Talk:Legend of Success Joe

"One of the worst"... POV?

I can understand why calling Legend of Success Joe "one of the worst" games for the Neo-Geo may turn on a bunch of "POV" alerts for editors, therefore I have references the comment with as much legitimate information as is available about the game at all on the internet. Neo-Geo.com is considered a good source for the Neo Geo system, for a quick reference I will cite Gamespot's article on the "History of SNK", with relevant cites on the following pages (it was a long article) 27 (see infobox), 28 and the appendix. Of course, I have also added other reviews and opinions. Bobak 17:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe any of your sources are credible, in fact, to use the vernacular found in these reviews, I think they "SUCK"[1] and are pieces of "sh!t"[2]^_^. On a more serious note, this statement still contains a PoV and are weasel worlds, as established [3]here at Tomorrow's Joe main talk. You could state that it is a poor or low quality game without having a PoV issue. Be a little creative here if you hate the game this much >.< The following references--along with the statement-- will be removed:[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I think it is notable that the last two "sources" are just forum discussions.Anthonzi 08:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) After reviewing this stub further I would say that "the game was reviewed very poorly" is enough. So I stand by my revision.Anthonzi 09:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, leaving it at "the game was reviewed very poorly" is what led to (rightful) "citation needed" tags. I wish there were more mainstream reviews, but no one has touched the game otherwise, and I checked. At this point I'm hoping the Wii will get it so that there will be some GameSpot or similar reviews --at the same time I also hope they don't release it. Reviews are criticism and, by their nature, POV and original research but also allow the corroboration of the statement that the game is awful (and reviews are used in FA game articles). --Bobak 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased statement

As long as the previous NPOV discussion on Talk:Tomorrow's Joe is read I really only have to say this[13]:

"Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article."

The statement in the article--

It is widely considered one of the worst games for the Neo-Geo system, with common complaints being very poor gameplay control, inadequate graphics and poor animation on a system that was touted as not having these issues

--is biased. For more see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonzi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Anthonzi (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This analysis isn't correct. Some of the finest (i.e. FA) articles we have on video games have sections on "reception" and "critical reaction"; it is a part of the article guidelines. While this game isn't nearly major enough to warrant an FA-size article, there is ample evidence online that the game is truly horrible (the best available for a game that was so bad it didn't even get much of a release). For that reason, I am reverting back the references that support the claim. If you can argue that the use of opinions in any of these articles is unwarranted, then do so, but please do not attempt to say that this is "biased" --to make things even more clear for future readers, I will convert the references into in-text citations. --Bobak (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legend of Success Joe. 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/20060217023149/http://www.defunctgames.com/reviews/52/ to http://www.defunctgames.com/reviews/52/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.djpretzel.com/blog/?page_id=19

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) 03:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)