Talk:Guilty Gear X

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Jaguar in topic GA Review

story

edit

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

Petit and i-mode games

edit

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

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

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply


I'll have this done soon Jaguar 08:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

edit
  • "It was released in July 2000 for Japanese arcades, and re-released in different versions for different platforms: Dreamcast, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2 and Game Boy Advance" - doesn't say when the release of the console versions were (something of a norm for VG articles)
  • "criticized for their replay value" - replay value sounds like a good thing? It might sound clearer as lack of replay value
  • "The Advance Edition includes tag-team" - is the game actually called The Advance Edition or is it referring to just the GBA version? I thought it must be capitalised for a reason
  • "Guilty Gear was successful after its initial May 14, 1998 release " - I would link the first game here as it caused me confusion to which game it was referring to
  • "it was about two years in development" - which game was in two years development? The first one or this one?
  • Have you got any sales figures for the PlayStation version to be mentioned in the Reception section?

On hold

edit

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

Thanks for the review! I've done an edit. Can you take a look, Jaguar? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response, it all looks good and should comply per the GA criteria. I've also realised the confusion regarding the Advance port. Yep we should be good to go   Jaguar 21:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply