Talk:Shining Soul II

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Sega task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Move

I think this page should be moved to Shining Soul II, on account of the fact that it is known as such officially (at least to my knowledge). Paul Haymon 08:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if no one objects (or responds) whithin a week or so, I plan to move it. Paul Haymon 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and moved the page, since this is an uncontroversial request. Khatru2 00:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for taking all the fun out of it. Just kidding. Thanks. Paul Haymon 00:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article advancement

What needs to be done to get this page (eventually) featured? Paul Haymon 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi there. Well... the "Character" section is way too huge, and it's practically a game guide. And Wikipedia is not one of those. I doubt you could get this page featured (unless you meant featured for improvement), but for a shot, I'd start by renaming the "Character" section as the "Gameplay" section and severely crop it, especially the class descriptions to just the italics description. Actually, I'm going to go do that now. Ong elvin 02:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd also point out WP:CVG/GL. Check out the section on content that may need to be moved to gaming Wikis. A lot of what this article had (minutiae) would have fit those criteria and thus unsuited to this article. Also check out the Jumping in Quake article before it was merged. Ong elvin 02:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've killed a lot of unnecessary bloat, and it's a lot more readable now. More importantly, it's much more encyclopaedic. Ong elvin 02:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Updating" here on a few other good reads you might like. WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA detail the criteria for the two highest grades of article. WP:NOT, more specifically WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#GUIDE, say what to not put in. And lastly, WP:CVG/GL#Scope_of_information which I've already linked in the previous post point out what should go in a Gaming Wiki instead of the main Wiki. Ong elvin 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Shining Soul II Mass Blanking

General

The first two posts below by Haymon were moved from my Talk page. Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for editing Shining Soul II. You've improved the article in some ways. However, you've also blanked a lot of the article without much explanation. Please explain. Thanks- Paul Haymon 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading the explanation on the talk page, I understand where you're coming from. However, I don't think the page needed to be cropped quite that severely. I'll wait for your response. Paul Haymon 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. A lot of the class description was just sort of describing exactly how you play. Wikipedia's not an instruction manual, it aims to be an Encyclopaedia. WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#INFO are two further bits that should help explain my reasoning. (ie, keeping in the spirit of an Encyclopaedia.) I'll add those two links in the game's talk page as well for future visitors. That said, I do agree I did delete a bit more than was necessary. The direction I went in was certainly the right one, but instead of deleting, I could have left them in with appropriate links. I think we can agree that the section headings are using better terminology now. Okay, so here's the sections and subsection changes themselves. Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please put General responses at the bottom of this thread. Ong elvin 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classes

The class descriptions were definitely way too long for an encyclopaedia; we're talking game guide lengths here. A single sentence or two is about the scope you'd expect from an Encyclopaedia. Furthermore, they were describing pretty much what each skill does - again, that's a game guide. Really, a sentence or two is all you need to give a description of what the class does. Gamers will already be able to get something to the effect of those full descriptions because they expect a Wizard to suck at physical combat, right? Conversely, long descriptions are lost on non-Gamers since they don't have the on-hand experience to understand the implications of much that was said. So at about two sentences, that's where you should aim for. Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

The stats system (STR, DEX, INT, VIT, etc.) is unnecessary. Gamers know what sorts of stats to expect. Non-gamers, again, don't really have the context to understand it. This part, in retrospect, I could have handled a bit differently. Instead of outright deletion, a reference to Attribute (role-playing games) might have been a better move.Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do that actually... let me find a way to put it in seamlessly. Ong elvin 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaining experience from killing monsters is a given. Skill points and attribute points are pretty ordinary in the RPG genre as well, along with pre-selected levelups (eg, Final Fantasy). By extension, the benefits of increasing the stats is pretty obvious even to a non-Gamer. (Traditional Wizards use their intellect. So improving the mind should improve spells, right?)Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons/Items

The weapon/item usage I think is strictly superior in this shorter form, and doesn't have the unnecessary controls description. I don't think you will argue me on this.Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story

I simply point to WP:NOT#PLOT and state that the intro sequence pretty much sums it up for a person. Gamers know to expect that happy warm fuzzy ending.Ong elvin 05:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put the old section back, put in the spoiler tag and try to shorten it a bit. ;) Ong elvin 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that non-Gamers probably know to expect that happy warm fuzzy ending as well since the bulk of fictitious works are end that way. :P Ong elvin 09:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General (Again)

All right then, thank you for replying and being civil. When I get time, I'll consider what should be done with the article. In the meantime, feel free to replace anything you think ought to be replaced, and what not. Later. Paul Haymon 08:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited this thread a bit to clean it up. Should hopefully be easy enough to follow. Specifically, I didn't want your response being a subsection of the Story when it is actually a sort of General comment. Anyway... you're welcome. =P Ong elvin 09:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Paul Haymon 05:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dúvidas sobre o jogo

O jogo é legal porém a explicação aqui sobre os elementos é muito raza n conseguir tirar um bom aproveito alguem pode me ajudar me explicando cm cada elemento se aplicada principalmente escuridão ele só deixa vc com uma cor escura? 186.249.210.18 (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]