# Talk:P.N.03

A gamecube game, P.N.03, or Product Number 03, sets the player as Venessa Schnieder, in the distant future. After C.A.M.S goes down (the main computer network on Mars), Venessa is sent in to clean up the mess. You only have one weapon, your suit, which is equipped wit ha hand shot, and a list of combo moves. Your main goal in each level is to get to a certain area, and/or destroy a certain objective. However, destroying enemies faster, without being hit, yields a higher combat point bonus, which is used to buy things like continues, or different suits. As you progress through the game, levels get longer, enemies get stronger, and your skills get better. The game has a pretty good future/techno soundtrack, and with all the bonus missions, it might take a while to complete.

Poor lead, should be 2 - 3 paragraphs
WP:LEAD States only 1-2 paragraphs are needed for short articles.
No fair use rationale
>< Forgot.
"Gameplay" and "Critical reponse" are a little low on the ground
P.N.03 is a pretty simple game, everything that needs to be covered is covered. Critical reaction is small because it was considered a pretty average game. If it was notable for being critical acclaimed or majorly panned, then it might need to be expanded, but as it is it doesn't benefit much from additional comments. Plus, WP:WIAGA only states such topics need to be covered, specifically stating that they do not have to be comprehensive.
No reference to strategy guide
A strategy guide was not used in reference. Neither was the manual (as it is pathetic). Very few video game articles have been citing strategy guides as sources, the Pokemon articles are the exception.
Low external links
Not a criteria for GA or FA at all. Plus, there aren't really any suitable links to put.
Keep trying, send me a message if you need me to explain anything, Highway Batman! 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of your comments aren't really applicable for failing the article. However, I will add rationales and try to add a bit more content, but I an unable to atm so I'll try to get around to it later.--SeizureDog 20:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

--Charlesr 09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note I'm biased here because it's a review on my website. I've not seen any other review out there that actually seems to understand how to play the game. All the others seem to be approaching it as a 3rd person action title like Bloodrayne, whereas it's much more akin to a 2D trad shooter (shmup). And they all think it's a memory test and learning the time between enemy fire, but all you need to do is listen to the audio cues and suddenly it makes sense. Just wait for the cue and jump out of they way. Even the insertcredit review misses this point completely. I've added a brief bit of text to the gameplay section to mention this and since it's an average game on gamestats etc, a fan's viewpoint (in the reaction section) to balance out the critic's notions. Anyway, the review link is: [1]

The game can be completed in under 2 hours on hard mode, whereupon you get ranked and scored on your entire game's performance. Like a shmup, it's supposed to be brief so you play again and better your rank. Again, all most of the reviews do is talk about how short it is, with no mention of ranking. (discussed properly in the review link above). The aim isn't to finish (like normal action shooters like bloodrayne) - it's to finish with high scores.
--Charlesr 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Ok, no reply yet so I'm adding it. Remove if you need to.

I found four magazine reviews, which I've indexed in the online print archive. These should come in handy when we write the Reception section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Also found X-Play's review ([2]) and GamePro's review ([3]). I'll send out requests for scans of the Edge and Nintendo Power reviews tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Should get the Edge scans here soon. Might have to do some digging before I can get that NP review. I'll handle the Reception section. Do we have enough material for the Development section, or should I try digging through Internet Archive for more sources? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Your call. Development looks a bit sketchy right now. There's probably enough from the online sources I found for a good section though. I don't plan on taking this article past GA, but if you'd like to dig up more, go for it. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC))
Looks like we've already got a fair amount of information, anyway. I did find this, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate it. There's more out there than I thought. I'm probably going to delete the last two paragraphs as I don't think the Morbid Creations website would pass as a reliable source. So I'll see if I can find sources to replace it. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC))
Jimmy, where did the 7/10 from Edge come from? I don't think Edge ever went back to those games and revealed a numerical score for them, and Metacritic just assigned all games from that issue a 7/10 so that that they could assign some form of score to them, which could make the 7/10 not a true score. - X201 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea. I was just going by Metacritic's score, but I guess I'll take it down and wait for the scans. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahem! - X201 (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks to X201, a whole lot of confusion (which I caused) has been cleared up, and I now have photos of the review. Time to get to work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry this is taking me so long. I've got a bunch of stuff going on, so I've got to work slowly and steadily on this. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I'm still working on the finishing up Maniac Mansion. :-p Real-life trumps wiki-life. The article gets done when it gets done.
How should we tackle the rest of the article? Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 04:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC))
Apologizing again for the molasses-esque pace. I'm really, really busy with other stuff. I have no intention of abandoning this project, though. As for how to approach the rest: I think I can handle the lead, and I might be able to do the Gameplay section. As I've never played the game, I can't help with the Plot section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I'm busy myself. :-p I can help with the gameplay and plot sections. Let's see if Axem can help too.
I think we should replace the gameplay image with something that highlights the acrobatics or dancing. I haven't read the reviews so I'm not sure how much commentary there is about it. At the very least, File:PN3-9.jpg should be reduced and probably renamed. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC))
Sorry for my absence these past few days. I've been busy with interviews, the advantage of which is that they'll all end suddenly in mid-October. Until then, though, I probably won't be able to help much beyond copyediting. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. The article gets done when it gets done. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC))
FYI- IGN has a guide for P.N.03 that should be useful for the gameplay section. I'm reading it now to see if the plot is explained. If not, we can summarize the basics of the story and integrate it into gameplay. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC))
For what it's worth, I'm watching a YouTube Let's Play of PN03. I'll contribute to the story section with that. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well that was a waste of time. There IS no story -_-. Anyway, here are the three relevant "story" sections to use for script citations [4] [5] [6]. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I got the same feeling from reading the IGN guide, but chalked it up to the guide being focused on the gameplay. :-p I'm really starting to feel bad for this poor little game. At least that means we don't need a "Plot" section. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
Yeah, I'll take a stab at merging it with the gameplay section. Also, wow look at the size of that dev section. I'm jealous. How come I couldn't get killer7's dev section that long? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Any comments on the Reception section thus far? Should I continue to expand it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's looking good. Maybe add a bit more (like the GameSpot or IGN review) just for good measure. On closer inspection, some of the old content looks questionable.
Ref 31 (Shrine of Data Sales Database) for the sales data
Ref 35 (Morbid Creations) for Mikami's dissatisfaction
We should see if we can find something about sales. I'm sure finding a citation for the "commercial failure" part won't be hard. I don't recall finding anything to support Mikami's dissatisfaction.
Outside the lead, the images, and the two citations above, the article should do well at GAN. I'll start a discussion about the images below. Nice job guys. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC))
Okay, I'll keep expanding. Don't think any other sales figures exist, but Capcom Five got away with including that ref, so we should be fine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
[7] Interview w/Mikami. He said he developed P.N.03 in the six month gap from Viewtiful Joe's delay, which he calls a terrible reason to make a game. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I also found the original source for some info that has been removed due to "questionable sources": it's the Capcom developer blog on P.N.03's official site (source)! It talks a bit about the codename "Jaguar" and Mikami's disappointment, wanting to "put a lot more time into it". It's accessed by clicking "Column" from the main webpage. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, excellent find. FA doesn't seem out of the question like I once thought. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
I added back the previous content, but another pair of eyes would be helpful since it was originally a Japanese source. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC))


### Images
I think we can find a better picture for the gameplay, maybe something that highlights the dance-like moves or the shooting (which was apparently criticized a lot). THe IGN had some good images without watermarks. It'll be easier to write a good FUR with more informative picture.
Also, any thoughts about keeping the pre-release image? (Guyinblack25 talk 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC))

I like the pre-release image. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the current gameplay image. If we're going to keep it, I'll work on the FUR. If not, I'll wait until we pick a new one. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
I saw these in the IGN guide.
http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/495499/images/pn03_pegasus.jpg
http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/495499/images/pn03_10_03.jpg
Are these any better, or should we stick with what we have? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
My ideal image would include a clear targeting reticle, a non-zero score, both health and energy bars partially full, and the combo timer running. I don't know if an unmarked image like that exists. I don't know if "dance-like" moves can be conveyed in any meaningful way with a still image. That said, the second image you listed is pretty good, though a bit small and blurry. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find much. The only thing I could think of to show the dance-like moves was a screenshot with Vanessa in one of her unique poses. But I didn't see something that included a lot of other elements. I guess I'll just work on the FUR of the current image. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC))


### Capcom Five topic
Hmmm... Resident Evil 4 appears to have failed its GAN, meaning that the topic will not be completed when this article reaches GA. Thought this should be discussed.
In other news, I should be finished with the Reception section very soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well nut bunnies.
It doesn't impact our work on this article, so the question is whether we'll help get RE4 to GA or not. I guess let's see if User:SCB '92 plans to continue pushing for GA. I know we all have other projects on our plate and our own lives outside Wikipedia. So I say we play it by for now. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC))
Okay then. In any case, I've completed the Reception section. Sorry I wasn't able to do more work on the article, but I hope my contribution was a help. Go ahead and nominate it for GAN when you have time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy- the help was most appreciated. Doing an article solo always takes longer and rarely turns out better than a group effort. I'll try to put it up for GAN sometime this week.
Axem- do you think you'll be able to help out with any issues that pop up at GAN? (Guyinblack25 talk 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC))
Sure, of course. I'll try do a once-over on the whole article soon as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:P.N.03/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hammerbrodude (talk · contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it should be clear why I'm here tonight. A request to promote P.N.03 was made a couple days ago, and I've opted to personally review this article.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Introduction seems fine. I'll do the rest momentarily.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All issues remedied as of 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
I really like the level of detail in the development and reception sections; the article definitely exceeds the GA guidelines for completeness.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No obvious issues regarding neutrality.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
I see no reason to believe this article is not stable at this time.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
All issues remedied as of 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

...I intended to do a bit more work tonight, but I'm going to have to temporarily pause the review as I seem to be falling asleep, and it sure would be a shame if I accidentally passed everything in this delirium. Perhaps take a moment to address the excruciatingly tiny issues mentioned below? I'll return to this tomorrow, as soon as I get a chance. Hammerbrodude (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


### Quirks
#### 1: Well-Written
1a: "The player controls Vanessa via a third-person perspective and uses a green reticle to target enemies. Capcom aimed to portray a white delicate game world in contrast to its previous games. Shown is Vanessa using the Harrier energy drive against the targeted enemy."
This sentence is a little odd. Rephrase it slightly, perhaps:

"In P.N.03, Capcom aimed to create a white, delicate game world to contrast its other works. The player controls Vanessa from a third-person perspective, and uses a green reticule to target enemies. Shown here is Vanessa, using the Harrier energy drive against a targeted enemy."
Updated. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
What are "energy drives", exactly? The powerful attacks listed in the next sentence? A game term for the energy beams in the previous sentence? This could use a bit of clarification. Likewise, what are "trial missions"?
"Defeated enemies may drop items that replenish barrier and energy and trigger a combo timer that multiplies point earnings as enemies are destroyed consecutively."
Reword this sentence, and perhaps throw a couple internal links into it. It's a little confusing.

"Vanessa encounters a digital projection of the client who also looks identical to her."
This (part of a) sentence just sounds a bit odd when read aloud. I'm probably sounding increasingly petty, but perhaps exchange it for something to the effect of:
"Vanessa encounters a digital projection of the client, who appears identical to herself."

Possibly wikify the following: "intellectual property", "acrobatics", "shoot-em-up, "staccato"
"Hiroyuki Kobayashi summarized the development"
Of what? The Capcom Five, or P.N.03?
These are the last couple issues, and I'm prepared to pass the article as soon as they're addressed.

I believe the above list has been addressed. I didn't wikilink acrobatics though, because I believe that it is a common enough term that it is unneeded and would be overlinking.
I didn't find them petty at all, and think the article is more clear now (the primary contributors to the article's current form have never played the game before, so we're glad to have the feedback). Let us know if there are any other issues. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC))
I haven't played the game either, but after reading the article, I am more than satisfied with my knowledge of the game at this point. It's been a pleasure reviewing this article, and I thank you and all of those who improved this article for their contributions to Wikipedia. Article 1 passed; Good Article Judgment: Pass.


#### 2: Citation
2b: One archived link does not seem to work; the one for Biglobe. May be a decent idea to find some other means of sourcing this.

I did not find a substitute source in my research. Do you recommend removal? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
I suppose if no other sources exist, there's not much else that can be done. Article 2 passed. Hammerbrodude (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC))


#### 6: Illustration
6a: It may be a good idea to reduce the size of "PN03gun.jpg" somewhat.

I tagged it with {{Non-free reduce}} a week ago and am waiting for DASHBOT or some other image bot to make its rounds. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Alright, figuring it will eventually happen automatically: Article 6 passed. Hammerbrodude (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


#### Judgment
This article has passed review against the Good Article criteria, and I'll list it momentarily. Hammerbrodude (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on P.N.03. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405172458/http://www.capcom.co.jp/pn03/pn03_cl/pn_cl02.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/pn03/pn03_cl/pn_cl02.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405172222/http://www.capcom.co.jp/pn03/pn03_cl/pn_cl01.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/pn03/pn03_cl/pn_cl01.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405200607/http://www.capcom.co.jp/pn03/pn03_cl/pn_cl03.html to http://www.capcom.co.jp/pn03/pn03_cl/pn_cl03.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829111910/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/interview-shinji-mikami to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/interview-shinji-mikami
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/gamings-biggest-flip-flops
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101023155948/http://www.next-gen.biz/features/time-extend-pn03 to http://www.next-gen.biz/features/time-extend-pn03
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)