Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2/Archive 4

Archived

Just a heads up, I archived the page. Sasuke-kun27 01:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Release Date

Is it actually coming out Oct. 17? Because gamespot says Nov. 7 for PS2 for U S A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.70.88 (talk • contribs)

I noticed that too. Blindman shady 01:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

IGN.com says Nov. 7 also. matthaeus123 12:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The dates have been November 1st and November 7th, I have also seen October 31st and October 17th. We'll just see. BTW, allgame.com says October 17th too. Blindman shady 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I ordered Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 from amazon.com and it said October 17th was the date it would be released. They have changed their date to November 7th. I am very unhappy about this, since I was hoping to have my game sooner rather than later, but if the release date has been pushed ahead by unforseen circumstances, there's not much I can do. If companies say they are getting the product in at certain times, then that may be different from when the game is being released. Or maybe the company just hasn't updated their information recently. I don't know. But the people I ordered the game from have changed when it's going to be available, so I'm going by that, since amazon.com is reputable, and I've never even heard of "allgame.com".

Daishokaioshin 00:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually no... the Europe version is coming at 27th October (well that what the store GAMES said) so it won't be long soon. SuperSaiyanCrash 21:36, 30 September 2006. (UTC)

We know when the ****ing Euoperan version is coming out, we trying find out NA. Goddamn. Blindman shady 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I read on Amazon.com that the product will be shipped at earliest November 7. So it must have been changed. matthaeus123 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stages

Tell me if you see a resemblance to the place Goku and Turles fought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUZS0DiQvg. Look at around 03:29. And did anyone else see Vegeta in freiza saga outfit.-SSJ Gokan 14:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What about it? Sasuke-kun27 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A while back someone said that there hadn't been any official names given. But there's no beating that. Come on anyone can tell it's the place from the tree of might.-SSJ Gokan 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks similar, at least...--Suit-n-tie 15:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Too similiar to be a coincidence, wouldn't you say.-SSJ Gokan 15:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, did you see any names? So, as of now I suggest we stop talking. This discussion is completely pointless because the video doesn't give a name for the arena, or any for that matter. Sasuke-kun27 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But it'll be very hard to stop talking.-SSJ Gokan 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone said Vegeta's Namek Outfit??? Click here

It's an alternate outfit for Scouter Vegeta.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.121.113 (talk • contribs)

You sure it's not alternate for Cell Saga Vegeta 'cause Scouter Vegeta's alternate costume would also have a tail wouldn't it?

It could be for cell saga but he then wasn't able to go super saiyan when he was in that outfit.-SSJ Gokan 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

He wouldn't have a tail in his Namek outfit. His tail was cut off in the Saiyan Saga. Plus the health bar has a picture of Vegeta with his scouter on. Sasuke-kun27 00:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but how would he transform into an oozaru if he doesn't have a tail in the alternate costume?

There's a point where you have to forget that they have no tail and just let them transform. Blindman shady 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.-SSJ Gokan 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i saw on a video that master roshi can also be played like jackie chun.

This right? Its just an alternate costume. Look at the health bar and you'll notice that the picture shows Roshi, not Jackie Chun. Just pointing it out to anyone who sees this and might think that he's a seperate character. Sasuke-kun27 13:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Vegeta's Buu Saga Base and SSJ1 forms be bold since they weren't in the last game?

Yeah, they should.I'll get to that-SSJ Gokan 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Transformations

I removed the comment about "possibly accessing a special menu" for transformations. The word "possibly" is a good indicator of speculation. Also, it was pretty clear to me in the video that was linked that the menu the player accessed was actually the skills list for Goku. CPitt76 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I used the word probable. But still, why would transformations take so long unless you had to enter in a button sequence or the game is extremely laggish, which is highly unlikely.

EDIT: Also, Current event marker This article or section contains information about a computer or video game under development. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature, and the content may change dramatically as the game's release approaches and more information becomes available. This article is allowed speculation. Blindman shady 01:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no article is "allowed" speculation. Sasuke-kun27 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Sasuke. Speculation is not allowed. You are allowed to include info from reputable outside sources. Since the game is still in development, even those reputable sources sometimes print info of a "speculative nature" (gaming mags, for example). That's what the marker is there for. We are not allowed to input our own speculation. You are right Blindman, you did use the word probable. Didn't mean to misquote you, I apologize. Regarding the transformation, I'm not sure what you mean about it taking so long. In the youtube video, all the transformations occurred without the menu except for the one from SS3 to regular goku (as soon as the player built up their ki gauges). It looks to me like the player didn't know how to go from SS3 to regular goku and checked the skills list. Once he did that, he was able to do the transformation. CPitt76 02:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant! You activate the transformation screen where it looks like they are powering up. Then it seems to take 4-5 seconds to do the trasformation, I think that's when you enter in the button sequence to be SSJ, SSJ2, SSJ3, or Normal. If you still don't understand, just say so. Blindman shady 03:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you meant now. But your original edit was a bit confusing. Saying "you activate the transformation screen" (and linking a video where the player brings up the skills screen) makes it sound like you're bringing up a different screen not just doing the proper button input to make the transformation. In any event, it doesn't really matter. Either way, it's speculation and can't be included in the article without a source. CPitt76 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it sound possible, I mean, why would the wait be like 2-3 seconds. I liked it better when the game didn't stop for tranformations and you still saw your opponent. Blindman shady 03:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's possible, though I don't think it's the case. If you can cite a source, we can put it back in the article. CPitt76 00:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

ABC?

In this video about 20 seconds in, there are two icons in the player one tier. One of them contains question marks which I'm guessing means random, but there is another marker with "ABC" on it. I would love to know what that means if anyone else knows. Sasuke-kun27 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but in duel mode in Tenkaichi 1 you could use customized characters from the previous game using a password. It might be something similar. We'd have to wait for some sort of confirmation before including in the article though. CPitt76 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I do believe one is a random select and one is a password select. Blindman shady 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but I noticed that player 1 is on Vegeta and it says Password Character on the right side.

Good point Sasuke. I took a closer look, and the Vegeta that player 1 is on (and the frieza next to him) are between the question marks and the "ABC". These aren't the actual slots for Vegeta and Frieza. If I had to guess, these two are password characters that were already entered using the "ABC" box. Pure guess though, we should dig around to try and verify. CPitt76 01:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake Characters

KojiDude, I think KingVegita was looking for a citation for the last sentence of this section. Your edit says there's a reference in the paragraph, but I can't find it. Which one are you referring to? CPitt76 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to all of them. And recent videos have shown people looking at the entire character lists, with no slots left for "secret characters". Check the archives and you'll find it.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 13:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've checked through all the references and done some additional research, but can't find a confirmation of that. The youtube video showing the characters is not proof that there aren't additional secret/fusion characters not selected via that screen (similar to the Tiencha/Gokule fusions or random Buu absorptions in Budokai 2). Can anyone provide a reference for the statement "There is also a rumor of 'secret' characters, which has been proven false."? I'm not saying we remove the statement, just cite a source. We still need to adhere to wikipedia standards for verifiability. CPitt76 00:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is verified. The one video shows all the rows for charcters, and another shows all transformations and etc. There isn't room for secret characters, and if there were some people that already have the game in foreign countries would know by now.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 02:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to show the second video as I don't believe I have seen it and would like to. Blindman shady 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in the archive, I'll try to find it.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here it is. [1]--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

KojiDude, You can't be 100% certain that there won't be any secret characters. The game has not yet been released in ANY country, so there is still a chance. -User:Jrinu

No, there's not. That video has shown ALL the rows, and there isn't any room for more charcters. There is no evidence to support there will be secret characters, just speculation, which isn't allowed at Wikipedia.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, speculation is not allowed. I've reworded this section, take a look and let me know what you think. We can't state the rumor has been proven false without providing that proof. CPitt76 00:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed "As" to "But". Sounds better. :D Blindman shady 01:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to click on that little thing called arhive. It explains why they need a Fake Charaters section,. Until the game is out in 1 week, it will remain there. Blindman shady 22:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Who the hell would want to play as Chi-Chi? Blindman shady 17:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would. More female characters in a Dragon Ball Z game = Yay! There's nothing wrong with male characters and characters of undefined gender, but the few women in DB/Z/GT who are actually capable of fighting with some degree of skill need to be in there. Asking "Who the hell would want to play as Chi-Chi?" is about the same as asking "Who the hell would want to play this game at all?" Obviously, people who like the series, enjoy fighting games, or have particular characters they want to play as, would be the types to play this game. The same goes for Chi-Chi.

Daishokaioshin 19:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What purpose does the section serve? It's just the same thing as many other games. They're just a few fake screenshots that have been seen by only a handful of people. If it were something like Luigi in Super Mario 64 or Sonic in Super Smash Bros., it would be notable. It's just pointless as it stands. Nemu 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you read the archives you'd know, until the game comes out in a week, it will remain there. Blindman shady 22:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The only argument for it is that it keeps vandalism down. That isn't a good reason to place a pointless section. If it's going to be removed later, it's obviously not important. Nemu 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same way Nemu. We're looking at this page daily, so it's not difficult for us to remove unsourced additions. That paragraph alone isn't going to prevent a vandal from adding a fake character. I can understand why it was added, but maybe having the page protected is a better way to go (?). The flip side is that Koji did the research and provided some examples (outside of Wikipedia) of people trying to pass off characters that aren't in the game. So this isn't a problem that's just limited to this page. Maybe we can just reword the section to discuss attention the game has been getting from media/fans and work in the fake characters in there. CPitt76 23:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Playable Characters

I'm thinking about putting a table in this article similar to the one that was done in the Marvel Ultimate Alliance article. It looks a little better than just listing the playable characters. There'd be two secions, recurring characters and new characters, similar to what's already there. Any objections? I also think we should put the "Fake Characters" section after the "Playable Characters" section, since the playable characters are more important to the game than the rumors. Let me know what you guys think. CPitt76 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I love it but I think the rumors need to be nearer to the top so any that come here don't have to scroll to the bottom that says specifically not to mess with the article just because they think Ledgic or Androids 14 & 15 are in-game. Blindman shady 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blindman shady about the Fake Characters section. That's part of why I put it there when I wrote it.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Make the freakin' table, we like it. Blindman shady 03:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't been on in a few days. I'll put it in tomorrow. I'll leave the fake character section where it is. CPitt76 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Release Date and GameStop

I made this because someone stated that GameStop is making shipping on Nov. 1 but we have no clue when it is coming out, therefore, it stays the way it was. Discuss. Blindman shady 06:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are American Sites. The europe one is coming at 27th October. Try asking GAME. SuperSaiyanCrash 21:39, 30th September 2006. (UTC)

GameInformer lists PS2 version release date as October 31. CPitt76 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

New Characters

What's the point of that list? Is the other list supossed to be returning characters? How are all the new transformations returning from the first game? Why confuse people? If they really wantd to know who wasn't in the first game, they would go and figure it out. It aint rocket science.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 20:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Two words clarifying that the list on the right side is of new characters to distinguish from the list on the left, which is NOT of new characters does not complicate anything or confuse anyone. This is as retarded an argument as Wiki-Star reverting fifty times because I seperated one huge paragraph into two medium sized ones. That was one goddamn extra line. This is two goddamn extra words. They do NOT hurt anything. Transformations were never mentioned, and have nothing to do with this conversation.

In the format you seem to be pushing for, it appears as though the list on the left is merely continued on the right due to length. It isn't clear that the list on the right is of new characters, and that's to ME who KNOWS that the list on the right is of new characters. If >I< find it to be unclear, even knowing what it's supposed to be, how do you think people with no familiarity with the article are going to see it? Leave it alone. You're supposed to DISCUSS FIRST and EDIT WHEN A CONCENSUS HAS BEEN REACHED >NOT< revert repeatedly.

Daishokaioshin 21:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It does confuse people. Buff Roshi is a new character, but he's still listed on the right. If that confuses me, it'll confuse everyone. Let's just get rid of the 'new characters' and divide the list in half. Half on the right, half on the left.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we go with the Table that the other guy said he would make but never did! Blindman shady 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

77 characters. 39 on the left, 38 on the right. Sounds simple enough to me.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I said to NOT revert any further until this has been discussed. I know you don't care about following the rules of wikipedia, but I'd appreciate it if you'd make the effort to work with other contributors for once.

Buff Roshi is NOT a new character. It is a new transformation. I believe at some point in the past, we had a method of marking what transformations were new. I don't know why that was taken out, but if it confuses you so terribly (which does not in any way imply that every person who reads the article is going to be confused, simply because YOU are confused) then we should re-institute the notation of new transformations used previously.

We have NOT come to a concensus about this. Until we have, refrain from further vandalizing the article just because you don't like the way it looks. That said, I would have no problems with half on the right and half on the left for organizational purposes. If you gave me a chance to respond before reverting for the FOURTH TIME and thus violating 3RR, we could have had a concensus, but you did not. This just shows how you are so intent on having things your own way, like over at the List of Freeza Related Characters in Dragon Ball article that you will break any rule and do anything you please until you get your way. You need to change this behavior and attitude immediately.

Daishokaioshin 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first off, how am I getting what I want? How was the freeza related characters thing getting what I want? I was following policy. Here, I'm trying to keep the article in a format that won't confuse readers.

Second, Buff Roshii was not in Tenkaichi 1, so he would be new. "New Characters" would have to list the new transformations too, as they are new to the game. But why go through the trouble? Why seperate the list for new and old characters? Just split it in half, no text or bolding or anything, just the list of characters.

Third, neither Budokai 2, 3, or Tenkaichi have a "new characters" list.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we forgetting our little "Cell stays on the article no matter how many people disagree or have given reasons for him not to be there" thing? Also, pay attention to 3RR or I'm going to start reporting you, instead of just warning you to follow the rules.

Daishokaioshin 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A new character section is helpful to people unfamiliar with the game series. The new forms should just be bolded like they previously were. Nemu 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nemu's right. We should just put it back the way it was.-SSJ Gokan 22:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't broken 3RR, nor have I come anywhere near close to it. You've made 3 reverts though. I said the Cell thign because it's true. It doesn't matter how many people he convinces into thinking his way, that doesn't change the fact that Cell is an acomplise and technically a relative of Freeza. I seriousley fail to see your argument here. You didn't list one thing to contraditc what I said, at all. The other Budokai articles are set up this way, so why should BT2 be different? (By the way, you might actually wanna read the rules before saying I broke them, because incase you forgot, there's no policy against formatting an article in the correct way.)--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Many other fighting game articles use that type of format(such as Street Fighter and King of Fighters games). On a side note: you have broken the 3RR often. What you revert is a mater of opinion, so you aren't following any set of rules. Nemu 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So explain how formatting somethign the way other DBZ Games is violation of WP:NPOV? Thanks.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

To constatly revert is breaking the rules unless it's true vandalism. The change of a format isn't vandalism, so to constantly revert it is breaking the rule. Nemu 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I only reverted twice, and 3RR is only enforced if somone reverts 4 times or more.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I count four for the new characters part and once for the fake characters part. Nemu 23:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you actually look at the edits to the new characters, you'll see that only two of them are actual reverts.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The edits at 16:55, 17:00, 17:21, and 17:25 are all reverts. Nemu 23:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR says that a revert is an edit that reverts another user's edit. I know for a fact (because I made the edits) that two of them were completley different from the other two, and didn't revert any other user's edits.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The first three reverted Daishokaioshin's edits and the last reverted Blindman shady's edit. Thus you had reverted them four times, and me once which makes you brake the 3RR. Nemu 23:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[2] That isn't a revert. That was a completley different edit, made in an attempt to format the seciton better and reach a compramise. By your logic, any edit somone makes that changes a article slightly is a revert, in which everyone on Wikipedia shoudl probably be blocked for violating 3RR.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Constatly reverting something and making an additon at the same time is still counted as a revert. Nemu 23:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved one line and got rid of another line. That isn't a revert, that's a minor edit.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I call for a peer review. That should really help cool down the situation. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't peer review only for when an article needs to know where it has to be improved?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, then there's the RfC. However, a peer review can help the article comply with the Manual of Style. I don't believe this is a content dispute. This is just an argument on how characters should be listed. A peer review can help on choosing the right format. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Been off for a few days. Was going to insert the table I discussed earlier (I know, it's been a few days, sorry Blindman) tomorrow. I'm in favor of splitting the table into returning vs new characters, in case anyone cares. I'm not looking to complicate the situation, though. Any objections to me giving this a stab? CPitt76 23:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead with the change, we can revert if necessary. I didn't independently verify everything, I just used what was already there. I was thinking about adding an asterik after new transformations for old characters (Great Ape Baby Vegeta, for example) and noting it at the bottom of the table, but let me know what you think. As a side note, I count 129 characters. Just curious where the 130 number that's mentioned several times in the article is coming from. I'm not disputing it, but I couldn't find a citation (the intro actually says over 130 characters). CPitt76 06:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of Characters

The characters table only has 129 characters on it. I haven't seen any citation for the 130 number that appears on the page. And this link provided by Sasuke is a Japanese commercial for the game. Towards the end, the number 129 flashes across the screen with some Japanese text. Can anyone verify there's 130+ characters? CPitt76 16:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the 130+ is including transformations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.142.26.187 (talk • contribs)

If you go back and count, there's only 129 characters (including transformations). Sasuke-kun27 22:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that more or less than the last one? I can't remember...--Suit-n-tie^{What Have I Done?!} 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's much more than the last game. I've made the change in the article to reflect 129 characters, not 130. CPitt76 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the different BT2 pages in different languages and these are the character number results I got (Note: # / # / # is the number of characters I got each time I counted):

Spanish: 129/130/130

French: 131/128/130

Netherlands: 130 (Note: Do NOT count Kaioken)

English: 129/130/130 (Note: Watch out for (Saiyan Saga), (w/ Sword), etc.)

Can someone go to these pages (including the english one), count the number of characters and report back here? It would be greatly appreciated. Sasuke-kun27 19:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That page lists a Great Ape version of Kid Gohan, this one doesn't. I think that's the difference. They're also listing a Great Ape version of Kid Goku, but I think that might be what we have as just Great Ape on this page. CPitt76 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the Spanish page in the above comment. CPitt76 19:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Transformations

According to many people who have their grubby hands on the demo claim that you need only press R3 to tranform, should we add this to the wiki?

Blindman shady 22:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And that means?

Blindman shady 22:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Click it. WP:OR says that original research is not allowed. Un-specified people "claiming" things is original research, because it is not verifiable. It isn't even verifiable that they have the demo to begin with.--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Needs to be cited from a reputable source before we can add it. CPitt76 23:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)