Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)/Archive 1

Budokai Tenkaichi 2 "comments"

Should that text even be in a Wikipedia article? It's so clearly subjective that I'm surprised it's even there. In the allinea an editor states his nick and gives his oppinion of the game. I'm certain that's not supposed to be there, anyone? 84.31.80.180 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate the pages

Why can't they all be on seperate pages? They are all seperate games, I can't think why they shouldn't deserve their own individual pages with characters, critical reaction, & game fundamentals etc... Not to mention the release date & system [etc] box at the side of every game makes it much more helpful.

Back to the way it was please? Too jumbled & not nearly enough info this way.

Why should they be separate articles? We have all the same information here as you listed. There wouldn't be a need to change them back now. Also, please see the Dragon Ball work force talk page for more comments and discussion on this, as well similar series pages (and their talk pages, if they have one) for examples as to why this is a better idea than multiple articles. // DecaimientoPoético 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike this way. I like it how it was. You do not see the Budokai series being all in one article or any other games. I wish that they would do seperate pages for the Naruto games as well... Please consider!

The Budokai series page is under construction. Anyway, I know some are going to hate this format; but we cannot bend around every last individual's will because they don't like it. As for reconsidering our decisions and actions for both the Dragon Ball and Naruto games (hell, even the Bleach games now), it's not going to happen, I'm sorry to say. This was our final decision.

As a final note, you do see other pages like this. For example, the three I listed earlier, Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series), Naruto: Ninja Council (series), Bleach GC (series), Bleach: Blade Battlers (series), Dragon Ball Z: Super Gokuden (series), Dragon Ball Z: Goku RPG (series), Dragon Ball Z: Super Butōden (series), and I'm positive there are more. // DecaimientoPoético 23:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Screw you, moontarantula! Pawn of the opresser! I'm changing it back, Sauza!

Before this thing goes crazy with "This sucks" and "Change it back" comments, maybe a list or paragraph should be put up explaining why there has been a merge to clear anything up.Darth G 03:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In short, the articles were not exactly large enough to stand on their own. They were stubs, but had the illusion of being otherwise with the huge lists of characters, voice actors, and the bulky Dragon Ball video game template at the bottom. Cut what I just listed, and you have three separate article each no larger than three pages on Microsoft Word at size 12 font. Also considering the game modes for each installment were either more-or-less similar to one another or were completely unnotable (i.e., Evolution Z and Options), they could easily be merged into a single paragraph that mentions only important details rather or they could be cut all together, which some obviously have been. Any questions? // DecaimientoPoético 10:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's confusing and pretty messy. I guess it will somehow be worked out since it's under construction but right now it's confusing and messy. Even though it looked much better individually and it was much easier to navigate, I guess you are trying to figure out a way to lump it all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.180.52 (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Change it back it looks like an eleven year old changed it. It was way more informative the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarkpp (talk • contribs) 06:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

People...Can I Remind You Of One Point? If Another Sparking Game Was In Production...How Are We Going To Know It's Release Date? Okay..Forget The Release Date...How Are We Going To Know That It Will Release From The Beginning ?! Sasuke Kid 13:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You would look at the article, it would probably have its own section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this new article change is bad. This is way less informative then before. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever for any game series to not have articles for each separate game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.71.169 (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Its much more efficient, Why restate the same thing 3 times? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe that these pages are combined into one. If there is more opposition to this format then changing it back makes sense. Wikipedia is supposed to be the Encyclopedia Galactica of encyclopedias! In this format this will no longer be a hub to receive information before a game is released! It was perfectly fine the way it was, and there was no reason to change it. Hopefully after this system is criticized to death they will change it back. For now let's figure out a way to make it work. Super 4 Vegeta 18:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Guys...Did Encyclopedias Had Articles Merged into Each Other? User: Sasuke Kid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.36.65.150 (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I need to add my input here with the majority as well. This "combining" of pages is ridiculous, stupid, rather useless, poor, completly unnessessary, and furthermore confusing as the other games in other series linked to at the bottom of the page are not combined and have their own pages, yet this one completly breaks the model by condensing, and hacking the articles into one, jumbled, un-informable mess, for no clear, or justifiable reason. Wikipedia's articles on the Tenkaichi series is now ridiculous and asinine. Thanks for screwing up a good thing. If it's not broke, don't try and "fix" it. It should be changed back to it's previous, superior format immediately. There is no good justification for this crap. Back the way it was, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.2.136 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the articles should not have been merged (I saw no discussion at the talk page of DBZ: BT2). While tis page can exist, it should only be for an overview of the series (the same way there is The Legend of Zelda (series). If anyone wants to split them up, just go ahead and do it (and let me know if anyone complains since I will support you, there was no discussion before merging them either). TJ Spyke 05:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This series can not be compared to The legend of Zelda, which has over 10 games, an original plot, original characters and has many different elements compared to one another. All three games share the same basic game mechanics and only add new characters and attacks with each release, the old articles only had release dates and a character list, which this article provides. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say this is quite ridiculous. With all the opposition this article is facing there should be a change. This is a democracy, and we need some kind of vote. Nobody was complaining about the other format, so why the sudden change?Super 4 Vegeta 01:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:NOT. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wut a joke...next thing we know all the final fantasy games will be merging into one little page cuz theyre all the same "level-up, defeat boss, learn abilities, save the world from destruction" premise, all the halo games will be combined cuz theyre all "shoot aliens, blow up flood, master chief pwns" stuff, and all the madden games will be grouped togethger into one cuz theyre all "throw the ball, score td". 69.119.143.219

Perhaps if all the original information was left intact, this change would have been good. But it wasn't. I was going to check what changed for the 3rd games, as the individual article had it previously, and I wished to refresh my memory. But there's only a small portion of info compared to the original pages. Can someone who supports this merger please explain why they support it? (68.72.8.97 04:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

If you don't think the article is up to snuff, Be Bold and do something about it rather than complain about it. It also seems all comments that support the article to be un merged are all I don't like it comments. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I still just don't understand this. What does having less information about things accomplish, and what harm does having more information do? It's the same thing with all the Pokemon articles that got merged... it just doesn't make sense to me. MK141 09:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is making the argument that there is not enough information, and adding more would make it more difficult to read. More information is better, this is an encycolopedia. There should be a vote, or just change it back to the way it was. It is better seperate when looking for information for the current game. It is more organized and everyone likes it. Change it Back! Vote! Super 4 Vegeta 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the pages should be separated again. This sort of ties into a larger problem with the Dragon Ball entries on Wikipedia: namely, there are users who feel the need to condense these articles into the smallest possible entries. Unfortunately, that has often done more harm than good. --Gokitalo (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

change it back, there should be one generalized article about the series and then separate articles for more detailed and specific information about the games. - Alexander Vince (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

change it back, this is complete bullshit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

the Budokai games have their own separate articles, so why should the Budokai Tenkaichi games not have their own articles

Quit now

I sorry to say this but the people who changed these articles will win, it hopeless, their just bored and want to make it more confusing and try to summaries everything, and leave out some good stuff that isn't important and it is a way people want to make life harder, so just give up it is a hopeless cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.42.122 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. They won't change it back because it saves space to just throw it all into one incomprehensible mass of confusion and chaos. It is now effectively uneffective because it would be impossible to sort through this to get any information out of it. Anyway, thanks for saving space guys! Although it now virtually makes all info on the games useless now. You win some you lose some, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.180.52 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the format, be bold and do something about it instead of complaining. // DecaimientoPoético 19:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you at first told us that this is the new format, and now you are saying that we should change it. You are sending mixed messages here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.180.52 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying complaining about the new format will do nothing about it. If you hate it so much, do something to fix it. Reverting to the old format (three separate pages) is not a good idea, as the edits will just be reverted again anyway, but feel free to add to the article what you guys miss so much as to constantly complain about. // DecaimientoPoético 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem! Its this queer merging! Leave the articles to themselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.161.139.173 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys won't win. Just give up all hope of fixing them into 3. Why do you think I (and others) go to Wikia somtimes? The stupid/gay Naruto merg orgies just got to me and when I wanted the info I needed, I went to wikia instead, which is a better source for information as far as Naruto goes. Same with Star wars and Wookiepedia, and Dragonball Z and their DBZ wiki (somtimes) However, some wikia pages aren't, hence why I still even use this site.--Chipmonk328

Collector's edition

where is there any more info on the collectors edition? does this mean (if true) there is a chance of more new characters in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.89.146 (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All we know about any Tenkaichi 3 Collector's Edition at this point is that it is only for the PS2. Writing anything more than that about the topic will be speculation and removed as being vandalism. // DecaimientoPoético 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

so far the only thigs confirmed for the collector's edition is Budokai Tenkaichi 3 Giant Poster with all 161 playable characters from the game Budokai Tenkaichi 3 Digital Art Book - a visual insight in the making of the game according to play.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.135.37 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

European release

when come this game in europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.226.155 (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the article; all we know is that the release will be sometime in winter. // DecaimientoPoético 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

gamespot uk say nov 30th but i dont know if it's trustworthy here's a link http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/dragonballzbudokaitenkaichi3/index.html?tag=result;title;0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.2.239 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that, but I don't think websites should be trusted. They may trick you. Super Saiyan Crash 19 October 2007, 16.20pm (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.162.195 (talk)

According To Wiire.com, It's In 8 November 2007. Sasuke Kid

this may make u all feel a little better and just so the wiki dudes out there know to change the "SOMETIME IN WINTER" to NOVEMBER 9TH k. this is the UK release date and incase anyone tries to point out i know that play is a .com website but if u go to the link ull find on the webpage it says U.K. on it. so it will be out on NOV 9 th. and i know the manager of gamestation and a friend works in game the told me that its def coming on 9th of nov so :D.

heres a bunch of links showing a release date of DBZ tenkaichi 3

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dragonball-Z-Budokai-Tenkaichi-PS2/dp/B000XD7PSY

http://www.game.co.uk/PS2/~r331465/Dragon-Ball-Z-Budokai-Tenkaichi-3-/

http://www.play.com/Games/PlayStation2/4-/3431974/Dragon-Ball-Z-Budokai-Tenkaichi-3/Product.html

http://www.whsmith.co.uk/WHS/Go.asp?isbn=OC04009&DB=621&Menu=Games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.207.6 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/dragonballzbudokaitenkaichi3/similar.html?mode=versions&om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;versions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.207.6 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.play.com/Games/PlayStation2/4-/3513358/Dragon-Ball-Z-Budokai-Tenkaichi-3-Collector-Edition/Product.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.190.82 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

and if anyones having doubts about this for eg oh its a games store the never tell the truth. this is a store that wont lie

http://www.uk.atari.com/index.php?pg=product&id=218 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.207.6 (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ok look this is a final piece specifically from atari showing a releasse date for DBZ. ive already put out a link straight from ataris games website and still no date change was made on the release date for it on wiki. if this doesnt change it then im sure theres something wrong with wikipedia

http://www.gamershell.com/news/43014.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.58.146 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

i went in to game today and they said it is relesed on the 16th nov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.135.37 (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

well well goes to show how crappy wiki is cus ive bought the game today and its gr8! :D. but wiki is one of the most unreliable thing ever. so anyways enjoy the game peeps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.205.242 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Clean Up

Well, since this is going to be the new format, is there any way to make the different games stand out so it doesn't just look like it's...just there. Could we somehow make the different games look similar to what they looked like on seperate pages, but they are just on one? Sorry if that sounds kind of jumbly, but I'm just throwing some ideas out there so we can get something that is easy to read and clear. Desert Spada 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. I don't mind the format change, but this article needs to be cleaned up and fixed. Just to give an example, look at the reception: the majority of it only mentions BT2, there's one sentence for BT3, and it doesn't even bother mentioning the first game at all... 75.130.69.161 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, everyone, stop complaining and do something about the article yourselves. It's open for edits by anyone, and no one is stopping you. // DecaimientoPoético 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't complaining, this is asking if we can make it look better. You can see for yourself how jumbled up it is and all I asked was if it can be changed into a more orderly fashion. Desert Spada 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jumbled up how? The article seems organized to me. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Well, to me it just seems uninspired and like it was just put there to get it out of the way. I guess we'll have to think of something then....hmm... Desert Spada 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

PS2

What is the benefit for people who have budokai tenkaichi 3 for ps2 besides that bridge linkage —Preceding unsigned comment added by J007agent (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of these mass merges?

It seems that all this mass-merging is happening in many places. What is the source of all this? After a recently seen, more conter-productive mass merge than this one, I'm wondering where are these descisions being made. I had plans for how to correct this page, but it would feel futile if there's another 100 pages out there with the same problem. I'd like to get in on the source-discussion to complain and suggest as needed. With how I'm seeing the boundaries right now, I'll eventually look up "Colorado Rockies" and find myself on "NBL"... At this rate Wikipedia will require too much scrolling for a general summary, until the day that it is so annoying that another broad encyclopedia wiki created by the annoyed ex-fans rises above Wikipedia. --TerraGamerX 06:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ref tag conflict errors and references

Some <ref> tag syntax errors are causing problems for the <references/> section. I'm trying to fix them, but the code is confusing and dense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumia-w-18 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The reference to http://www.imagehack.eu/uploads/f81f1e3624.jpg is a very much broken link. It was probably a copyright violation anyway.-- Mumia-w-18 10:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• The table in the "playable characters" section does not display. I'm not too familiar with wikitables, and so I can't fix it.-- Mumia-w-18 11:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify dates

As it is, the dates are causing confusion. November 13 is clearly no universal date. Presently is seems to imply that it comes out Nov. 13th for both the PS2 and Wii, which is not the case. (Really now, were those previous posts addressing this problem "foruming"? I disagree.) --(Dynamic IP) 01:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC) "" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.52.201 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Controller

Shouldn't it be added that with the Wii Version, you can also play with the gamecube and/or classic controller? A lot of people come here for info, and thats the type of thing they might want to know. 1:05, 9 November 2007 (EST)

thats why i think each game should have its own article and not all crammed into one article about the series. - Alexander Vince 06:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

About voices

How about adding a voice actor for each character? Also, on Tenkaichi 3, the actors who did Turles and Taipon has switched. Just to let you know. SuperSaiyanCrash 20:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting of Page's

I honestly came here for information on Budokai Tenkaichi 2, what characters are available and any other information that i might not have been able to appropriate from gamefaqs.com. Further to that, i would have loved some information about number 3. But what i find is a generalised page with little to no information covering all 3 games in the series, when each games brings a wealth of new items and modes to the series. Each installment is an evolution over the previous one. I certainly would like to see more detail and not generalisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.101.197 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm with you on that. Thanos6 15:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A wealth of new content? Not the case. If we look at the games we can see that there is not enough of a difference that would warrent a seperate articles. There are not enough differences between the games . Any differences can easily be said in this article. The old articles were really just a list of characters and a explanation of gameplay that is nearly identical across all pages. If you want it to be more in depth and have more information, add it along with a reference, BE BOLD. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

EU Release date

Question. Wasn't Tenkaichi 3 released in EU on november 9th? Cuz someone changed it to "winter" in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.199.29.2 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)