# Talk:The King of Fighters 2000

This review is transcluded from Talk:The King of Fighters 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get this reviewed. If I'm not back with at least some comments by this time next week, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)


### Review: First Pass
It's in the name. This is a first pass over the article, catching things that look off or odd.

Lead
The opening sentence can be rephrased, since it's a game that released in 2000. You can rephrase it as "[insert title here] is a 2000 fighting game/fighting video game developed and published by SNK." At the moment, especially with an unneeded reference there, it reads a little clunky.
"The game's story, a sequel to The King of Fighters '99 and the second part of the "NESTS Chronicles" story arc, focuses on a new tournament held by the commander of the Hikari Warriors Team, Heidern, who seeks to capture and interrogate former NESTS agents K' and Maxima into revealing crucial and critical information about the NESTS cartel." -- This is very run-on. Split it up or condense it, especially as the repetition of "crucial" and "critical" seems redundant despite attractive elliteration.
"Gameplay retains the Striker system of the previous games in the series involving assisting characters but it was modified to generate more combos." -- You could split this with a comma to be more readable.
"The biggest desire of the game " -- I know it's not the intended meaning, but this reads like the game developed sentience and demanded changes.
Do we need specific character links here? Seems like padding.
"this divided consensus about its status as one of the best games of the series as they believed previous installments were more appealing." -- Who are "they" in this context? The previous paragraph has bounced a little between journalists and developers.
Gameplay
No genre is mentioned, despite the lead saying it loud and proud. Also no indication of what basic gameplay is like. Is it QTEs, combo-based, directional inputs? There is an implication in the lead that isn't followed up. I think the gameplay section as a whole is lacking.
I take it "Striker Match" means some kind of assist? Isn't fully clear in its first mention.
Some of the stuff about the Striker system feels like it's both over-explaining and under-explaining.
Plot
"NESTS agent Kula Diamond might appear as enemy" -- "an enemy"
Section as a whole seems okay, but feels a little clunky.
Development
Any specific verifiable reason for Nishiyama's absence, or just generic absence?
Inconsistent character links: K' is mentioned a while before, but only linked here.
The very long opening paragraph could be condensed in places. At the moment it doesn't read much like production information, and a lot like promotional fluff. Also consistency issues of using either past or present tense, and inconsistent capitalisation of the Striker System.
"One of the game's developers said the team originally wanted to use more of the characters from The King of Fighters '99, but could not due to licensing issues.[11]" -- This could be phrased as "The team wanted to use more of the characters from The King of Fighters '99, but could not due to licensing issues.[11]" Just a suggestion.
"During development, SNK went bankrupt, leading to the game's designers leaving multiple glitches, extra animations, and balancing issues.[3]" -- Left on purpose? Left due to staff losses? Unclear.
"Since some people left the company, it ended havinmg a small development team.[11]" -- "having".
"SNK, however, was disappointed with Zero, leading to the creation of stronger new character" -- Do you mean "a stronger new character"?
References
General thing, but best make sure all references are archived.
Ref 2 needs properly filling out. At the moment, the citation's very barebones.
First pass completed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I tried fixing every issue and use citation bot. I tried reorganizing the development section into different paragraphs including the poor state of the staff in 2000, the objectives, and the characters. I also expanded the gameplay just like that time you reviewed a Mega Man X and I expanded the gameplay like you told back then. I hope it's better. Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)


### Review: Second Pass
Just some general stuff I noticed.

General
Not essential, but does Y. Inui have a full name?
It's weird for some game designer to reveal their full names. Some from Capcom and SNK tend use alias like Shinkiro and Falcoon until they eventually became famous and revealed their names
"After defeating Zero, he attempts but fails to use the cannon again while Heidern swiftly and forcibly removes the clone Ling's remote control of the cannon while dispatching him in the process." -- Is Zero the one using the cannon? This sentence is rather confusing to me.
Revised
Reception
Still some double linking issues.
Linked some parts
GameSpot score should be consistent with the others, formatted as "7/10".
Done.
Since there are authors listed, using them in the prose seems appropriate, especially as personal pronouns are used such as with "Nintendo Life said that he enjoyed the addition".
Revised
References
Is Ref 27 reliable? I don't recognise the website.
I recall a different occasion where Ref 28, Pure Nintendo, was deemed unreliable.
Refs 1 and 29 still need filling out properly since they're magazines, and Ref 38 needs archiving.
Where possible, the publishers/websites should be linked in the references. At the moment it's very inconsistent.
That's what stood out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed unreliable sources and added the owner of the magazines and websites.Tintor2 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


### Review: Third pass
Sorry to be picky, but you haven't addressed the double-linking of characters or the archiving of Ref 38. Also, more that stood out.

I don't think PlayStation Network counts as a platform. It's just the PlayStation platform's Steam analogue.
"due to the personal issues" -- You can drop the "the". It just seems to artificially lengthen the sentence.
Is there any citation for the composers?
Maybe a nitpick, but I think you can combine the Release information (currently paragraph 4 of Development and Release) and the final paragraph of Reception into a release section. I don't see how additional media contributes to critical reception.
Ref 9, it's Entertainment not Entertaiment.
Ref 23: Just a bit of a continuity nitpick, but Gamurs didn't own Siliconera at this time. I believe it was owned by Enthusiast Gaming at the time.
Ref 35 doesn't need to be ALLCAPS.
@Tintor2: Hopefully these will be addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Revised all that but I don't understand what parts are doublelinked. I thought the MOS said that linking should be only done in the lead and only once in the body but I'm confused here. Tintor2 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
@Tintor2: The latest edits fixed the double-link issues. Can't see anything else worth mentioning. Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)