Talk:Legendary (video game)

Release Date

Gamefly lists the release date for this game as September 11th, 2008. 98.21.76.15 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No UK/Europe release date, looking at Play.com they are stating 7th Nov for UK. I know its not a reliable source. Will check for a better source later unless someone else wants to look. Dark verdant (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews Dispute

The reviews need to remain unbiased. Although there are many negative reviews, positive reviews do exist so they need to be included. The fact that the reviews are typically unfavorable was underscored. X NorAxeR X (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unbiased is not the same as granting undue weight to a minority view. If the reception is overwhelmingly negative, the handful of average reviews do not make it suddenly 'poor to average,' not do they justify large quotes from positive reviews. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're completely wrong. I haven't even played this game myself. Although completely irrelevant, it shows my true unbiased intent on correcting the unfair review section in this article. I'm not sure if you personally disliked the game, but if that in anyway is a factor in your judgment, than it doesn't need to be implemented here. Clearly, many major reviewers enjoyed the game. If major reviewers such as Official Xbox Magazine, Gameplanet and Team Xbox reviewed the game positively, then this undoubtedly needs to be added to the article from an unbiased perspective. Hopefully we don't continue to stray too far onto a tangent with this; but again I noted that there are more negative reviews than positive. This "large quote" you refer to is a perfect addition to the article from a very credible source: Team Xbox. They begin by stating the flaws found within the game, but is wrapped up by sharing their enjoyment with it. More than enough positive reviews exist, and the ones added to the article were carefully chosen. Having an issue with the review section beginning with "poor to average" while insisting on it being "overwhelmingly negative", is incredibly biased. Obviously, that's not the goal here at Wikipedia. X NorAxeR X (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• • No. There are three 7.5 reviews scored on Metacritic compared to 25 that are less than 70%, 17 50% or less. Since we're not quoting all seventeen bad ones, large sections quoted from positive ones are impossible to justify, and unbalance the article in favour of a positive viewpoint that doesn't accurately reflect the facts. Metascores of less than 50% on all three platforms equate to largely negative response. Remember, neutral point of view does not mean we pretend the reviews are neutral. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your damage to the article keeps expanding outside of the review section, as you're needlessly deleting what has been contributed from other users in addition to myself. Don't touch the relevant expansion of the 'Creatures' section; someone else worked hard on that, and there's absolutely no reason for you to mess it up. As far as the review section, I'm just going to report you and hand this over to Wikipedia as you're just repeatitively trolling around. However, as for other people reading this, the review quote selected to end the article is a perfect conclusion. It's an excellent summary of both the negative and positive aspects of the game. For all other reasons why the 'review section' needs to remain unbiased, read the Terms of Service of Wikipedia and my lengthy explaination up there. X NorAxeR X (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to familiarise yourself with the actual rules of the site. For example, the 'relevant expansion' both violates WP:NOT (more exactly, WP:GAMEGUIDE, Wikipedia is not a game guide) and is taken verbatim from the game's own enemy files, which isn't in line with WP:FUC. It's excessively over-extended, and totally useless as part of an encyclopedia article; neither is it in any way, shape or form notable as per WP:N. Moreover, your desire to insert an excessively large positive quote (see WP:UNDUE) and imply a game with a metacritic score below 50% regardless of platform has recieved 'poor to average' reviews rather than 'generally poor' ones is not in line with the facts of the game's reception. Metacritic itself states that an aggregate score of 49 [the highest] means 'generally negative reviews.' Herr Gruber (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to move the information I provided about the game's different gameplay modes. It belongs at the end of the introduction, not at the end of the 'Creatures' section. It's also completely unnecessary to keep removing 'Dragons' from the creature list. The information is valid and we'll make a Trivia section if need be. Finally, I don't care if Team Xbox's review marked the game a little higher than what you find appropriate enough to add. It's one of the biggest Xbox 360 reviewers, and their review isn't necessarily a fully "positive" review. They note many things they found to be wrong with the game, but ultimately enjoyed it. That's more than appropriate for the article and it fits nicely. I personally thought it made an excellent conclusion, because it's a great summary of the overall popular opinions of the game on both sides. That's completely unbiased. X NorAxeR X (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Either add sections of equal length from every one of the seventeen sub-50% reviews or stop trying to add undue emphasis to one of the handful of positive reviews. We do not mention every single negative review in the reviews section, neither should we mention an unnecessarily large number of positive ones. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• • In addition, the creatures list has been removed; it's nothing but a blob of links, and adds nothing of substance to the article. Herr Gruber (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I should quickly mention that not all reviews were just negative or positive, others were what some sites call "mixed" or "mediocore", usually a score in the 50s and 60s. Stabby Joe (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are some oddities to what the upper-middle of the review scale actually means in different publications, though; 60% to one meets the criteria for 40% in another. And in any case, of the 25 reviews on Metacritic below 70%, 17 are below 50%. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• • In fact, I miscounted. Nineteen are 50% or less. That's 'generally negative' in straight numbers, and Metacritic also kindly writes that a 49% metascore means 'generally negative reviews.' So, that'd be a source for the statement that it's received 'generally negative reviews' right there. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dispute the average score, thats what it says on Metacritic then thats what it shall say. What I am pointing out here is so far all we have is some negatives and one positive, however there are reviews less of both being the mixed reviews EG Game Informer, OPM or OXM UK. BTW, in the future don't bring it to my talk page, makes it seem you're taking it personal, I am happy to discuss it here after all. Stabby Joe (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• What I'm talking about is the 'negative to mixed' intro to the reception section, which really doesn't accurately reflect the spread of reviews. And I apologise, I've never been exactly sure what a user page is actually for; I assumed it was just to get information in one place to save time glancing at articles and looking at edit summaries. Out of curiousity [and not meaning to be sarcastic] what is it for? Herr Gruber (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well most of the time its a means of adims, mods, bots or project leaders to contact people. Other user CAN make comments but I and others usually prefer to keep topic comments in still active discussions of the article's page. As for the "mixed" issue, fair enough if its negative on Metacritic (although I would check to see who has more reviews as GR and MC vary on this and how they translate other scores into a percent like grades) however in the bulk of text I wouldn't limit it to mostly bad as there were reviews that were "mixed", after all it is only just outside of "mixed" on MC. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I know we want to patch this issue up and we both know we're on good terms so hopefully this can also be cleared so here we go again lol: I was soon to write up a good enough reception section (thats kind of my "thing" on wiki and thus far have done it well) for this article then maybe even move onto other aspects, however Gruber I must question something. You correctly made an argument against positive weight being near that of cons when you mentioned 19 being 50% or less, this I would assume being from the 360 version at Metacritic, it having the more reviews than the PC and PS3. HOWEVER I'm not sure that would mean negative outweighed it as you yourself have listed the average being "generally negative" due to what it says on Metacritic, but 50% is not negative according to them and so would make the ratio the following 14 bad, 15 mixed, 4 good so that would not really make it "mostly negative" (I mean upon reading the 50%s, they're no way near as negative as those listed as such and do present "mixed"). To sum it up I would have it one paragraph on cons, one paragraph on "possible good thing yet hindered by this and that" and a sentence or two on good, that comes around as 60% entirely negative, thus being balance yet highlighting the negative reception. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's important to note that Metacritic's average score is weighted with certain publications being more important to the final score than others [while IIRC Gamerankings is just a straightforward mean score], but you have to be wary declaring 50% necessarily means mixed, or, indeed, that scores in the 50-60% band necessarily do either. Jeff Gerstmann's infamous evisceration of Kane & Lynch was still a 6/10, after all. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can tell what a mixed review is by reading it, for example if they use terms like mediocore or not bad (like Game Informer) or like how OXM UK gave it a 5/10 but still recommended a look, if cheaper and after the others. Don't worry about the average, that stays negative (should also quickly note is Metacritic has some reviews that are listed but not used on GR). Stabby Joe (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pre-release Quotes

I don't especially think that this is the place for carefully crafted quotes. These quotes are all skewed in the game's favor, so they have no business in a bi-partisan article. Not saying this game is bad or anything, it's just not the place to preach about how good it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monomij (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

There needs to be some clarification (as well as references) for the following: "The First being a passive, only attacking out of defense. The second phase is where they attack when attacked" Both statements basically say the same thing. So, if the information is accurate from whatever source didn't make it into the article, how do these differ? If you have the source, please add it. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 09:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

why would anyone remove the creature list

so some fool thought it was unimportant to keep the creature list so now the list is there with one single creature? wow! So whoever said that censorship was a valid form of editing on wikipedia? I'm sure everyone would MUCH RATHER come on wikipedia and find TOO much information than NOT nearly ENOUGH!

as for the debate about reviews, I agree that the page needs to list posative and negative reviews equally. I for one know this game is completely great and awesome. I can only explain the poor reviews it has as some kind of conspiracy where the publishers didn't bribe the reviewers, or perhaps managed to annoy or anger them some how . The page should point out that a free DEMO of the game is currently available on xbox live and invite anyone to download the free demo and review the game for THEMSELVES! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 10:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the game just sucks, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legendary (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210195906/http://x360magazine.com:80/games/legendary/legendary.html to http://x360magazine.com/games/legendary/legendary.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)