Talk:.hack (video game series)

Gift

"in Japan, players had to retrieve the fourth and final data flag in .QUARANTINE to view GIFT" -They did? I have the Japanese version. It's nothing like that. GIFT was sent to you if you sent the company proof of purchase of all 4 games. It's a DVD. It's also included in the boxset of the games (As a DVD, in its own case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.hack//GIFT states that aswell, I don't have much experience in editing and I'm not sure another wikipedia article can be used as a source, however I belive it should be corrected since one of these two articles must be wrong. //Nomit84

Hooray

Yay, now I can add plot citations because all the cutscene videos are online http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=144548901691&v=app_2392950137! Thanks darrkzero1. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also thanks Topher, for doing a Let's Play which provided some key refs. http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=460841 Axem Titanium (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox style

Why does this article use the infobox for an individual game instead of for a series? Perhaps it fits better this way, and I'm not demanding it be changed. I'm just wondering. Tezero (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The series template doesn't have a lot of relevant parameters such as ratings because they're inappropriate for series articles. However, this is basically one game in four parts so I thought the regular vg infobox was more appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image of an article is meant to represent the article as a whole. An image of the box art of one of the games within the series does not do that. As such, the image of the logo is significantly more useful, even aside from the NFC issue. As for the NFC issue, we have a question of two images, both of which sufficiently serve the purpose of representing the series as a whole. One of them is free. Therefore, the free one should be used. The question of whether a cast picture is needed is not actually relevant, as it is not the job of the lead image to display the cast anyways. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been many series, such as novels and comic books that use the first book in the series, not so sure if it's entirely different to RPG video games but this is only part 1 of the RPG as it says on the cover, and the NFCC doesn't say anything that is against a portion of the series, in fact they say if it's sufficient, than an image of the whole isn't necessary (basically saying a portion is acceptable). As for now, the logo is being used for the entire multimedia franchise, not just the first video game series. So not only does it cover this one, but it also covers .hack//G.U. .hack//Sign, .hack//Roots, it covers all of that. So the logo would be misleading considering it's already in the franchise article. And again, free-content vs non-free content is good and all, but it's not always the best choice. Plus the logo is already in the cover.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, could you please use indentation so we could keep track of the discussion. In response to your various points, the fact other crap exists is irrelevant. I don't understand what "this is only part 1 of the RPG as it says on the cover, and the NFCC doesn't say anything that is against a portion of the series in fact they say if it's sufficient, than an image of the whole isn't necessary (basically saying a portion is acceptable)" means, could you please rephrase? Yes, perhaps it does cover the entire multimedia series- in the same way, the logo used by a town police department may be the logo used by that entire county's police department- it doesn't stop it being the logo used by that town. It would not be misleading, it is still representative; it is not our place to say what should be and shouldn't be the logo, only what is. And I don't really see how the fact the logo is on the cover is relevant- that doesn't give the cover any of the advantages of the logo (it still represents only part of the series, it still is non-free, etc). J Milburn (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

again, although non-free is always more preferable, there are always time when it can't be helped. As for WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's used more when one argues if an article should be kept, merge or deleted. NFCC 3B n entire work is not used if a portion will suffice, i also think #2 of the NFCC can be used on here but not entirely sure i read it correctly. For your example, i don't think it fits the given situation the way you are suggesting. if police logo covers the entire country, and there is a town that uses that logo for their police department, then that would mean they are one in the same. Usually, there are distinctions between the town's police force and the country's police force. A good example that i can think of is The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages that uses one boxart of the duo. i think the same can apply here Bread Ninja (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The "other crap exists" argument is simply that the fact one article does something in a certain way, does not mean that another article should, for the simple reason that it's possible the other article gets it wrong. NFCC 3B seems to suggest the logo would be sufficient- why are we using the entire cover when the logo would suffice? As I have argued, it may even seem that a cover is not sufficient alone (while the same argument does not apply to the logo). The fact that the same logo is used does not mean that two things are the same- compare, for example, Pittsburgh Panthers football and Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball. They are clearly part of the same whole (as is the case here- they are all part of the same overriding .hack franchise) but they are clearly different in and of themselves. They do, however, use the same logo, and both articles display the logo prominently. The article you link is about two games that are closely tied and are covered in the same article- more like the Pokémon example already discussed than this case, which is about several games loosly linked which are covered independently. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ok you're highly inconsistent with this comment. you suggest that the logo is a portion, yet sufficient, but you state the cover isn't sufficient due to it not covering he entire series? Again, i dont think that's a problem. Pittsburg panther football has a football helmet, suggesting it is football while the basketball simply has the logo. Again, this is an example supporting my comment a few post a go when i said the cover has the logo in it. And you also argued that the two games are closely tied and covered in the same article. So what do you call this article? does this article not do the exact same thing?Bread Ninja (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No inconsistency at all. The logo is a portion of the cover, yet represents the entire series so is sufficient. The cover is a portion of the several available covers, yet represents only one game in the series, so is insufficient to represent the series as a whole. There is no inconsistency there. I don't see the relevance of the helmet being there- that doesn't change the fact that the two are different things both represented by the same logo. I was refuting your assertion that if two entities used the same logo, "then that would mean they are one in the same". And no, this is an article about a series, not an article about two closely tied games. By comparison, we have an article on the Pokémon video game series (which, as it happens, leads with a logo) and the two first games in that series- two intrinsically linked titles (which, as it happens, leads with a single cover). J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

But pokemon have various games that aren't tied close together, but .hack has 4, each one is named "part #" and has into 4. Not exactly with the police logo. the police logo represents the same in both (police), while the .hack logo represents all large variety of media, not just one of the same kind (unlike police, that's just more of a question of location), but also, pittsburg, uses a helmet to differentiate it as football. Plus the plot the story, the reception and development are all here in one and covers all 4 games, and if you read it, it states that they made it into 4 games (when they could've made i into 1) due to them wanted it to resemble a novel series(i think). Also this series isn't unlike the others where there are sub articles relating to the main article. it's all in there. If there was a different logo with a way of distinguishing it from the franchise to game series, then yes, i would approve Bread Ninja (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And what I have repeatedly demonstrated is that it doesn't matter whether the logo differentiates it from the other game series, it's still the logo of this series as well. In the example I gave above, you've found yourself caught up about the helmet. The logo would be there whether the helmet was or not, as that is still the logo of the team. The fact that the logo in this case is also the logo of other things does not stop it being the logo used to represent this franchise. J Milburn (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

but this a isn't a franchise it's a series, and not just a simple series that have many articles relating to their games and only having a brief listing on the main one, this is all compiled together in one. So i think the legend of zelda example fits good with this, despite the two having being labeled differently, (series and duo) point is, it's a set. but so far, i dont see much "against" the cover, only "support" for the logo over the cover. But in truth, i dont see anything wrong in the cover that needs to be replaced.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's non-free. Non-free images should be used as a last resort, when there is no way free media can do the job, and when the job is absolutely necessary. Your claim that "so far, i dont see much "against" the cover, only "support" for the logo over the cover" serves to illustrate that you have missed the point. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably due to many examples, that aren't video game related from you. Still indecisive about this one. i guess we'll keep the logo for now, considering it's too close of a call. Either that or find a free content logo suggesting the video game exactly.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OR keep the cover until a free content image of the cast is found. i dont think the logo would be leaving anytime soon considering it;s in the franchise. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you suggesting here? I'm not following. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

find a free content image specifically for this video game series, or keep the cover until the image of the characters can be added.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The logo currently used is for this series. The fact that it is also used for other series does not change that fact, as has been said... J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I said specifically didn't i? And no, it's not just "other series" the logo covers all media related to it. such as magazines, trading cards, all that. But like i've said, the cover still currently has it's use.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you said specifically, but the fact that logo is not specific to this series and, in fact, covers various series (and media) is irrelevant. It doesn't stop it being the logo of this series. It is still, by no means, clear what purpose the cover would serve if it was used in addition to the logo. J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

i'm still in favor of the cover though, simply for one aspect the article doesn't have and wont have if the image was removed.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, you're just asserting your opinion here, you're not actually providing any arguments. What does the cover show that so urgently needs to be shown? J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on it, i dont want to repeat myself. and the image shows the characters on it.I think until we find a image of the characters, we can replace it. at least.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of finding the most popular opinion. The main characters are already shown on the screenshot, which is more than enough. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

i dont tihnk you even played the game. there are far more. which basically explains why the series is called dot hack.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played it, I was going off what is said in the article about them being the main characters. In any case, if there is justification for an image of the main characters (which I doubt) it is not the role of the lead image to show that. J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to do the same for a few articles before, and it didn't work. Though i did agree to that before. Either way, considering it's on a cover, i think there's more justification to it than usual.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. All non-free images are subject to the NFCC, whether they are covers or not. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

i know that, but considering we have no images meant to illustrate the characters, then the non-free content image is still useful. I've tried the whole "lead images shouldn't illustrate characacters for the page" reaasoning, and it didn't work. And especially for an RPG that heavily revolves around characters and their development i would say it would justify the cover for now until we find an image of the main protagonistsBread Ninja (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The debate as to whether we need an image to illustrate the characters could be had, but, ultimately, is irrelevant, as the screenshot already shows the main protagonists. What does "I've tried the whole "lead images shouldn't illustrate characacters for the page" reaasoning, and it didn't work" mean? I really am not following. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The gameplay image shows only 3. And since you haven't played the games, i don't think you really understand completely. I suggest you discuss things such as this with series you are familiar with. the screenshot does a poor job illustrating the characters, and is really meant for gameplay. And what i tried to say before is, i use to say that the lead image shouldn't illustrate the characters, but not many agreed and it was kept. So this is just the same only vice-versa.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are the three listed as the main characters, and the fact it's a screenshot represents them as what they are... The fact I have never played the game means I can view the article with unbiased eyes, and, in any case, if there's a problem of unfamiliarity here, it is your unfamiliarity with our NFCC. I don't really care what you used to believe; the lead image isn't there to illustrate the characters, whether you used to believe it was or wasn't or whatever. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think, you know more than I do, that the image there is really unsuitable for Illustratin characters, and you not playing game makes doesn't make you not bias, but it makes you ignorant. For one, Wiseman is barely listed as such, and even then the list of .hack characters is still in development, the article needs alot of work, and wiseman's relevance was hardly explained. two, they only show they're faces on the heads-up display, but considering the image is so small, and only Kite's backside being shown, this is no way a good example to illustrate characters. i'm starting to wonder if you even had expirience with video game articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, throwing abuse my way is not going to help matters. I know nothing about this video game- I do, however, know plenty about our NFC policies and guidelines. First of all, you are making the unwarranted assumption that we "OMG MUST HAVE A PICTURE OF THE CHARACTERS", and, secondly, you're ignoring the fact that we already have. As someone with no assumptions about the subject, I can tell you that it is not clear from the article that we need character pictures. Your rejection of the one we already have is also strange- What do we need then? Full body shots? I've some experience with video game articles, yes. It is, by contrast, beyond the point of me wondering about your experience with NFC- it's clear you simply don't have any. I'm really growing weary of this "debate". J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The article does need a character considering the main character article is still under development and possibly be split in the future and this is an RPG article. Either way, NFCC isn't really relevant to this image. The gameplay needs at least a better close-up to the characters. As in an image MEANT to represent characters, and a group of them, not just 3 tiny small images within the image and like i've said, i think you know this more than i do (or if not, probably not been to many articles with RPG video games). For now, i think the cover suits well for characters, whether you think lead images shouldn't represent characters, is really not up to us and most definetely wont hurt its current condition as a lead image. But for an RPG video game series, i would say that a good image of the characters is important, which that of the cover serves purpose. plus considering the logo is in the cover, idk why it would be such a big deal to keep it for now. the only difference is that the logo is a FC, and Cover is NFC, but that alone doesn't mean that the cover fails NFCC and although i'm not familiar with it, the rules are there and i dont see one where it breaks one. the rule you state against the NFC image cover, is highly subjective instead of absolute, so thats why i can't agree with you. Also, ignorant isn't an insult at this point, you don't know enough to state what image to represent characters is best, considering you dont know the characters or did research. For this article, i would suggest you do more research plot and character related before brushing the image off. A full image of the character isn't necessary, but a group of them and big enough to be distinguishable image meant to represent them is best, such as the characters that appeared on the cover of the .hack//infection. Which is why i believe the cover still serves purpose here.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please read your comments through before posting them? They're very difficult to read. I'm really sick of this discussion, I have better things to do. You have repeatedly shown that you do not understand the NFCC or their point, and, if I understand correctly, you're still insisting that they do not apply; I can assure you that they do. The cover is not warranted, we can and should use the logo; if you can't understand why, sorry, but perhaps it would be best to just take my word for it. I don't think there's much more that can be said here. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If i dont think it does, it's probably because it's highly subjective than absolute. And i'm sorry but i just can't "take your word for it". And saying that is saying "i dont know what to say". And trust, you saying you're sure, does not make me any more reassuring about this at all. Again, what does it fail? i know the NFC purpose, and the NFCC purpose, but i dont see where it breaks the rules in the NFCC.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a free alternative. The logo. Further, it is not absolutely necessary- it shows nothing that must be shown. You keep asking me what's wrong with it- that's not how the NFCC work; it's up to you to show me what's right about it. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It contains characters, cover, and various other things that help distinguish the multimedia franchise from the Playstation 2 video game series. Legend of Zelda games example as stated before, i still believe is valid considering, although one is a series and the other is a set, the .hack games were more or less released in a similar fashion and each .hack series game were developed around the same time, i would say cover is suitable (whether series or set)due to it being more than enough suffiency.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

All of that ignores the fact that we have a free logo which equally serves to identify the series. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, i've said before, the cover has more, and does not identify the series "equally".Bread Ninja (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The cover may well "have more", but the lead image needs to be something that serves to identify and represent the article as a whole. The logo does that, and is free. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The characters on front, aslo serve that purpose, and not only that but live i've suggested, the Cover has the logo in it, plus more. Sometimes not even "as a whole" is necessary for a series, as a "example" works. Not saying this doesn't serve as a whole, but it also serves as an example. Again this is all getting subjective rather than absolute.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're arguing that the cover serves as the same job as the logo. We have a cover and a logo, both serving to identify, and we need to choose one. The logo is free, the cover is not. This isn't difficult... J Milburn (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

THe same job and more is what i'm arguing.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the more isn't needed. We need an image for purpose x, we have two images, a free one (which fulfills purpose x) and a non-free one (which fulfills both purpose x and purpose y). We use the free one, as we are looking for an image for purpose x, not y, and free images are always used over non-free ones. This isn't difficult. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Image X only serves purpose of gameplay. It does not in anyway, serve purpose of the other.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please reread what I said, I don't think you understood... J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

then change the word X to Y. and lead images can also serve that purpose, it has been done various times. And when i was agianst it at first, i lsot various times. So i can safely say now, that it can.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I will try this again. We need an image to identify and represent the subject of the article as a lead image. We have a non-free image and a free image, both serve that purpose. We use the free image, even if the non-free one serves some other random purpose. It's that simple. What you don't understand is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not a matter of understanding, but accepting as the way you approach it. random, is subjective considering for an RPG video game article, the series is defined more on the characters than the logo it. Plus, like I've said before, the logo is used more for the franchise, not the video game series.75.164.127.77 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The way I approach it is a way consistent with our NFCC- I'm not even clear how you're approaching it any more. You're thrashing out the same arguments; I have already explained why the points you are making are irrelevant. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more into NFC's goal in general than whether it fails NFCC specific. Like I've said, until we find a image of the characters, then we can use the logo so we don't have to worry so much about distinguishing it. I think it's most reasonable for now.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• We need a discussion about this? We only use non-free content when we must in order to convey meaning. There isn't any meaning conveyed by the cover art that isn't conveyed by the free content logo. If there was something particularly significant about the cover art, referenced by secondary sources, then fine. That's not the case here. The non-free content is being used as decoration. This case is pretty blatant. The free content logo needs to remain, and not the cover art. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you should be using the logo for the series article. You have a picture of the characters: in the gameplay screen, and you misrepresent the series using the boxart for one game when the logo (free, it appears) is available. Pretty straight-forward, stick to the logo. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, must i say the characters aren't suitable to be represented by that gameplay image. and you all know that. you can barely see it. we need an image meant to show the characters. and i'm not talking about a tiny small pic or a huge body shot. just a large group of the main characters. not so hard. and considering we have consensus, i'll drop the logo cover issue. but you're not as straightforward as you may think, you're being vague when it comes to explaining your reasoning.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tokyopop.com/product/1622/hackAnotherBirth/1
  • In .hack (video game series) on 2011-05-20 21:43:06, 404 Not Found
  • In .hack (video game series) on 2011-05-31 14:56:25, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tokyopop.com/product/1182/hackLegendoftheTwilight/1
  • In .hack (video game series) on 2011-05-20 21:43:06, 404 Not Found
  • In .hack (video game series) on 2011-05-31 14:56:36, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious links

All through the //fragment section any use of the word has an offsite link, even the title, and its not linking to the actual Fragment site. I've reverted these to non-links as its likely a virus trap. Heres what every instance linked to. http://xn--frgment-6wa/

Omega2064 (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If its a virus trap, you should consider reporting them.陣内_Jinnai 06:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:.hack (video game series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues:

• Lede: Who has the series received mixed reviews from?
• Reception: Use video game reviews template on side for the "Reception" section
• Reception: Who has the series received mixed reviews from?
• References: Various references use IGN.com when it should use IGN
• References: Try not to double link

That's all, Good work. On hold for now. TBrandley 15:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I changed the two review sentences in question to specify that critics were the ones reviewing the game. I chose to use the VG series review template because the standard review template would get extremely cluttered, trying to list scores for all four games in the series by source. The aggregate review template provides a good overview of the trends in review scores across the four game releases (i.e. slowly downward) and the reader can follow the link to the aggregator to see specific reviews not discussed in the prose. I replaced all the IGN.coms and delinked all publishers like I've gotten used to doing in articles I've worked on more recently. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed text

• Reception

I'm not sure that an online store conforms to WP:RS or represents a neutral review:

A Game Informer reviewer praised the way it captures the sense of community that a real MMORPG offers. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Game Informer is a video game review and news magazine, not an "online store". It has been vetted as a RS by WP:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are refering to gamestop being the publisher, that means nothing. Game informer magazine has already deemed reliable. Plus its not an online store, it has several locatins across america and maybe other countries.Lucia Black (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but this found via Google search looks like an online store to me. But I'm happy to replace it in the article anyway. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what the issue is. "Game Informer" is a print magazine for video game reviews and news. "GameStop" is a video game retailer that has an online store. Both entities are owned by the "GameStop Corporation", but there's no evidence that Game Informer reviews are in any way influenced by the parent company to give unreliable review scores to promote sales. I'm not exactly sure why the "store.gameinformer.com" domain exists, but it's a complete mirror of the "www.gamestop.com" domain, so I can understand the confusion. Example. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Axem.  :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on .hack (video game series). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231092204/http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p1.html to http://ps2.ign.com/articles/403/403483p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3055022&p=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ps2.ign.com/articles/421/421686p1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamestats.com/objects/757/757459/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Why Is "G.U." being considered a "Spin Off?"

That's something that doesn't necessarily make much sense to me. Both sets of games are directly correlated to each other, and are in the same series, to say the least. So the latest release should include "G.U." in my honest opinion.

2600:1:9A1A:2693:D060:B6E0:EA00:D686 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Ephy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on .hack (video game series). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091128185240/http://www.dothack.com/ to http://www.dothack.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)