Talk:Ninja Gaiden (NES video game)

could use an in game screen shot
--67.35.182.233 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Plot Summary
I noticed that the plot summary has been tagged as being an epic novelization. I would like to try to repair it. I don't know if leaving this message matters, as it doesn't currently appear that anyone even looks at this talk page, but I feel that it is still a good idea to anounce my intentions. I will begin immediately. Larrythefunkyferret 07:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Finished. I hope I did justice to the game. If someone wiser than I thinks that the issues in the tag have been addressed, could you please remove the tag? I don't feel right about doing it myself. Larrythefunkyferret 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I reworked it further to make it much more comprehensive. It includes a character section and an expanded story description. Any thoughts? MuZemike (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, As long as it doesn't develop into the monster it once was. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep it at the length at it currently is. I also agree that it should not expand any further than it is. MuZemike (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguities
I'm noticing a blaring ambiguity in the name of the article itself. People are going to get easily confused with the xBox version of the game of the exact same name and article title. Wouldn't it be better to rename this specific article Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) or something that distinguishes this game from the arcade version and the xBox version? MuZemike (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the issue. Naming by date is one option I've seen here frequently; another is naming by platform. If this article deals primarily with the NES game, another option is Ninja Gaiden(NES game), or something along those lines. Ask the Wikiproject; they're all knowing about stuff like this. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted this issue on the project discussion board. We'll see what comes from this. MuZemike (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The definite concensus seems to be to dump the disambiguation page altogether, as I recommended, and this article will be moved to Ninja Gaiden (NES) also as recommended per discussion. MuZemike (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Development Section
My plan is to include basic information about release dates and director and to move some information from the "Origin and Ports" (now renamed simply "Ports") into that section.

I have also removed the "Unlockable arcade version in the xBox version" (not relevant to the NES version) and replaced it, complete with reference, to the Ninja Gaiden (arcade game) article. MuZemike (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I've removed the Wii Virtual Console price references, as the mentioning of prices of games is discouraged per guidelines. MuZemike (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mobile Phones
I noticed that the references in that section are over three years old. In addition, their website has also not been updated in over three years. We can either try to find better references or ditch the subsection completely. MuZemike (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Step one would be to prove that the mobile port was actually released. If it was, I support keeping and just finding more sources. By the way, if you're going for GA for this article, you have my prayers, and I promise I'll keep an eye out for people that might be interested in helping you. I would, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a burden to you. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2008-12-13
I've rated this article B-class, Mid-priority. It's got a few kinks here and there but at this point I doubt there are any the primary article contributors don't already know about. The article's structure is higher than C-class at the very least, and here's hoping there's an eventual push to bring this up for GAN down the road.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Second Look
Hey again, sorry for the delay. The article is looking slightly better.
 * Some outstanding issues still, mainly prose. For example, this sentence is a mouth full and could easily be trimmed:
 * Ninja Gaiden (忍者外伝 ?, literally "Ninja Story"), known in Japan as Ninja Ryūkenden (忍者龍剣伝 ?, literally "Legend of the Ninja Dragon Sword") and as Shadow Warriors in Europe, is a platform game developed and published by Tecmo—known for their later achievements such as the Tecmo Bowl series, Rygar, and the Xbox Ninja Gaiden series[1]—for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES).

Gameplay still uses a lot of gamer jargon. "Platforming levels" is Gaming 101 for most of us, but you need to consider people who arent gamers. Write the article as if the reader had never played a game before. For example,
 * this - The player controls Ryu Hayabusa through six platforming levels, known as "Acts".
 * could started better - Ninja Gaiden is a platform game; the player controls Ryu through a series of two-dimensional linear stages, known as "Acts".

The plot section has been condensed, which is good, but it still needs a good copy-edit and explanations. Here are some examples:
 * who hands him a demon statue. - What is a demon statue? This comes out nowhere and serves to confuse.
 * Eventually, Ryu finds Walter, who tells Ryu of the demon statues that he and Ryu’s father had found in the Amazon ruins - Too many proper pronouns.
 * Ryu gives chase and retrieves the statue, but when he returns to upon returning finds Walter, he finds that Walter has been killed dead and that the Light statue has been taken missing
 * Jaquio wishes to gain the demon statues so that he can release the Demon from the statues and bring forth the end of the world. -> Using the statues, Jaquio will awaken the demon and destroy the world. - More simple and less wordy.
 * He then asks Ryu to travel to South America and to eliminate Jaquio. - Repetitious wording, rephrase -> Foster asks Ryu to find the temple and eliminate Jaquio.

These examples are just part of the text. Now that the article has been condensed, its time the article had a good copy-edit. Message me again if you would like me to take another look. I will try to be punctual. :P Cheers,  -- Noj r (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A-Class assessment
Overall it read really well the first time through. This first assessment was more for error-checking. When I have a bit more time I'll take care of assessing the prose.


 * There are three disambig links
 * External links could use some minor updating. A few are minor redirects, and they're minor to fix.
 * Alt text looks great.

--Teancum (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get back earlier. I forgot to watchlist the page :) Anyways, I've disambiguated the three links, corrected the ocremix EL, and removed the GameSpy one outright. The one in the reference has a web.archive.org URL, so the one in that reference should be good. MuZemike 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Supporting A-Class per MuZemike's updates to the article --Teancum (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * Are all of the external links necessary? For video game articles, I'm generally of the opinion that only an official website is warranted, and everything else is simply doing our readers' Googling for them.
 * Removed the GameFAQs ones as I believe they are already used as references for release dates in the article. →
 * Reference #31 (Tecmo) has no publisher field.
 * Fixed. →
 * The list of weapons in Gameplay should be in paragraph form. Such a high level of details for weapons generally isn't necessary and could be considered too "instruction manualish" at FAC.  I'd recommend just saying something about Ryu's weapons being typical ninja fare, such as throwing stars, and include some magical/supernatural abilities as well.
 * Fixed by Larry. →
 * While I'm on the subject, the last two sentences of the first paragraph (about the bosses) may also be too detailed for an encyclopedia article.
 * Larry condensed part of it . Let us know if that's good enough.
 * The infobox is kind of big, could the release dates be auto-collapsed (along the lines of Half-Life 2)?
 * Collapsed. →
 * This may be beyond the scope of this article, but what about the differences between this game and the Xbox series? Which is "canon"; I mean are the storylines concurrent, or is one a prequel?  Maybe there is a series article that has the information and if so, it's probably not necessary here.
 * Both might be canon. Itagaki says the Xbox games are prequels to this one.  See Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game), second paragraph. --an odd name 20:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should something about it be added to this article, for the purposes of comprehensiveness? — Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   05:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Itagaki could've been trying to tack the new series on to the old as a marketing ploy.  It doesn't seem that important to this article, but certainly is to the Xbox version's article.  I don't oppose or revert its placement in this article outright, but it does seem like a tangential "Trivia/In popular culture" list item.  --an odd name 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The FUR of the first picture is great, but the caption is a little bare. How exactly does it demonstrate gameplay?
 * I know it's an old game, but aren't there any more reviews from reliable sources that can go in the reviews infobox? Also, have you considered splitting up the infobox for the different platforms, so one column for the NES version and one for the VC?

Excellent article. Most of my observations are trivial and I don't think this article would have too many problems at FAC. Keep up the good work. — Vantine84 (t – c)   06:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what kind of information are you looking for about the gameplay screen shot? Are you asking what's going on? Because it looks like Ryu's getting ready to beat the living batcrap out of the dude with the yellow pants. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I mean pretend you're a reader with little to no information on how typical video games are laid out (life bars, score, etc.). The caption doesn't even specify which character is Ryu and which are the enemies.  I'm not saying we need to hold a reader's hand, but I think the caption could give a few more details of what's going on in the picture.  The caption of the second screenshot, for example, is great and explains what you're looking at - otherwise it's just two different-colored sprites on a green field. —  Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can do that. I may not be able to get around to it until the 26th, but unless someone beats me to it, I'll take care of it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

How about something like the following at the beginning of the Plot section of the article?

"Ninja Gaiden takes place after the Xbox version of Ninja Gaiden II; according to developer Tomonobu Itagaki, 'the story for [the Xbox version of Ninja Gaiden II] from a chronological stand point leads into the old Ninja Gaiden for the NES', establishing continuity between the Xbox and NES games."


 * Perfect. — Mr. Van Tine (t – c)   07:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 20:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also support A-class for this article: It is well written with appropriate length, good citations, good images and proper use of them, as well as informative and meeting every criteria. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have awarded the article as A-class. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the connection with the storyline of Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game)
Let's discuss this. According to Tomonobu Itagaki (creator of Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game)), the events lead right up to the events in this game (the first NES title); this is mentioned by three separate sources in the last paragraph in the Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game). With that being said, Itagaki had no part in the NES Ninja Gaiden games. I feel that establishment of plot continuity should be mentioned, as the verification is out there via those interviews. –MuZemike 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The plot connection/continuity between the NES Ninja Gaiden and the Xbox Ninja Gaiden II is only relevant to the latter and not to the former. The people who made the NES game had no intentions in making a prequel for another platform twenty years later, so there's no reason the Xbox prequel should be mentioned in an article focusing only on the NES game. If you want, you can make one of those  "fictional chronology" navigation box for Ninja Gaiden like ones available for Metroid and Metal Gear, but I don't really understand the point of them and I find them to be more decorative than practical. Not to mention that video game designers can feel the need to ignore any specific game at any given moment. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need to have some consistency in both articles. If we shouldn't mention the connection to the Xbox Ninja Gaiden II in this article, then we should likewise remove the connection to the NES Ninja Gaiden in the Ninja Gaiden II (2008 video game) article. I basically agree that having a "fictional chronology" section in the navbox wouldn't really make much sense and will likely produce clutter. –MuZemike 18:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It depends really. Having never truly played the second Xbox game, I can't tell you for sure. Are the events of NES game tied enough to the plot that you need to know about it to truly understand the Xbox sequel or you will be lost? Or did the designers simply mentioned the game's place in the series' continuity offhand just to please the fans' curiosity on whether the old games are still canonical? Mentioning previously released games in articles about newer titles is okay I guess if it helps clear up certain plot holes. For the record, the article on the Star Wars never mentions the prequel trilogy at all, except for the DVD release section. There's no reason it needs to, since the prequels came out later. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible FAC?
After making another big recent run-through of the prose myself, what do others think about possibly nominating this for FA in the near future? I mean, I don't want to waste my time at FAC if this article is not ready. Thoughts? –MuZemike 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. If nothing else, it will give us ideas for improvement that we may have missed. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional review found
Before I forget while I'm in the process of gathering sources for another article:

–MuZemike 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening section
I think it's worth mentioning in the opening section about the difficulty of the game. I know it's mentioned in the "Reception" section but I think the difficulty of the game is also one of its most notable features. I remember when the game came out almost all coverage wouldn't have gone by without bitching about how difficult the game was. 222.152.77.131 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there has been some coverage from the more modern sources (like IGN and 1UP.com) that specifically note the game's difficulty, not to mention it did win Nintendo Power's award for "Best Challenge" in 1989. I don't think it would be bad idea to somewhat mention that in the lead. (Keep in mind that the lead needs to summarize what's already in the article's body; it can't say anything new without being sourced/cited.) –MuZemike 04:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added one sentence about the difficulty, which is basically what is in the main body of the article. –MuZemike 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy (sub)section?
I was thinking about moving the second and third paragraphs in the Development section (about the other ports of the game) as well as the fourth paragraph of the Reception section (reception of the mobile phone version) to its own "Legacy" section (or possibly a subsection of the "Reception" section). This would slightly reduce the size of the Reception and over half the Development section and keep the coverage of the ports separate. Any thoughts? –MuZemike 19:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I approve, for what it's worth. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternate gameplay screenshot
I've been considering replacing File:Ninja Gaiden Act 1.png with another image in which I hope is more descriptive: (will be up for 2 weeks before it automatically gets deleted). Which one do people think is better, given that we can only use one of them? –MuZemike 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, they are both not very good. In first one little action is taking place and PC is at the very top of the screen. On second one the colours blur together and PC is barely visible. I've looked at these before but I still haven't got a clue. I guess would vote the first one because it's a bit visually clearer. — Hellknowz ▎talk 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I could try to get other gameplay screenshots with Ryu in a dark background (like Acts 4 or 6) if that makes things easier to see. The problem with trying to get a good screenshot is that I can't show Ryu defeating an enemy with the Dragon Sword because the enemy literally explodes when hit with no overlap; I have to demonstrate gameplay with him about to hit an enemy with a secondary weapon such a throwing star or fire wheel and also showing a little damage to demonstrate how the life meter works. –MuZemike 01:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What if you were to slash at an enemy from a good distance away? That way, you'd still have the gameplay demonstrated and not have to worry about the enemy being lost before you get the screenshot. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a few more images temporarily uploaded to imagebin, which hopefully addresses the problems noted above:
 * 1) – crouching down and trying to stab an enemy with the sword
 * 2) – getting an item (point bonus) by slashing a candle
 * 3) – throwing a shuriken at an eagle, about to destroy it
 * 4) – throwing a windmill throwing star at an enemy, about to destroy it
 * 5) – throwing an "Art of the Fire Wheel" at an above enemy, about to destroy it

–MuZemike 21:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. In my opinion, I like the third picture. It kind of helps with what is used for weaponry for me. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth having never played this classic, I like #3 and #5 as they're relatively clear about who the player character is and what weapon is being used. —Ost (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not 1 or 2, too little contrast. 3 and 4 are the best. 5 is a little cluttered. I'd say 4 because it has human(oid) enemy. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the old image with #3 as that's what the rough consensus incidates; at the very least it's a definite improvement over the old image. –MuZemike 23:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm late to the party, but I agree with the new image choice. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Gameplay image location
If you put that gameplay image to the left in the "Gameplay" section, on most (especially widescreen) monitors, that is going to sandwich the text between the image and the infobox. Perhaps it would be a better idea to place the gameplay image at the top of the "Plot" section for layout reasons? –MuZemike 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On my widescreen monitor, the original position was sandwiched. But it if it will porduce a similar affect for others, I think it'll be for the best to move it to "Plot". Secret Saturdays   ( talk to me )what's new? 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the image, in how it was, was between the text and the infobox? I mean, I don't know, as I don't know what type of browser/OS you use for that to happen. I use Windows 7 with Firefox, and the gameplay image always fixes itself directly below the infobox if the screen is too wide. –MuZemike 01:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Metroid
From the development section:

"Yoshizawa decided to keep the same title but changed everything else; it became a platformer that bore more similarities to Metroid than Double Dragon."

This is sourced in the following source from IGN (IGN Presents the History of Ninja Gaiden) :

"The loose beat-em-up became a tightly controlled action-platformer, more Metroid than Double Dragon, and this time Sakurazaki equipped his ninja like a ninja."

I do agree that comparing Ninja Gaiden to Metroid doesn't seem to make much sense, beside the fact that both games are platformers unlike Double Dragon and the arcade version of Ninja Gaiden. Perhaps we're better off just removing the likely-misdirected comparison; we cannot just place Castlevania in there as that is not in the source given, but we can keep everything else. Thoughts? –MuZemike 00:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception inclusions
I noticed GameTrailers and MobyGames' users scores were included in the "Reception." Those are credible websites however those scores were taken from their visitor generated votes not from professional reviews. It's pretty much fan votes. GameTrailers never did published a review for that game. It's equivalent of putting IMDB user votes in a movie reception paragraph. It's not reliable because it's not scientific polling. The other sources in the table I don't have a problem with. --76.186.221.44 (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Have removed the GameTrailers link. Don't know what you're talking about with the MobyGames one. Maybe it has been removed already. GDallimore (Talk) 10:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Introductory section talks about story
I think that it's inappropriate to have the story mentioned in the introductory section, as that's really not what this game is about; nor is it significant enough to be notable. Instead I would mention something about the gameplay that was innovative such as the wall-grab move. Story shouldn't be mentioned in an introductory section for a game, unless its story is particularly notable or it's a work of interaction fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithburgun (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Mentioning the plot as it is in the lead and in its own section is certainly a notable aspect and consistent with what we normally do with most video game articles. The game is just as much about its storyline as its gameplay, especially considering it was one of the first non-RPG video games to feature such a storyline. I mean, to me, it doesn't make sense to leave out the most brief of summaries of what the game is about, as most everyone who writes a summary for anything about Ninja Gaiden will do the same thing. –MuZemike 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, isn't it Wikipedia policy to summarize the ENTIRE article in the lead? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) vs Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game)
There is a problem with renaming the article as Ninja Gaiden (1988 video game) – the Arcade version was also released in 1988. Readers can get confused over whether the article is about the Arcade game or the NES game if it is named that way. That's why we need to disambiguate by console as opposed to years, as is normally done with many of the other titles. --MuZemike 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues with sources in development and release sections
Development:
 * "It was developed and released the same time as the beat 'em up arcade version of the same name; neither of the two games were ports of each other but were parallel projects developed by different teams." However, the quoted source says "Legend has it that Tecmo had two teams working on the very first Ninja Gaiden." It doesn't seems appropriate to base a citation that is presented as factual on a sentence that starts with a phrase like "Legend has it". EDIT: The same piece of information can also be taken much more confidently from any of the Masato Kato interviews that contain it.
 * "According to developer Masato Kato, the term "ninja" was gaining popularity in North America, prompting Tecmo to develop a ninja-related game for the NES at the same time the arcade version of Ninja Gaiden was being developed." This needs a citation. Where does Masato Kato say that? EDIT: Turns out it is in the Retro Gamer article/interview, which is cited after the following sentence at the end of the paragraph, but the way it's now it's very confusing, because that second sentence is not presented as Masato Kato's account (which it still is)
 * "The NES version was developed and directed by Hideo Yoshizawa (listed as "Sakurazaki" in the game's credits), who led the development teams of both this game and its arcade counterpart." There are several issues with this one. The linked source claims a "Shuichi Sakurazaki" directed both games, but does never identify that person as Hideo Yoshizawa. In the credits, the designer of the arcade game is identified as "Strong Shima", while the NES game credits list "Sakurazaki". I don't see how the author of the source could have made any connections between the two while not recognizing the actual identity of "Sakurazaki", or even acknowledging the fact that the arcade game gives a different name. "Sakurazaki" is widely identified as Hideo Yoshizawa, but I cannot find any source that identifies "Strong Shima" with Yoshizawa or "Sakurazaki", and I also couldn't find any source to establish the "Shuichi" part (in the code of later games, the name is given as "S. Sakurazaki"). Masato Kato, while not providing "Strong Shima's" real name, identified the two as different persons in the direct interview that's also cited in the article. EDIT: In the Interview with Retro Gamer, Masato Kato identifies the director of the arcade game as "Mr. Iijima".
 * Also, a minor grammar comment: "whose literal translation was Legend of the Dragon Sword" Shouldn't it say "is", because the literal translation is not bound to the past? Derboo (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Release:
 * "but censorship issues delayed its release until September 1991" This statement does not seem to be sufficiently backed by the source. After the following sentence comes a citation where the source confirms that it had been supposed to come out earlier, and that "it seems that ninjas have become a taboo subject in Britain", but only explicitly links the name change to that taboo, not the delay.
 * "Its release was a part of many ninja-related video games such as The Legend of Kage, Ninja Warriors, and Shinobi" This makes it appear as if the games were connected, better would be a neutral formulation like "It was one of many ninja-related games..."
 * "Yoshizawa would go on to develop and direct the other two sequels in the series: Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos (1990) and Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom (1991)" That is not correct, and not even claimed in the highly confused source. It says: "But after three Gaidens, Sakurazaki was done. Runmaru, a designer on the first two NES games, took over writing and directing for Ninja Gaiden III: Ancient Ship of Doom." But I'd advise against using that source alltogether, because it fails to properly identify the persons involved.
 * "He directed the development of the gameplay, including a feature that sent players back to the beginning of the sixth Act after losing to any of the final three bosses in the game, which was originally a glitch." This is a very weird statement to make. If he was the director, then it would be worth mentioning decisions made not by him, but not singular decisions made by him. It was also never explicitly stated that it was infact his decision to leave the glitch in the game, only that it was left in intentionally. Also, this and the rest of the paragraph from there on should go in the general development section, not under release. Derboo (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say (if you are interested) that you can correct the issues you've found by yourself. I don't can help here but maybe can; he was the editor who most worked on it. We can see if he gives a response to you. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm still easily confused by the code for citations, but I'll wait a day or two and if he doesn't jump in in the meantime, I try to do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derboo (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, did the edits now. For the record, I also removed the following two sentences, the latter because it only applies to the third game in the series, as the quoted source confirms. The former because it doesn't actually seem to say anything, and certainly does not convey what was meant in the original quote: "In charge of designing the graphics, Kato used the NES' technical limitations to his advantage by placing the background and objects together. The game's difficulty was set at a high level due to Tecmo's policy on increasing the challenge for Western gamers." Derboo (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really have no knoweledge to help you here but I've request more opinions at WT:VG. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

False statement
The article currently states: " It was one of the first two games, alongside Tecmo Bowl, to be released by the company for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES)."

This is false. Ninja Gaiden and Tecmo Bowl were *not* the first two games Tecmo had released on the NES. Prior to those two, Tecmo had released: Might Bomb Jack, Rygar, Tecmo Baseball, Solomon's Key, and Star Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.91.152 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement you mention here is sourced by this book. The full text of the citation can be found at the bottom of the article. That being said, it is possible that the author of the book was mistaken; this can be confirmed by checking the NES released dates for the games you mentioned. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Look up any of the five games I listed in my previous comments and you'll instantly see the author of the cited book is wrong. For example, according to their Wikipedia articles, Rygar, Mighty Bomb Jack, Solomon's Key, and Star Force were all released in North America for the NES in 1987, two years before Tecmo Bowl and Ninja Gaiden.  Tecmo Baseball was released before those two as well.108.35.91.152 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are the release dates for any of the games cited? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was an avid video gamer in the 1980s and 90s. I was there and know first-hand Tecmo Bowl and Ninja Gaiden were *not* Tecmo's first two NES games.  That is a concrete fact, not some vague memory from my youth.  I understand original research isn't useable on Wikipedia, but this is getting very frustrating.  Something that is common sense is ignored and instead we have articles containing false information just because one very poorly-researched book made a mistake.  Also, look at all of those games' American title screens and look at the copyright dates. 108.35.91.152 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the statement in question, as I think the IP is right. Apologies for not using some hindsight there when I inserted that. --MuZemike 17:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 108.35.91.152 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ninja Gaiden (NES video game). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=6&cId=3147544
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3148279
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3152540
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709142922/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3152540 to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=2&cId=3152540

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comic book continuation
Ninja Gaiden '88 is an anime-styled comic book limited series published by Dark Horse Comics that was served as a continuation of Ninja Gaiden (1988), Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos (1990), Ninja Gaiden III: The Ancient Ship of Doom (1991), Ninja Gaiden Shadow (1991). 2001:48F8:300B:3DB:AD03:7554:7474:AB46 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)