Talk:.hack//G.U.

message: Is there a release date for Europe confirmed?
:Not yet.
The second anyone gets info, tell us. Thanks. user:EEVEE103  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.173.132 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date for EU

message: I'd like to see this article cleaned up and talk more about the games themselves rather than act as a list of spoilers for the story. For this, I wish to make the following proposals:
- Create a seperate article for .Hack//GU characters. The list seems extensive enough to warrent its own article while expanding on minor characters. I suggest making a small list of essential characters (without spoilers) and link to the seperate character article that contains spoilers. This includes bosses.
- The revamp with a story synopsis section. Try to compress all the spoilers of the article into this one section.
- Expand on gameplay and features the game offers. For example, describe what the game's combat system is like, what the gameplay consists of, and mention the extra features such as the game's community boards and mini games. Also mention what new features are available in each game.
- Development section, if any information is available of the game's development cycle.
- Reception section of each game that gives a summary of what critics said about the games. Remember to be objective and only cite the opinions of those critics, not giving your own.
- Look at articles of other games and try to match their standards and quality.
one person doesn't have to do all this. It would be nice if someone just created the basic structure of all this and the rest follow through to add more details. 137.155.128.28 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did what I could. At lest it looks a lot better than before. Kazu-kun 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cleanup 

message: It is really necessary to include the major bosses in the game? It just seems like pointless spoiler information to me. 70.186.213.167 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Bosses really that necessary? 

message: There are a few things i'd like to discuss about the information about the artical.
1. i believe the importent bosses section does not hold any relevent information towards the artical. listing what the final bosses are in each of the games is well... just kinda stupid and full of spoilers.
2. the issue regarding what classes the Azure knights are is a bit of a strange subject. in game their job class are listed as "???" yet its painfully obvious what job class they really are. take Kite for example. he uses all the skills a Twin blade has, as well as the same weapons and armor a twin blade uses. it is my theory that their class information is listed as "???" because of their corrupted status and the fact that aura created them diffrently then a normal player would creat a PC, therefor making them unreconizable to "the worlds" system.
lastly, i believe the Characters section of the artical needs to be cleaned up. for starters Cubia isin't really a character and despite being the final boss of the series, actually playes a somewhat minor role in the story as he only appears at the very end of Volume 3 where as AIDA is the actual main cause of problems throughout most of the series. 
it also might be a good idea to split the Characters section into 'major' and 'minor' Characters. for example. Hiiragi, Sophora, Asta, IYOTEN Grein etc etc. play a very minor role in the whole series, take Asta and IYOTEN, they teach Haseo how to play when he first starts, then PKs him and their never heard from again untill sometime in volume 3 where even then they have a very minor role.
I hope you guys find these suggestions helpful  Zombongo 03:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Issues i would like to address about the artical. 

message: Should we discuss how this series is worst than the others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.77.8 (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats your opinion, adding it will only get reverted though. Zombongo 05:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst game? 

message: There's nothing on Wikipedia at all that mentions Trilogy, the film based on the G.U. line of games.  This should probably be added.  67.212.63.252 (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trilogy

message: Please update this article with developer/publisher information. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dev/pub 

message: I've been thinking about turning this article into ".hack//G.U vol.1 Rebirth". the article is way too long to cover 3 games, and it would be much easier to cover just one.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this to .hack//G.U Vol.1 Rebirth? 

message: With these edits (1 2)  removed a reference I had added earlier. I hope more users give me so little cause to complain when they remove references. That said I still think this reference may be of use so I am leaving it here.
*Gifford, Kevin. ".hack//G.U. Volume 1: Rebirth". Newtype USA. 5 (11) p. 132. November 2006. .
Happy editing. – allen四names 15:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it seemed to only be a citation for the translation of the 1st game's name, which generally doesn't need a citation. If you own the magazine and it has information that might be valuable to the article, please share it. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to find out how the "Email this user" works so you may get the image I scanned in your email before you see my reply. – allen四names 19:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I approve.  In my opinion, references should always be in with the text for easy access.  When you put it at the bottom, you can't use section edit to change them without making two edits. Also no problem with the formatting change, that looked like a good move.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you go through the trouble of scanning the pages, what exactly is on it that might be useful? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already scanned the review of the PlayStation 2 game by Kevin Gifford. All I need is an email address to send it to. – allen四names 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's all well and good, but is there anything worth noting in it? Does it provide any new insight not already covered by existing web sources? The same goes for the other Newtype magazine source. A scan of that would probably be more inherently useful since it covers the manga, which has less online info. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be simple. I send an email with the scans attached so you can read the articles to see what if anything you may wish to use. You seem to want a report before you will even consider reading them. I suggest you seek help at WT:Anime. – allen四names 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering. Replied. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Sources for later. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Tintor2 has contested the page move of this series article to the name of the first game/episode. Please discuss the move and/or split effort before proceeding. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As info I've reverted the page moves and splits as Tintor2 contested it. Proper split discussion needed from Iftekharahmed96. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

text: I would agree a split if each episode had enough content like Persona 2. However, .hack//G.U. doesn't have that and it should follow the examples of the GA .hack (video game series) and Digital Devil Saga. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

text: A better series where separating the episodes into separate articles would be the Xenosaga series, where there was significant gameplay differences and development for each. For .hack//G.U., the gameplay is essentially the same across all three titles, and there's very little that can be said about development unique to any one specific episode. These three games, while separate releases and will have different reception sections, do not need separate articles. (Consider this a much earlier version of current Telltale adventure games like The Walking Dead - each episode does get its own score, but we treat the series as one work overall). --MASEM (t) 23:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I evaluated the article for .hack//G.U. and found that a lot of its information can be segregated into the specific volumes (such as story, review and soundtrack) hence the article split. However, if the majority of users in this discussion agree that it's preferable for all the .hack//G.U. games to be under one article (outside of .hack//G.U. Last Recode, as this will be a remaster/remake with enough new information to warrant the separate article) then that's no problem for me. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with that but first I suggest expanding the main article until we can split it in subarticles. I mean, just look at how small is the development section. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I have an alternate consideration, should we make the .hack//G.U. page a series page as opposed to a video game page? .hack//G.U. has enough media and content to warrant it? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is, read the start: ".hack//G.U. is a series of single-player action role-playing games" :) -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested move/split