, where she defeats Lisa and discovers a secret laboratory and in it Alpha-152. Kasumi appears to destroy her clone, but she is then attacked and mortally wounded by Hayate and Ayane, and dies in Ryu's arms.

Sexualized boobage

The whole DoA series is by now pretty infamous for its highly sexualized boobage. It's extremely easy to find references to this both in reviews and other media coverage. Part of this is mentioned in the article, but kinda glossed over as part of the physics engine rather than sexualization of the female characters. This has been a major pat of media discussions in the past few years and ought to be included more overtly in our articles as well.

Peter Isotalo 11:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexualized boobage" ...it would be nice if you could come up with a more... "professional" wording next time. There's no particular reason to make the topic of sexism (which is subjective) any more overt. Additonally, it's fairly unbalanced. If you like to refer to one particular, rather unknown critic, you should still seek to balance their viewpoint (or, for the sake of neutrality, not over-emphasizing their position on something). This is not the place nor the time to talk about one critics particular views, no matter how much you agree with them. It is ok to mention that there seems to be a focus on the female chest and its motions. It's not ok to present it as a problem when there are many stances on the issue. Mentioning only a single one is counter-productive and reeks of PoV. The "female chest physics" topic has been mentioned several times before your paragraph. And last but certainly not least: What makes you think naming the paragraph "sexism" is a good idea? How is this balanced? "Accusations of Sexism" would be much more appropiate. To illustrate: not everyone feels intimidated by large breasts and would call female characters "sexualized" based on a single body part. That in itself, is pretty sexist, by the way. As if you, Peter, couldn't look past a woman's chest. Body-shaming is a real issue and slim people get shamed just as much as, say, overweight people, but for different reasons. By extension, shaming a person or character simply on the basis of their chest size (and what you consider to be "acceptable" or not) has no place on a game's wikipedia page. I urge you to edit it and make it more balanced.
Progress is Good (talkpage) 04:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has four separate sources for the issue of sexualized portrayal in the finished game. It's no different than coverage of other forms of specific criticism. The other info in the article is about development and is mostly about the developer's own perspective of the importance of having plenty of "sexy" in the game. There really is no good justification to reduce the description of this to mere "allegations". That the DoA-series is blatantly sexist is a very uncontroversial statement. At least outside staunchly anti-feminist, hard-core gamer circles. You know, the ones who brand feminist commentary on video gaming as the moralist ravings of "social justice warriors". But I must hand it to you: you do have moxie. Pulling the ol' "describing a game with player-controlled breast jiggling as sexist is body shaming"-reasoning is a damned bold move. And topping it off by comparing the plight of "slim people" with fat shaming... A for effort, right there!
But unless you have relevant, independent sources that describe DoA's depiction of scantily-clad, big-breasted protagonists as something other than sexism, there's not much point in posting here.
Since these are your first edits, I'll assume that you are most likely the same individual who engaged in edit warring[3][4][5][6] just recently. Note that the Wikipedia community frowns on single-purpose accounts, so I recommend making some constructive editing before getting involved in disputes like this.
Peter Isotalo 08:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A game that empowers females and does NOT blame them for their style of clothing (and actually celebrates it instead of slutshaming girls simply on the basis of their choice of clothes) is decidedly NOT sexist. Most girls have a deep background-story and are overall fairly strong and competent. It would be sexist if girls would be displayed as disposable or somehow less worth than males. Ironically, it's the girls who get almost all the DLC Costumes (which are a wide array of clothes. From sexy to cute to professional. Deciding to focus only one the ones you consider "too slutty" is sexist). Unless you balance that paragraph and leave PoV/Social-Commentary out of it (or worse, turn it into a plug/ad for some person you happen to agree with), we can't come to a resolution. I hope you have the intellectual integrity to edit the section in question without getting defensive and aggressive over it. Progress is Good (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Critique like this is perfectly normal in Wikipedia artciles. It's no different than inclusion of criticism of other stereotypical depictions, like Skids and Mudflap in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. This is backed up by multiple reliable sources. The entire DoA series is characterized by the focus on large-breasted, scantily clad women as eye candy. It's a very typical example of male gaze and objectification.
Read up on the Wikipedia policies on WP:NPOV and WP:V regarding this. That you personally disagree with the criticism is not relevent since we don't write articles based on the individual opinions of Wikipedia users.
Peter Isotalo 15:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated that the criticism is based on individual opinions. See sex-positive feminism to see a counter-position to movements that try to frame "females in sexy clothes" as objects. It's not the consumer that sees them as objects. It's the radical feminist with an agenda who does and who constantly shames women for exercising their right to dress however they please. Furthermore, the game offers several options to turn-off any kind of Breast Motion. You are also never required to buy sexy, normal, "cosplay", fighting-attire, etc. DLC to play the game. Again, Breast Motion is just for those who enjoy little gimmicks and it is possible to disable it, just like you can disable other gimmicks (such as explosions and destructions). You would know that if you would have actually played the game, instead of just parroting what some youtuber said. I take it that you will remain stubborn and unwilling to balance your additions. Be aware that once someone tells you that everything is sexist, you will start to see it everywhere. That's the entire point of it. Creating unfalsifiable scenarios. Everything can be sexist if you spin it hard enough. There's no possible scenario for those who have been indoctrinated to see the female body as something shameful (if it is not covered up) in which something or someone cannot be spun into something or someone sexist. This is not neutral. This is biased. Again, you should refrain from editing articles if you haven't even played the game and just heard one side of story by someone who might have an interest in getting attention by framing everything as problematic.
It is valid to mention issues like sexism, but it appears as if you have ulterior motives to frame this game as sexist, when this is a subjective matter.Progress is Good (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that decide what should be included in articles. The arguments you put forth here are not backed up with reliable sources and are therefore not verifiable. If you feel the criticism of sexist portrayal is irrelevant to this article, you need to justify it in relation to applicable policies, for example WP:NPOV. Feminist criticism is indeed a point of view, but it's a notable point of view shared by many. The current content is backed up by notable, independent, published sources.
Please note that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you are active here only to further a point of view that you can't back up with any sources, you are violating a core policy of Wikipedia. Either back your views up with reliable external sources in accordance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or find a different venue to express your opinions. You can find more details about which sources are considered reliable for video game articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
Peter Isotalo 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not about whether the topic of sexism should be included or not. It's simply the way you have presented it (mostly by assuming it warrants its own subsection instead of integrating it with existing ones). Additionally: Why only DOA5 and not, say, Tekken Tag Tournament 2, which is also mentioned by your unreliable and biased source/youtube video? You have pointed out that other articles such as the one about the Transformers include criticism. Have you also noticed that they were able to keep it within existing sections and not create an additional one around it? Is it within your capacity to do the same? Progress is Good (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presentation of article content is an editorial choice. Sometimes separate sections are relevant, sometimes not. Skip and Mudflap are only minor characters in the Transformers films. Compare that with the flaunting of women's breasts in DoA games, where it has been a central aspect for quite a while now. I don't see any reason to object to a dedicated reception sub-section on sexism. As for Tekken Tag Tournament 2, that's an interesting point. Feel free to add info on sexism if you believe it's valid. It has no relevance to inclusion of content in this article, though. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Article content is always judged on its own merits.
Both Feminist Frequency and Anita Sarkeesian are considered perfectly acceptable sources for feminist analyses of video games. They are not neutral, but neither are you. Wikipedia is not limited to including cold, hard facts, but is very much a place where opinions on society and culture are gathered. The major difference between you and Sarkeesian is that your point of view isn't represented in any reliable external sources.
Btw, I believe you have by now have pretty much exhausted the possibilities to argue your point from your own personal perspective. From now on, it would be prudent of you to get yourself acquainted with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and argue from those, not just your own view on things. You have been informed about pretty much all the major rules relevant to this case, so read up on those before proceeding.
Peter Isotalo 12:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The fact still remains that your "contribution" still places undue weight, is biased, non-neutral and most of all just a youtube-video of some person's opinion that you happen to consider important, but who apparently isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
It's just another opinion by some internet person who apparently makes money off of finding sexism in everything. Points with regards to sexism have been discussed in other areas of this article already. Include your points there, if you choose to stick to your guns stubbornly. Otherwise it must be assumed that you try to frame the game in a certain way (NPOV). There's a reason why almost no other game has sections based on assumed sexism, racism, glorification of violence etc.. And it's not because things couldn't be found in them that some people, under a certain light, could consider sexist, racist etc. Those things can certainly be found or "interpreted/projected into" the medium, by virtue of being fictional works which require suspension of disbelief. This is the Wikipedia. Not your personal forum.
As a side-note: Using the sexism-label inflationary muddies the waters for real-world sexism that affects real women negatively. People do the same thing when they don't agree with political positions, calling the other party racists, terrorists, etc. but it usually adds nothing to the discussion and is meant to be sensationalist and polemic. There is no place for this on the Wikipedia.
You seem to be unwilling to compromise (rephrasing, removing or reducing undue weight, integrating it with existing sections, etc.). This is not very prudent. Addtionally, you have admitted that your source is biased and non-neutral. This will unfortunately need to be escalated. I can leave it up to if you want to initiate the use of dispute options or not. Progress is Good (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss specific changes to the article, then suggest specific changes to the article.
Peter Isotalo 15:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. In case you didn't notice the suggestions I proposed several times before, I can repeat them: Blanket Statements like "Sexism" are unacceptable and potentially inflammatory, since real sexism usually doesn't refer to "sexy clothes" or moving breasts but rather not giving women equal chances simply based on their biological gender or other forms of discrimination.
I would recommend using Phrases that are more appropiate and neutral. Note: "Sexualised clothing" is just as subjective. At which point does clothing become somehow magically sexual? How much of the body needs to be covered before a person considers it sexual? Would other people still consider it sexual at that point? Is there a standard? Are there cultural differences? Is there anything that COULDN'T be considered sexual, if only spun in a certain way? etc.
People have different definitions of "sexual". Would "wearing no shoes" be a reason to consider something sexual, because some people are sexually attracted to feet? In some cultures, it's not breasts that are considered to be sexual. It's a woman's hair. Women in those cultures are sometimes forced to cover their hair, as to not appear "sexualised". Would a game that tries to display realistic (or even comical and exaggerated) movement of hair be considered sexist? etc.
You can see that this kind of heading leads nowhere, as it is too subjective, whereas words like "Gameplay", "Legacy", "Story" etc. are less subjective and on point (which is why they are present on almost every Videogame Wikipedia Article). My suggestion would be either using the phrase "Criticism" or, which is the better route, integrate it with other existing sections, where certain points about perceived sexism have already been mentioned and counter-balanced. That would be more appropiate and in line with most of the other Video-Game articles. Deleting the section entirely is a perfectly valid option as well. Nobody would hold it against you and the overall quality of the article wouldn't suffer either.
In short: Remove, Rephrase or Integrate. Keep neutrality in mind. Somebody finding offense in a game (or other fictional media) based on their personal opinions about what females should or should not be allowed to wear should be stated that way. If it is a youtube-video, it shouldn't be used at all.
If points or details have been unclear, I can attempt to clarify them. Progress is Good (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism relating to sexism is about the finished game, and such content always goes under "Reception". Reviews always come first in these. Beyond that there's always room for content relating to sales, long-term legacy, and criticism and controversies relating to specific aspects of the game. And since there is notable criticism from multiple sources that is specifically about sexism, it seems perfectly natural to use a heading that describes this specific criticism.
As for the rest, you're just repeating your personal views. You've already been informed that this is not a valid reason to remove sourced content.
Peter Isotalo 03:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, Saying that it is Sexist is YOUR personal, biased view. And as such, it shouldn't be included as a standalone, biased, one-sided section. You don't see specific sections like this in other video-game articles on the wikipedia and neither should you find it here. There's a reason for that. Articles are required to be NPOV.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Additionally, a Youtube-Video is not a reliable source. Remove it entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Progress is Good (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such hard rule against using YouTube videos. It all depends on the uploader and Feminist Frequency is a widely quoted source on these issues.
Peter Isotalo 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this discussion at the Video Game project. Also, this was brought up involving Totalbiscuit but its best if you found a Reliable Source on the FemFreq video instead of just a link to one of her videos. GamerPro64 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the primary source. We prefer secondary sources, which already exist on this topic. If Sarkeesian's opinion on this is important (and usually it is), then secondary sources will cover her opinion and give us a fact-checked article to cite. [[

File:Eye close font awesome.svg|14px|link=user:czar/watching|I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response]]

 czar 22:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, articles have been written about the "Women as Reward" video in specific already: [7][8] (maybe Destructoid too but their website is down) and none mention the DoA claim as particularly notable. [[

File:Eye close font awesome.svg|14px|link=user:czar/watching|I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response]]

 czar 22:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Sarkeesian is a widely quoted media critic. Surely she should be considered on par with most video game reviewers by now. And this is not just some random Twitter post but an official Feminist Frequency video. Why should that be treated like the equivalent of the opinions of a random YouTuber?
Peter Isotalo 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly it. She's a YouTuber. We don't use Totalbiscuit as a source. We only use Jim Sterling as a source when he does reviews on his site, not his videos. We don't use JonTron as a source (as hilarious that would be). YouTubers aren't as established as journalists. Just because she's quoted a lot doesn't give grounds to use her videos are sources. GamerPro64 22:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could I suggest that we balance out the section by including commentary from the developers on this matter? There is a whole section there where they discuss the matter and can provide balance to the Metro/Sarkeesian sources (although in the latter case I cannot see how sourcing her webpage is different to one of her YouTube videos). LCrowter (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for this idea. We accept VentureBeat as a reliable source anyway. GamerPro64 01:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the section header. Per WP:CRIT, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." Claims that the game is sexist, objectifying, etc., and the responses to such claims, should be included as part of the Reception section. I also removed one source (a YouTube video) per WP:SPS and WP:RS. *** Crotalus *** 06:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Crotalus that singling out one aspect of the game in a separate section is undue weight. But I consider Anita Sarkeesian a self-published expert source, so her work in this field is reliable. - hahnchen 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with Crotalus, put that under reception or make a personal blog post about it. Discussion about wether or not Anita is a valid source should be discussed elsewhere. Fangrim (talk)
    WP:CRIT is an essay that discusses completely separate sections for criticism (or the catch-all term "controversy"). It's not applicable here since it's a sub-section of "Reception". It's perfectly normal to label content related to a specific issue separately. This isn't just part of the normal review process since it has nothing to do with how the game plays or anything, so it clearly shouldn't be described under the heading "Reviews". I'm re-adding the level 3-heading since the removal seems to be more focused on personal disagreement to the content of the criticism.
    But why would we include a retort the developers for balance? If a game gets bad reviews, we don't provide opportunity for the developers to "defend" themselves. We're not journalists and we don't add counterbalance for its own sake. If there are responses from other critics as part of a general debate, that would certainly be relevant.
Peter Isotalo 18:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reception sections are sometimes split between critical appraisal and market performance. Sarkeesian's work would belong in the first section, not split out into its own. Take a look at how RHW's role is criticised in the cheesecake robot film, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, it's part of the main reception. If you do not feel that the heading "reviews" is inclusive enough, rename it to "critical reception" such as in Dishonored. I think splitting Sarkeesian's critique of the game is giving her opinion undue weight among the dozens of professional critical appraisals of the game. - hahnchen 19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The response of the developers to accusations of sexism or the topic of overtly sexualized characters is quite obviously relevant. If there was a genuine controversy with regards to review scores for a game which a developer took issue with and it was covered by a news outlet I would certainly have expected it to be covered. With regards to Sarkeesian being "clearly reliable on her own" I think it's important to remember that she's a biased source on the matter of sexism and sexual objectivity in gaming as per previous claims that she's made implying that there is a degree of sexism in everything. LCrowter (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't personally agree with the counterpoints of the developers, but I assume you don't think that's relevant to the criteria for inclusion. Sarkeesian is certainly notable enough to have her own article here, and she is widely quoted on these matters by both supporters and critics of her standpoints. It's not relevant to include every comment she's had regarding individual games, but in this case, DoA 5 is a prominent example of overt sexualization, and the game cover is even used to illustrate DLC video.
I also suggest you take a closer look at "Develpoment", btw. It contains fairly detailed info about how the developers aimed for "sexiness" and "high class" early in development and described being perfectly aware of the game always having a "sex factor" and females with "big breasts" and "scanty dress".[9] And then the article explains how fans would have none of it. DoA 5 also has a 17+ ESRB rating, which is higher compared to, say, Street Fighter IV. In light of that, it's very odd that feminist criticism specifically of all the jiggling breasts and revealing outfits is so harshly scrutinized.
Peter Isotalo 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with the sexism bit being under reception. Giving it it's own section seems odd and the last time it was given it's own section it was removed. Fangrim (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is Peter? I would suggest that the people who developed the game fit the criteria for inclusion slightly more than a culture critic who has claimed as recently as 2010 that she is not even a fan of video games. I do however accept that she is recognized by certain sections of the industry as being an expert in the field. Whilst I disagree with that, I respect that her views be presented in the article and in order to maintain NPOV have proposed the inclusion of commentary of the developers explaining the reasoning behind what they've done.
"I also suggest you take a closer look at "Develpoment", btw. It contains fairly detailed info about how the developers aimed for "sexiness" and "high class" early in development and described being perfectly aware of the game always having a "sex factor" and females with "big breasts" and "scanty dress". And then the article explains how fans would have none of it."
The entry as it currently stands contradicts this in multiple places, the third paragraph of the development section leads with "Early on, Hayashi said they attempted to move on from relying just on sex and violence" instead of aiming for it solely from the start. Additionally we note in the reception that "An attempt during development of Dead or Alive 5 to "tone down the sexuality" due to outside criticism was reversed due to criticism from long-term fans and testers."
In any case, this isn't a forum for discussing whether or not DoA 5 is the cause of female oppression around the globe. It's a video game which has been getting released for nearly two decades now. If they were going to "ban this sick filth" to protect women they would have done it by now. LCrowter (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dead or Alive 5. 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 10:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dead or Alive 5. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dead or Alive 5. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 05:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dead or Alive 5. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with other Dead or Alive 5 articles

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 discussion has started within the applicable timeframe of WP:MERGE.

<Start of discussion> There isn't enough notability for the other three versions of the game to have their own article. There's a massive overlap in information; The content that is in the other article can easily be moved and merged with the original article, as an extra section, similar to Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game) and other pages, like Persona 4 Golden.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  02:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<End of discussion>

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.

Proposed merger with other Dead or Alive 5 articles

The mergeing was "contested" the last time, despite meeting guidelines, and reverted by a user. However, I didn't have the time and patience to revert everything and ask the user to move to talk page. I will now reopen discussion.

I don't believe these articles to have notability still, as there's a massive overlap of information. All four articles describe what the game is, and how it plays - after wards, most of the article is occupied with describing the roster, which not only is against guidelines, but multiple articles aren't needed for that. A large part is used to describe the "update", which can easily be done in their own section, as with other pages, such as Persona 4 Golden.  Kyoushu~  ►Talk Page  22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slight oppose Merging the articles wouldn't be the worst idea, but I do worry about the main DoA5 article becoming too lengthy. Assuming that all of the information from the current articles are being moved into this one, that's going to be quite a bit (especially considering the Ultimate and Last Round articles). This article is already pretty dang long as it is, honestly. In regards to the repeated information, work can be done to simply aggregate all that information in one article (this one) and have the articles link to this one for those relevant parts. JaykeBird (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just no. And merging Ninja Gaiden was a mistake too, it was rather Ninja Gaiden Sigma that should've been additionally split. 04:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)~
  • oppose - pages have enough content as it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:84BC:617B:EF4A:FE05 (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dead or Alive 5. 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) 06:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dead_or_Alive_5&oldid=1206906238"