Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2/Archive 5

Kaoiken?

I know for a fact that Goku can go Kaioken as a transformation. But its not listed under Goku's transformations. So i added it but someone deleted it!!! Why doesnt Kaoiken count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvisganon (talk • contribs)

Because it's not a "transformation", but more of a power-up. We're only adding the transformations that are available from the character select screen. Sasuke-kun27 17:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, i see, your only using the ones from the select screen. Never mind then, i didnt know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvisganon (talk • contribs)

Character Info

Can someone verify the statement "all characters ever featured on any Dragon Ball game will be playable characters"? No source is provided, and if this is true, there are some characters missing from the table. My guess is this can't be verified since 129 seems to be the number of playable characters. CPitt76 22:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of Characters (cont.)

I went back to the other BT2 pages and re-counted the number of characters again. Here are the results I got:

Spanish: 129 (It's actually 130 but they have Oozaru Kid Gohan and he's not a playable character)

French: 134 (They say that Toma and Borgos in their normal and Oozaru forms are playable but no proof was provided)

Netherlands: 129 (Note: Do NOT count Kaioken, Saiyan Saga, Cell Saga, etc.)

English: Still 130 (Note: Do NOT count Saiyan Saga, Cell Saga, Super Zarbon, etc.)

If someone could help me go over them again and see what's wrong, it would be greatly appreciated. Sasuke-kun27 01:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish - sounds like we figured it out

French - you are right about Toma and Borgos, and they also list Goku SSJ4 twice. That's the extra 5

English - I only count 129. CPitt76 01:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands - I only count 127. Out of curiosity, why are we doing this? For verification of the number on this page? CPitt76 01:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the previous talk page, we were discussing whether there were 129 or 130 characters and I brought up the number of characters on the other BT2 pages. Since I re-counted the number of characters and got different results, I couldn't add it to the archive so I brought it here. When I think back on it, it wasn't really necessary to re-add it but it kinda helped figure out what number (or really who) was correct and we found out that there are in fact 129 playable characters. Sasuke-kun27 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. It was a good idea, I just didn't know if you wanted to edit the other language pages or not. So we agree on 129 playables? CPitt76 02:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Info

Not much but it's something http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=932683&topic=30960712-SSJ Gokan 02:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

4 on 4 battles

About 4 on 4 battles, it says in the article that "This is referring to Tag team options" followed by a citation needed tag. I know nothing about the whole citation thing and was wondering if a video would do before changing it myself. Sasuke-kun27 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with it, except we might want to reword the sentence a little. But I'm cool with the source. CPitt76 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better video. It's a 1 against 5 battle. Click here. Sasuke-kun27 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Kid Goku/Great Ape

For those of you who still think great ape isn't a transformation for Kid Goku watch this video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=wg4RAyJcI1g

Hmm, perhaps it's true...--Atomic-Super-Suit^{What Have I Done?!} 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but its not a seperaete character only a transformation. Like Goku can go Kaioken in the middle of battle but we dont list that because its not a seperate character.

Boxshot

If you look at the article (http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/dragonballzbudokaitenkaichi2/index.html?q=Budokai%20Tenkaichi) on gamespot about DBZ:BT2 there is a other (probably official) boxshot of the game. Shouldn't we take that image? (if it's possible with rights etc.)

No because on Atari's website they have that one released, but they still don't have a ****ing release date. Blindman shady 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well OK. The official PAL boxshot has been released though just look here: http://www.nl.atari.com/index.php?pg=product&id=280&showpack=1

And where can you find DBZ:BT2 on the official US site?

Well I just found it: http://www.atari.com/dragonballz/

And... official boxshot just look in the upperleft!

Restricted SSJ Broly

Broly DOES NOT have a Regular SSj transformation. Actually, he has a RESTRICTED Super saiyan form, so i update the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.138.147 (talk • contribs)

I already told you on your talk page that we are using the names from the game and in the game, its called Super Saiyan. Same goes for Bojack's Final Form. In the game, it's Final Form Full Power and not Transformed. Also, please remember to sign your name at the end of every comment by using four ~. Thank you. Sasuke-kun27 14:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that and in Movie 10 he's as Super Saiyan as he can be. : Fireball00 16:16, 16 october 2006 (CEST)

Innacurate

"A recent Japanese website known as Club Dragon Ball states that all characters ever featured on any Dragon Ball game will be playable characters in the sequel"

This is false. As many Dragon Ball Z games there are, every character featured in all the Z games are not in the game. I seem to remember a game,Dragon Ball Advanced Adventure, having characters such as Tambourine among others who are not featured in th egame. In General Rildo is not in, despite the fact thatt he was featured in Tranformations. This line is completly untrue.-SSJ Gokan 01:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was meant to say "Budokai game". I'll change it.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt getting mad or nothing I was just pointing that out.-SSJ Gokan 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I guess I just interpreted it as anger. It's hard to tell what emotion somone is showing on the internet. =/ --KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually brought this up before, glad someone else asked the question. We should change it to "Tenkaichi game" instead of "Budokai game", unless someone can verify that Gokule or Tiencha are characters in this game. They were in Budokai 2. CPitt76 02:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Gokule and Tienacha aren't part of the Dragonball series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.206.35 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you really are SuperSaiyanCrash or not, but I'm going to have to ask you to sign your name under your IP account when not you're logged in. You can change it back to your original signature if you log in. And back to your question, Gokule and Tiencha are not part of the Dragon Ball series. They are just characters made for the Budokai 2 game. What we're talking about here is that the article says that every character that ever appeared in a DB/DBZ/DBGT game will appear in Tenkaichi 2. That is definately not the case (as there would be a lot more characters in the game). Someone suggested that we change it to "Budokai series" instead, but that wouldn't work either because then Tiencha, Gokule, and Super Buu's fantasy absorbtions would have to be in the game, as well. So, I think we should go with CPitt76's idea of changing it to "Tenkaichi series" to cause less confusion. Sasuke-kun27 19:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just say from the previous game. Saying "all characters from every Tenkaichi game" is stupid, scince there's only one.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fusion Info

- - I keep putting some confirmed info about fusions but someone deletes them?who and why? - - 10-17-06 - bogocolombia

This copy and paste job might not work but we'll see. Whether or not this bogocolombia dude's info is accurate it should still be mooted in the discussion page. I can't remeber the official Wiki opinion on editing the talk page but generally I think you should only edit for spelling rather than content.

Anyway, yeah, fusions. I have looked at quite a bit of info about this game and know nothing about how the fusions work, I personally would appreciate some info on the matter.

Original research is a term that gets thrown around far too much, just like Fancruft on the Futurama Episode Lists. (I actually left a rant on there about it too.) I don't know what this bogo guy was talking about but I doubt it should have been removed so totally. The original original research thing was to stop people publishing scientific journals here to submit them for peer review. Technically an overview of the plot of a new South Park episode is technical research unless someone posts the overview to their Livejournal then links it as a referance. I fail to see how a description of game mechanics can be original research in the spirit of the rule. It probably is in the letter of the rule, but by that token so if half the article. In fact, so is a large chunk of wikipedia.

In short, don't delete people's talk posts, it's rude and trollish and detracts from the overall point which is to eductate people about what is a sweet looking gameSimondrake 00:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The info was just speculation and had no source. If you think we should keep things like that in the article just because you think it's "rude", then you're at the wrong website, man.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You say it's just sourceless speculation and he says it's valid and confirmed information, I don't know if it is but that's what the talk page is for- to discuss whether or not a piece of information should go in the main article. Simondrake 07:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't cited, it just said a "reliable japanese website". We can't know if it's reliablitiy is true or not. I'd also like to add in that this could possibly be an attempt of vandalism, because this page has a long history of vandalism and s-protections (see the Log, it was even semi-protected very recently after I put in a request at WP:RfPP). I'm not trying to assume bad faith here, but after 8 or 9 semi-protections, you kinda just assume...--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a video showing Trunks fusing with Goten to become Gotenks. About 2:10 into the video, Trunks uses fives energy balls to fuse (look at the upper left-hand corner). Would this work? --Sasuke-kun27 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that confirms both the claims. It'd be good to re-insert the sentence and reference that. I have one question though, is that Spanish Uub's speaking?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Release date.. again

A video on youtube [1] which says to be the official US trailer shows in the end of the video November 20. Is this info accurate? FireBall00: 11:56 (CEST)

• Actually, to be right, I went down to GAME and learnt that it will come out in 27th October 2006. So I get the feeling that some websites are wrong. SuperSaiyanCrash 12:00 21 October 2006. (UTC)

Yeah, 27 October in EUROPE!: FireBall00 15:41 (CEST)

The video above, although it doesn't really say it, is for the Wii version and this video, taken straight from the page, says that the PS2 version will be released on November 7 and says the same thing as the video above (Nov 20 for the Wii). SSC is on the right track, though. Not every site is going to have the right release date. But as the game comes closer to luanch, more sites update the release dates to the "correct" one. --Sasuke-kun27 14:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that was an old trailer. Look at the screens. They are nothing of what they look like now. SuperSaiyanCrash 11:45 22 October 2006. (UTC)

Really, soneone is changing my edit on release date in europe. It's 27 not 23. It's 23 now and it isn't released.: Fireball00 23 october 23:34 (CEST)

Well, I don't live in Europe or haven't seen any thing about it's release, so I don't really know if it is or not, but you change it without any kind of proof backing up your edit. All you have to do is give us a link to a site or something like that to proof that it's out in Europe and we can change it. --Sasuke-kun27 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

undeniable truth: You say you need proof, well here's proof i live in europe/United Kingdom and i work in HMV and we have a delivery batch sent in and Dragon Ball Z Budokai: Tenkaichi 2 is going to be released on the 27th of october. here's you'r link for it.

http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/simpleSearch.do?pGroupID=-1&simpleSearchString=tenkaichi+2&primaryID=-1

from jack ross

Alright, thanks. Sorry for not believing you guys. // Sasuke-kun27 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ive noticed that you still have united kingdom in as november 3rd it comes in 27 th oct already sent the link? why it still as november 3rd? that link sent is for united kindom too, i work there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.193.249 (talk • contribs)

I suggest we have a poll deciding which date we should have as the official release date here. And I think the poll should end next friday. This'll all be moot in a week. How about this, tomorrow I'll head into Guildford and find a GAME- if Budokai Tenkaichi 2 is out then I'll take a picture to prove it's out in England. If not then I'll go again next week. I say we ignore all the dubious sources and just leave it as is until it's actually out.Simondrake 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? You want us to vote on what the official date is? We can't. We don't decide what the official date is, no matter how many people here think it's a certain date. If it's that much of a problem, remove the date entirley and wait until an official source (not a bunch of Wikipedia Editors) comes up with a date.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke, what I mean is this'll all be moot in a matter of days so just leave it alone until we can get a proper source.Simondrake 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well i try to get a picture up with the game and the receipt which says in Holland the game released 26 october (don't know about the rest of europe) . It's late now, i'll get it up tommorow. FireBall00: 26 October 23:37 (CEST)

here in North America, I found a bunch of sites that say: November 7 100% (Gamespot, IGN, etc). These are pretty reliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.99.53.80 (talk • contribs) .

the u.k. release is def set for release on fridaylook at any web e.g. look at it at www.gamespot.com or anything they all say nov 3rd i can bet my life its out for us on fri not north america they in nov 7th —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.193.249 (talk • contribs) .

yeah UK gets it a few days ahead than N. america (Canada in my case). We should be getting it before the states..........we are nearer after all :p haha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.99.53.80 (talk • contribs) .

Transformations in menu

Although Atari still says on their site they removed the transformations out of the menu but that isn't true. According to this [2] video there are transformations in the menu and in-game tranformations. This fact is not in the summary of wikipedia, i think it should be added: PFire 14:05 (UTC)

It already says that there are in-game transformations in the game and the fact that transformations can be chosen before a fight doesn't really need to be added, unless you find it necessary to mention in the article. --Sasuke-kun27 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well yeah, Atari stated it wrong on their site, nut we're talking about wikipedia. Maybe we should change the "in-game tranformations has been confirmed" in "in-game tranformations have been added." But maybe we should do that in a week or two when the article is revised and all of the future tags and references will be removed. FireBall00: 23:45 (CEST)

Well, whether Atari has it on their site or not, it has still been confirmed. I see no problem keeping it the way we have it now. --Sasuke-kun27 22:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Battlefields.

I just saw something which angered me massively. Someone had added a list of the battlefields in the game. Someone else had removed it with the reason being WP:OP. WP:OP? WP:OP!? This is taking the letter of the law to a farsical degree. Technically if I watch an episode of The Simpsons then put up an episode overview it's original research and technically should be removed. This is the letter of the rule and is not intended to be taken litterally or else there'd be no more articles.

Now I personally did not think that list should stay there, acceptable reasons for removing it might have been: Uncited, which is a very fair point. Badly Formatted, it would have looked a lot neater in a table. Or, at a stretch, Fancruft.

It should not have been removed as original research. By that logic the cast list and box art should be removed as original research.

It should be put back, in the form of a neat table, with a suitable citation. WP:OP indeed. Simondrake 22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There were no citations. This isn't an episode of the Simpsons, it is an upcoming video game. You can not just add whatever you want to the article. It has to be verifyable.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 22:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your addition to the article about battlefields has been removed again because the video you've provided was for Tenkaichi, not Tenkaichi 2. Be more careful the next time you put ssomething like that up, please. --Sasuke-kun27 01:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you guys just read the first paragraph complaining about WP:OP and immediately jumped to conclusions and started thinking Simondrake put the information on the places up there in the first place, or that he thinks the info should've stayed as is. KojiDude and Sasuke, if you looked carefully enough, you would've both noticed that he already just mentioned that it was uncited and badly formatted.

Simondrake was making a point that saying it was uncited and badly formatted would've worked a lot better as the reason for deletion than the generically overbearing letter of the law that is WP:OP. Hell, you guys could've both agreed with him about the uncited part. KojiDude, you talk about the info having to be verifiable. Wouldn't that require a citation? And Sasuke, didn't you end up finding out that the info came from somewhere about the wrong game? But, as it looks to me, you guys missed where his statements actually go with your apparent opinions, as what you say goes with what he's saying, but the way it's on there makes it seem and sound like you're disagreeing with the guy. So, which way is it? Is there a fight going on here? Is he right? Is WP:OP too strict or generic an excuse on this one or what? 64.12.117.6 06:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice argument.-SSJ Gokan 19:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Pikkon and Zangya

I really don't feel like being blocked for edit warring or anything over my recent edit, so I'm going to be civil (like a Wikipedian should) and discuss it here on the talk page first. Now, the reason I changed Pikkon's and Zangya's names to Paikuhan and Zangula is because I was using the video provided in the Fake Characters section of the article. I am completely aware that at some point in the video, the names start to change from the English versions to some other language (it either starts at Raditz or his Great Ape form). But everything before that is the English name (i.e. Goku, Gohan, etc.) and Pikkon and Zangya come before Raditz, so I don't see why we can't use Paikuhan or Zangula in the article. // Sasuke-kun27 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That video is in a foreign languege. There's no telling what names are english and what aren't. Also, I highly doubt that the American game will use Japanese names.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this raises a good point. What source is being used for the current names? If it's the same youtube video then there's a lot of things that are wrong, like Cell's different transformations- this video lists them as 1st, 2nd, Perfect not Imperfect, Semi-Perfect and Perfect. Unless there's another source I'm missing shouldn't all the names in the table be exactly as listed in our only piece of evidence? Saying they'll probably change it for the English Language release violates WP:Not A Crytal Ball, doesn't it?Simondrake 03:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Is say we should forget about the japanese names because this is the "ENGLISH" Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.10.68 (talk • contribs) .

• Speaking of Fake Characters, look at this. [3] It said Bra is a playable character after you complete with Vegeta. That is not right, isn't it? SuperSaiyanCrash 21:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha! 100% fake. Unless there's some proof like a video or official information from Atari, it's not real. Besides, how many attacks could she possibly have? You never see her fight in any of the episodes and if she is in the game (not going to happen), she would probably have the same move over and over again like Videl in Tenkaichi 1. // Sasuke-kun27 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame me, I didn't make that cheat up. And besides, you're right. What good would she do against Baby? SuperSaiyanCrash 21:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

music on DBZ tenkaichi 2?

ive just got a small question i really would love to know about this game. does it have any of this cheesey music from the japanese version? like the intro movie it doesn't have that guy that sings something in japanese? and no cheesy music in the fights are there. plz wb

from jack

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. Please discuss the article, not the topic. About your question, there will be the option of selecting the music you like, but the only music I have heard is from the japanese version of the game. // Sasuke-kun27 21:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no Japanese music on the PAL version so it's highly unlikely that it will be on the NTSC version. Blindman shady 22:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

hey cool thanks alot u have no idea how better tht makes me feel, but like how does tht work? does it work like u tick a box sayn japanese soundtrack and english or sumit like tht? or as u said there may not even be any japanese music on the PAL version —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.193.249 (talk • contribs) .

Modes

I found some really good information on the modes in Tenkaichi 2 and thought that it would be a good idea to add it here (seeing how every other Budokai game does). Only problem is that it's in French and most web translators pretty much suck. If someone can translate this page, do you think we could add the info or would it be best to wait until it comes out? // Sasuke-kun27 20:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Universe - Story mode
Ultimate Battle - Like BT's Ultimate Battle
Tournament - Like BT's Tournament
Duel - Guess
Training - Traning
Evolution Z - Customizing Characters
Shop - Buying things from Baba
Data - Password characters
Options - Options
Encyclopedia - DBZ Encyclopedia
Hope this helps.

Blindman shady 22:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)