# Talk:Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon

could someone add in a plot for this? i'm not really good at writing plots. but this is the general breakdown of the main story:
Zangetsu is in search for the demons who gave him the moon curse. One night under a full moon, he felt the presence of a great demon and swore to kill all demons he could possibly find. During his search he encounters Miriam, Alfred, and Gebel. He initially has reservations of them due to using demon power but ultimately allies with them for their goals aligning with his. Eventually they reach a castle and encounter the archdemon, Gremory. Zangetsu, Miriam, Alfred, and Gebel manage to defeat the archdemon but as a last ditch effort, transforms into an orb of darkness and lunges toward the four in their weaken state. Zangetsu sacrifices himself by absorbing the orb of darkness and becoming the new dark emperor. 
Miriam, Alfred, and Gebel manage to escape the castle, but can't forget about Zangetsu who was left behind and decided to go back and rescue him. The venture back to the castle and reach Evil Zangetsu. the three kill evil zangetsu and free his soul. Post-credit ending scene shows Zangetsu in the afterlife which resembles Megaman 2's beginning.
there are also alternate endings: if Zangetsu kills all 3 allies, he will become the new dark emperor and continue to suffer. if he ignores all three allies, in the last battle the three will sacrifice themselves instead and zangetsu survives. there are two other endings i haven't unlocked yet.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but how will we find sources for this information? Will we just cite the game itself, which would leave out much of its plot except for the beginning and end? Geolodus (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought we didn't need sources for plot. if we need sources, there is a prologue narration and epilogue narrations of all the endings.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
We don't need sources for plot (MOS:PLOTSOURCE). I have not played the game, so feel free to add a plot summary. However, if the plot is very simple, it should be summed up and included in the gameplay section. (See WP:VGORDER) If there are more details, then it can be spun off into its own section, but I can't imagine the plot for this game needs more than a paragraph. TarkusABtalk 18:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't unlocked all the endings yet. so once I do, i'll try to cook up a plot.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected. --Geolodus (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I just put the description of the plot I gave here with a little bit of editing. Someone should rewrite it though, I'm not good with plot/story. I only put two alternate endings out of the four. I'll have to youtube the others and how they're unlocked.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 14:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


### 1. Is it well-written?
All in all, a well-written article. A few small suggesstions though:

is a platform game developed and published by Inti Creates and released in 2018 --> could be changed to 2018 platform game to avoid using "and" twice
Done
retro-style --> retro-style
Done
felt is used twice in close succession in the last paragraph of the lead
Done
no need for the quotation marks on knockback
Done
In plot, Zangetsu could be replaced with he etc., he is called by his name really often
Done
wouldn't use "ambitious" for the main game, rahter something like bigger or more complex. It reads like CotM was made with little ambition...
Done
...was developed to fulfill this promise. It was developed by... --> could be rephrased
Done
Critics felt Curse of the Moon was a great tribute to Castlevania games on the NES and that players who enjoyed those games would find Curse of the Moon appealing --> better: find it/the game appealing
Done


### 2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
Yes. Everything is sourced, all sources are reliable.


### 3. Is it broad in its coverage?
As such, the article covers everything necessary, when the companion game releases, some additional work may be needed, maybe in an own section. But that will become a question in half a year at the earliest.
What I miss in the article is more information on sales. Is it possible to get a hold of precise sales figures (year-end sales etc.)? Also, the game is on XBox Gold this month, can you get actual download figures afterwards? Also, I would suggest moving this section into the reception section as "Sales", as this is more in line with most bigger game articles. Lastly, did it receive any awards? I'm not that savvy on indie/retro games tbh...

I can't find where Xbox announces their Games with Gold download figures. I don't think they release it. As far as sales figures or awards, I tried looking for more but did not find any. We are lucky to have any here tbh as companies don't always release those figures. Moved section to reception.


### 4. Is it neutral?
Yes.


### 5. Is it stable?
As such, yes. However, as it is a companion game, some additional work may become necessary in the future, when it becomes clear how the two games tie into one another. The downloads of XBox Gold should be adressed if possible.


### 6. Is it illustrated?
Yes, sufficiently.


### Conclusion
All in all, a good piece of work. It would qualify for an immediate pass but I would like to wait to hear back on sales figures and whether you can get your hands on download figures on XBox gold in the future.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions; I have tweaked the article after them. There wasn't much information I could find on sales or awards though. --Geolodus (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@DasallmächtigeJ: All points addressed. TarkusABtalk 11:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I will update the article's status now.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is Iga's picture on this? He had very little role in this game. Basically he told Inti-Creates to make it based on the designs and story outline of Ritual of the Night, and they sorta just made it. If anyone's picture should be on here, it should be the dev team from Inti-Creates, or director Hiroki Miyazawa. Iga's role in this game is too tangential to warrant a picture. It can give a casual reader the view that Iga was more involved than he really was.  Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You can remove it. I added it because I thought it was better than nothing. There are not free images of the other developers. TarkusABtalk 10:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no MOS guideline on where to put Sales info. I've seen it work well under both Reception and Release. The sales info on this page was originally under Release but moved to Reception as part of the GA review. Personally, I agree with Harizotoh that it fits better under Release becuase that section gives some context surrounding which consoles it's on and some users getting it for free. What do other people think? TarkusABtalk 10:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed in my short time here that only Wikipedia puts sales in release sections, and it never made sense. We should do what makes the most sense, and in my humble opinion, it never made sense to put sales information in release sectionsBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@TarkusAB:, why exactly did you remove that content? I understand all your other removals of my additions, but the guideline you linked to here (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Reception; I read the entire section) doesn't seem to support your reason for reverting (which sounds somewhat nonsensical to me anyway, to be honest) much, if at all. Finally, nearly all articles about video games with Metacritic scores list all of said scores across different platforms (Call of Duty: Ghosts#Reception is a good example), so why not this one? Thank you. Geolodus (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Geolodus: In the second to last bullet in the subsection I linked, it reads: "do not include aggregate scores when there are fewer than four reliable outlets used in the aggregate, which dilutes the statistic." The aggregate scores you added had fewer than four RSs contributing to them. The idea is that in those cases, the aggregate scores are not reflective of RS critical reception. What about that sounds nonsensical? TarkusABtalk 18:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Sorry. Geolodus (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NF Magazine [Issue #34 – July/August 2018, p. 18], 90/100
GamesTM 08/10/18 7 out of 10
MC and GR lists a few extra reviews. GamesTM seems good if someone can track that down. NF Magazine I'm not familliar with. I'm pretty sure Famitsu would have reviewed at least one version of the game at some point, but nothing's listed on the site. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)