Talk:Ring of Red

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:VG assessment[edit]

I'm afraid I'm going to keep this article at C-class for now. I'll outline the main reasons below:

  • Too much of this article is gameguide material. Too much of the article is effectively a how-to guide of the game, which goes into too much detail for an encyclopedia article. An encyclopedia article needs to give an overview of its subject such that someone unfamiliar with the subject can understand it. A basic overview of the main gameplay mechanics is helpful: the differences between short/medium/long range, the different types of AFW and a list describing the pros and cons of each infantry unit do not help accomplish this goal.
  • The plot summary gives background information on the setting, but it doesn't describe the actual plot summary. What happens in the game's story? Does the game start fighting off Japanese reinforcements and finish the same way? Or does the player make progress through the various campaigns (if so, what are they) and eventually bring the AFW to safety and win the war?
  • Reception section is little more than a summary of various reviews and their scores. Try restructuring this section to answer the questions: what did critics like about the game? What didn't they like about the game?
  • No development history - when was the game announced? How long did it take to develop? Were there any delays or major issues?
  • Lead section needs expansion. The lead needs to summarise the contents of the entire article in 3/4 paragraphs - see WP:LS.
  • The screenshots are good, but I think the fair use rationales need expansion - see WP:FURG.

The current level of sourcing is probably adequate for B-class. This article definitely has promise and it's going in the right direction. If you sort out any three of the four first points mentioned, then this article will probably be B-class. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is wrong, US still dropped the bomb[edit]

The plot that Wikipedia states is inconsistent with the game. The article states the USA didn't drop the bomb, but in the game's Kujukuri mission within the DMZ, one of the characters (I can't remember who) mentions Kujukuri as one of the cities that was nuked by the bomb (not sure if it was the third city after Hiroshima and Nagaski, or was bombed instead of one of the two). Now I did a lit research of my own, and I concluded that being the main landing site for the USA in the Kanto region it's highly unlikely that Kujukuri would have been nuked as the game states, in which case it could be a misprint (one of the cities on the list of potensal targets for the bomb, and would have been bombed instead of Nagasaki had it not had bad weather on that faithful day, was Kukora, which spelling is close to Kujukuri). Never the less, the game does mention the use of the bomb, and wikipedia should correct this mistake.--184.77.10.72 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake made about plot in game mags[edit]

"A very common misconception of the game as mistakenly stated by game magazines is that in the Japanese version of the game, the player plays the side of the communist north against the democratic south."

This might sound off, but I do remember reading about this in Game Pro magazine back in the day. I don't know if their is a online scoure for there review on the game still or not, but once I or another person finds it, I will post the reference. For now you can erase my edit or leave it be, but it is the case that Game Pro (and maybe others) made this mistake with the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.121.90 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ring of Red. 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:

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) 01:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ring_of_Red&oldid=1210055969"