Talk:Drake of the 99 Dragons

Suckage
This game SUCKS. It is highly notable for being one of the WORST GAMES EVER MADE. Every single reviewer of major game magazine publications said that they hated it. It is the worst game for XBOX. I wrote an addition to this article covering this unique feature of this game, and it was DELETED, likely by some XBOX fanboy or someone that worked on the game. I think that in order for Wikipedia to be a successful encyclopedia, people have to stop living in denial and pay attention to the facts.66.41.212.243 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article acknowledges that the game got poor reviews. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy that dictates we write things with a neutral point of view. We can't outright say it sucks, but we can state in the article that everyone who reviewed it hates the game. --Optichan 18:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm in opposite. I played this game (PC version) and I say that it is good (if it costs 5$ like in Poland ;)). Anyway, Like above Optichan mentioned, Wikipedia has NPOV accuracy that tells us to not writing "this sucks", or "this rulez". Ho&#322;ek &#1161; 13:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

GameSpot user reviews
I don't think the little bit at the end about the GameSpot user reviews is necessary. They're USER reviews which can be written by anyone, so they're not even professional. If anyone disagrees speak up now.--CountCrazy007 16:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, because they truly are just Some People.One Star Bandit 05:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Professional" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.138.223 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Other Versions?
Why is there no mention of the PC version of this game? Surely if the main problems are with the controls then a PC based article would show it in a different light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.152.117.36 (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

In the Infobox, the "Platform(s)" field includes "PC". I think that the "Platform(s)" field should specify a value or values from the " Supported platforms" section of the Vgclegend template. For example, if Drake of the 99 Dragons only runs on MS-DOS, then Drake of the 99 Dragons's Infobox should specify "DOS" in the "Platform(s)" field. ProResearcher (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My add is GONE
I added a bit saying something like "Do note however, that xplay is a semi parody show, though they usually keep thier reviews serious, they may have overdone thier insults to the game" but I don't see it.

You're totally right. I don't see why that was removed. Someone should undo this travesty of justice.--65.33.59.183 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Drake of the 99 Dragons. 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/20070121180517/http://www.gamespot.com:80/xbox/action/drake/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/drake/review.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Get the PC/Windows Version
theres a patch at http://www.theisozone.com/downloads/pc/windows-games/drake-of-the-99-dragons/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.204.17 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed content regarding playtesting
While I understand that the Bad Game Hall of Fame interview is indeed self-published and would be inappropriate to include in any other context, shouldn't it be included anyway per WP:ABOUTSELF? The guideline does say that


 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources

Going through these one by one: I can't see how the material is self-serving, it doesn't seem to me that any particularly unbelievable claims are being made, Majesco Entertainment is no longer in active business as a publisher of video games so I don't really see any third parties that could potentially suffer damage (if there were, they came to irrelevance around a decade ago), the only claims that Bado makes are those relating to his own experience and perspective as a playtester of the game, which is part of the development cycle, if but a minor one, and I was careful to ensure that the edits made no claims that Bado knew anything about why or how IdolFX took the QA team's bug reports and suggestions, simply that they happened and were ignored. The article is also most certainly not based primarily on these sources, as it also includes plenty of sources covering the negative reception (which is the primary subject of the article).

Further, I'd argue that since this is a fairly niche topic which is unlikely to receive any other coverage, this is really the best source we are ever likely to get? It is indeed unsubstantiated by any other sources, but it is nonetheless a direct account from someone who did work on the game (Bado has a a LinkedIn profile, which says he did indeed work at Majesco from 2003 to 2005 as a tester), and I was very careful with it to ensure that I did not claim that anything Bado said was out-and-out the truth, but simply that this was what he reported, and that was what he was told.

I'd further also note that the interview source is not being used to demonstrate the subject's notability here, it is only being used as the best available source to give any perspective on the game's development, which is proven to be of interest by the notable negative reception. And if the negative reception isn't notable, and the game's development is of no interest at all since it has received no coverage other than this one independent blogger who interviewed the only person who's ever talked about the game, maybe the game is simply not notable and the article should be deleted! Hell, if that's the case, I'll gladly nominate it myself. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 01:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)