# Talk:Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2

scans can be viewed here: http://s43.photobucket.com/albums/e358/Donava/
unfortunately the release date is TBD. -Husachi
NA release confirmed for Fall 2010 [1] --Yorudan1221 (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hidan and Kakuzu confirmed. --Yorudan1221 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Sage Mode Naruto, Sage Mode Jiraiya, Regular Jiraiya, and Pain (I don't know which ones) confirmed here. --Yorudan1221 (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I should warn you, linking to magazine scans is illegal so I removed the links. Please link to an reliable source instead.DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. This link confirms TS Shikamaru and Asuma as playable [2] --Yorudan1221 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
New Trailer. Kiba is confirmed in it. If you look around 0:46 you can get a glimpse of both Kiba and Akamaru. [3] Yorudan1221 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Where was August 17, 2010 taken from? The source points to the Namco Bandai site, but only to the initial press release. Only release date I can see is September 28, 2010 from both Amazon.com and Gamestop.com. Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back to Fall 2010, some IP was adding random dates. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hokage's Room is the official fansite of the Namco Bandai Naruto games, right? So would an update on their twitter account be credible as news? They listed September 28 as the release date (at least for the US). http://twitter.com/HokagesRoom I'll wait to see if you think it's legit before I update anything, Dragon. Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Fansites are generally not considered RS, and I'd consider a Twitter account even less so unless it's mentioned on the site proper, but if Namco Bandai are running it (or at least authorizing it as 'official') then I'd say it's a legit source of information. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The biggest source of credibility I can give them is that they were the site that had the contest to design the US Storm cover. But as I said, I'll wait until DragonZero looks at it before I do anything. Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find any statement saying Hokage room is the official fansite so any information found from the site can not be used unless its backed up elsewhere. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Release Date for Europe isn't September 28, It's August 17 [4]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.207.194 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 
No, it is not. The EU release date is September 3rd, 2010 as confirmed by GameSpot.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.3.38 (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 

Note: Do not add this to the ratings yet until the actual CERO rating has been confirmed
So, today, I just want to talk about this game's CERO rating.
Well, first of all, It has come to my attention that I think this game doesn't deserve to be rated A (All Ages) like all other Naruto games do, instead, I think that the game deserves to be rated B (12+). Here is one reason why (One for right now):

The game goes much further to the Naruto Shippuden anime, it even covers the episode of Jiraya's death, which is too graphic and bloody in my terms, that Jiraya's death should be a reason for the game's possible B (12+) rating, as in the original episode, Jiraya gets stabbed too many times, even in his throat, blood came out of him, and that episode is considered to be one of the most bloodiest and graphic moments in the Naruto Shippuden anime.
I don't know if this is a good idea, if you have any questions, let me know. --DarkGhostMikel (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be off topic to how to improve the article. We'll just put whatever CERO rates it as. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

GameSpot has Storm 2 listed as a September 28, 2010 release. They don't show sources, but they also don't change the info from "Fall 2010" to "September 28, 2010" for no reason. Here's the link to their data page http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/narutoshippudenultimateninjastorm2/similar.html?mode=versions I already had changed it with the gameFAQs info, but somebody said that site wasn't "reliable" or something like that. Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, gamespot and gamefaq are unreliable. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
At the Shonen Jump panel at the SDCC, they announced the game comes out on October 12, 2010 Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable enough to be on the article, an announcement on a reliable website should suffice soon then. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed today that both gamestop.com and amazon.com have changed their release dates to October 19, 2010. Why, oh why, did they both do this when it was said that it was October 12? Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Vendors, e.g. GameStop and Amazon, are not really reliable sources for release dates.--The Taerkasten (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added the Australian release date, which was confirmed in Namco Bandai's most recent release schedule, published on 25/8/2010. Admeister200x (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC). 
Yet someone deleted it anyway. *sigh* Seriously, you can't get a better source than that. Admeister200x (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The links in the Naruto infobox and this page to the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja page link to a glitched page called Naruto: Ultimate Ninja (series). This should be fixed immediately.

While some of the fighting stages are "destroyed" during boss fights (the Uchiha hideout and the training field are good examples) these scripted events are tied to those particular story fights and (to my knowledge) do not occur during Free Battle or Online Battle modes. Therefore I'll change the wording in the Gameplay paragraph regarding them, unless anyone has any objections in the next day or so. -- Boradis (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Should a page for the new Storm game be created?41.125.120.134 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[5] First thing I see is a "X of Y said Z" format. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections gives some advice on how to vary sentence structure, stack related ideas into a single sentence, and remove unnecessary detail. "X of Y" format makes the reader keep authors and publications in mind when the point should be more what major reviewers said about the work's merit, flaws, successes. Probably won't have time for a full copyedit unless I get sucked in but you can request one at WP:GOCE and feel free to {{ping}} me if I can be useful czar 05:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. But isn't "Many sites complimented the story mode as well as the graphics which might attracts multiple gamers who are not too familiar to the Naruto series.[29][27][31]" how it's supposed to be? I only added IGN and GameSpot then cause they had different opinions about this area of the game.Tintor2 (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Czar:

Thanks for your comments. I made a rushed rewrite about the reception here. Is it better?Tintor2 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2, definitely, but it might have gone too far—many of the statements are broad generalizations that cannot be verified in the source. For example, make sure the language reflects a subset of reviewers rather than the imaginary body of all reviewers. The current Sonic FAC's Reception might give you some ideas. I'd also reduce the passive voice ("arenas were said to be", "strategy was praised", etc.) czar 19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
What Sonic article? The one from 2006?Tintor2 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)/archive3 or another recent FAC—this one was just fresh in mind. By the way, {{ping}} only sends when you include your signature in the same edit. Re: the above sentence, "many" is a kind of value judgment (how many is many?) but "multiple" implies more than one without the same value judgment. "Multiple reviewers praised the game's story [what about it?]" and did all of the cited sources really discuss how the graphics would bring new consumers to the series? I imagine it was a subset, so the refs should reflect who said what and where it can be verified.  czar 04:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be doing this, but I'm a little busy due to real-life activities, so it may take a while for me to finish this review. All I can say though is so far so good: I'm not really seeing many problems with the article. Just a suggestion though: can at least some Japanese reviews be included in the article? You know, from sources like Famitsu and others. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't read Japanese, but a fellow user added Japanese sources to development of the article,
User:Narutolovehinata5.Tintor2 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: What's needed though is Japanese reviews. Unless at least one or two are included in the article, this nomination might end up being a fail. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Done.Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Tintor2: After a request from Tintor2, I've included Famitsu's review, in addition to comments from the reviewers as part of the prose. I also corrected a minor formatting error by Tintor2 when including his original Famitsu score reference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, will make a proper review soon, hopefully later. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
A few typos and missing spaces (and in at least one case, an extra space) here and there. There are also inconsistent tenses throughout. Also, try replacing the word "good" with a more specific synonym whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I've done my best to address the faults, at request from Tintor2 as he isn't a native English speaker. If I've missed anything or created more problems, please tell me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
See comment below. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just fix the minor issues in the article and this will pass. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Tintor2: @ProtoDrake: The following sentence does not have a citation: "Clearing the story mode unlocks an additional "fragment" chapter detailing Sasuke's team's failed capture of Killer Bee, following their alliance with Akatsuki." This is the last issue that needs to be addressed before the nomination passes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Added a reference.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm happy to now say that this is a pass. Congratulations. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)