Talk:Rugal Bernstein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
VG To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Movelist
I included the move list again after it's removal due to the fact I stronly believe a reader who has spent time looking up a random fighting game character would actually be INTERESTED in this information.
I understand the need not to create a gameplay faq out of a characters article page, but a characters moves and play style would most certainly be of great interest to someone wanting to read up on the subject. I think many editors here forget that Wikipedia cannot be compared to an Encyclopedia due to the fact that it covers topics that would never even be considered for an actual article. We have to remember these pages are for the readers and should include information that would interest them and not what would be in a "theoretical" Encyclopedia article for the Encyclopedia Britannia. Besides, almost every Encylopedia Article I've seen on Chess has explained how to play it to a degree. Why shouldn't the same hold true here? -User:KayinTalk 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm going to have to disagree with you. I'll save a revert until later, though. Wikibook is quite appropriate for a lot of gameplay information, but that doesn't make some information, like a move list(particularly one thats more fluff then anything else) should be on the wiki. It's relevent information and fail to see how it is inappropriate material. I'd like to hear an actual explaination for this so I don't have to lapse into a silly edit war. --Kayin 18:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It is relevant information. But such related analyses are for wikibooks. Different sub-wiki's were created for a reason, and the pure fact of the matter is this is about encyclopediac history and similar information, not movelists. I cannot comprehend how there's a qualm with placing the information there. When you have a resource, use it. Wikipedia is not the place for indescriminate information. -ZeroTalk 18:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Are you telling me that the fact Rugal is good at any sport he play is more important then a mention about Genocide cutter? Thats like having an article about Ryu and not bringing up Hadouken(which, as one can see, even has it's own article. Not that Genocide Cutter deserves such a position, but it illustrates a point). I think it's absolutely stupid to have an article about a Fighting Game character and have no information on what he actually does in the game!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is like having an article about a Knight in Chess that read something like A Rookie is a chess piece. It looks like a little horsey head. The Horsey Head can be Black or White. The Original Horsey Head was carved by so and so. The Horsey Head is said to like pie" while never mentioning once that a Knight moves in an L Shape. Wikibooks is appropriate for a game guide. The Information removed wasn't appropriate for a game guide. It wasn't "Reppuken -> 612 B or D". It was simply a brief description that gave the reader an idea of what his fighting style is like and also an interesting comparison between him and his son's movelist which would also not be appropriate for wikibooks. I don't see this an an attempt to include "indiscriminate" information. This is an attempt to include whats probably the most relevant information. --Kayin 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Make a gameplay section like I did for the Kasumi (Dead or Alive character) and the rest of the Dead or Alive character articles. But don't beat silly redundancies into me concerning the quibbling of a short list of attacks. -ZeroTalk 19:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A short list of attacks goes a long way in giving the reader what they want to know. --Kayin 19:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
And a full, detailed gameplay analysis goes even furthur, dear Kayin. -ZeroTalk 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is absolutely true, but a full gameplay analysis is something that DOES belong in wikibook, a short one certainly does have it's value. At the same time, a watered down/brief/partial gameplay analysis is quite beneficial, but that doesn't negate the need for a movelist. This may not of been so true for DoA(since most 3d Fighters are not special moves based), I think it certainly holds true for a 2d game like KOF. If you'd like a gameplay section to accompany a move list, I'd be glad to write one up(not very hard for a boss character) though. --Kayin 19:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Its not full. I keep the gameplay sections in the DOA articles as concise as possible. The point of a article is to construct an explanatory thesis in pharagraph format and present with full analysis intact. I could have inserted movelists into those articles too. I instead choose to conform to the encyclopediac style of writing and merge said moves into a section explaining how the character uses them. Simply building a move list on an character article is silly. Now, I do have a idea, if you feel this laudible. How about merging a large list of character moves for every character in one...? Evicerate any laudible cause for complaint. This situation is similar to the satuaration of quote insertion awhile back. Quotes have a place. So do movelists. We are not a gamefaqs, and I highly doubt the incomprehensible claim of a reader looking up a character for movelists. Nah :) Indeed, They're looking up the character himself. -ZeroTalk 19:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- A large list of character moves is an idea, but it first serves in obfuscating the information as well as creating an editting nightmare, especially considering the wealth of KOF characters. But yes, no one comes to Wikipedia and looks up a fighting game character JUST for a move list, but a move list in many cases is very much a part of the character, especially when presented in a more "story" related light(such as the Terry Bogard article. It's fun and interesting to hear nerdy stuff like that. The movelist is important if you're looking up a character you know nothing about. Granted I speak only from experience, but when at one point I decided to give a look through every KOF character article(Mostly to find out about characters I've never played), I found my self going to GameFaqs to find out how they fought and what sort of character they were. I didn't necessarily want to know the motions or anything. I just wanted a general idea of what they did in the game. I can't see how other people can't commonly feel this way.
-
-
-
- Again, I don't see where it'd be real stretch at all for someone to be interested in how Adel's moves link up with Rugal's(Though I believe this belongs in the Adel section of the Ash Saga article). A big move list is better than nothing, but it sort of defeats the purpose while being an unnecessarily difficult proposal.--Kayin 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Actually, the only reason I and User:A Man In Black haven't removed the Terry Bogard character list is due to how we formatt it. I plan to move all of this data to wikibooks soon enough, as soon as become familiar with how to go about it. All this data is not encyclopediac. Why, look at WP:FICTION, its not even warrented to have the entire article. The bottom line is we simply don't do things like that. I suggest a list because its more comprehensisve and its doesn't qualify as the cruft you speak of. Please take a gander at the lovely List of Mega Man skills and attacks I made recently. That's what should be done with this type of information, if at all. -ZeroTalk 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What is and is not encyclopedic is completely arbitrary in this case(as it is in many cases in Wikipedia). It's still certainly more encyclopedic then other information on this page. In the end, all you're doing is punishing the reader by denying him simple information that is both likely to be interesting and not demanding on physical space(Or in many cases like this, adding size to a rather small article). I think wikipedians need to start caring about readers more then these arbitrary guidelines on what is and is not encyclopedic. That aside and on differant note, how does all that fannish Terry Bogard information make for a meaningful Wikibook information? This is all needless obfuscation that does nothing but impairs a reader from finding information.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- P.S. Yeah I'm done arguing this. I think the policies on this stuff are completely inane, self serving and retarded, but their still wikipedia's policies so whatever, I can't blame you for enforcing them so sorry for wasting your time.
-
-
-
--Kayin 20:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa, this has gotten way too mean and isn't really productive, especially given that you're both right. There's nothing wrong with mentioning signature moves in prose; Ryu (Street Fighter) wouldn't be complete with a mention of the Shoryuken and Hadouken.
That said, the movelist isn't appropriate in its current form (which is currently the subject of a revert war, AFAICT; stop reverting already), but a description of his fighting style along with some descriptions of his signature moves.
Now, stop arguing, and go write that. You both are clearly knowledgable and interested. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Its not mean at all. Both sides are exhibiting good civilty, and I believe we both have good points. We haven't edit-warred and our exhaustive discussion is a testament of this; this fellow is arguring and editting in good faith, which I applaud him for. The least I could do is be respectful and voice my concenrns along with his. I would be quite jolly at the idea of writing a gameplay section, but I need to research first.
-
-
- Mean as in "bad noise," not mean as in "you're being uncivil to each other." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Gooooooo woooooork oooooon descriiiiiiiibing hiiiiiis fiiiiiighting styyyyyyyyyyle. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- If you'd prefer, I'll write one up. I won't waste my time if you've already got your self started though. --Kayin 07:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] God Rugal
I deleted the image about God Rugal because he isn't a canon character in the main KOF series. I placed the official picture of Rugal from the KOF10th anniversary site at first, then moved the previously main topic to the secondary place below it, that shows Omega Rugal. Does anybody have something to say about the change? Somebody that doesn't agree? PabloG 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Zero, discuss with me what concerns to this change. I believe God Rugal shouldn't be a part of this article because he isn't canon, he's a character created by Capcom in Capcom vs SNK 2. Plus, he doesn't exist in any official KOF related story. PabloG 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I really dislike using those nasty images from the official site, what with the flooding text, and the unoriginal source. God Rugal is mentioned in the article, so its only plausible we depict the image of the source subject. Not being canon does not mean he doesn't get an image. All wikipedia requires is that he be official and have source information. In the meantime, I'll retrieve a better image of the original Rugal and insert it. -ZeroTalk 16:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the articles were to be constructed at the liking of it's members, and not taking into account logic and reason, they would be of much less quality. That picture that I'm putting, is the OFFICIAL MAIN picture of Rugal in the OFFICIAL SNK page for KOF that celebrates the 10 years of anniversary of the game. It's what they want to show him like, because it's the classical Rugal. There is no trace of the looks of the REAL Rugal (the one that is not Omega or the utterly non canon God Rugal from CVS). What's more important, to show the readers a picture of Rugal himself, the original design of SNK, or to show a picture of God Rugal, a non canon character that isn't neither created by the drawing artists of SNK nor credited or found anywhere in the official story of King Of Fighters? I leave that to the discretion of the readers, and to you, which I believe has common sense like anybody. Believe me, KOF fans that enter here would be more confused to not find a picture of Rugal Bernstein, but instead find a picture of "God Rugal", a character that isn't found in KOF and is poorly known among the KOF community. PabloG 17:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Now I argue that God Rugal doesn't belong in the article because he's nowhere to be found in the main KOF storyline so it confuses the fans and anyone that might read to know about Rugal, that goes to play the game and doesn't find any trace of a "God Rugal" anywhere PabloG 17:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- It has nothing to with personal taste. It has to do with providing a complete and unaldalterated article blustering with source material, weather it be canon or not. I'll find a higher quality image, and insert it soon enough. Just calm down and please assume good faith. -ZeroTalk 17:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, this doesn't have to do with the quality of any pic either. The pics are well selected, they're stylized and proper for what they show (well, the 2002 Rugal one is an art made by Nona, a widely rejected artist that worked in 2001 and later in 2002, 2001 being one of the years that people liked the in game art of the characters the least...). It just isn't canon. Why not create a separate article about "God Rugal" (which apparently has a story connected to "Shin Akuma" too in CVS) or make a link to the pic in the part that God Rugal is mentioned in the article? PabloG 17:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Firstly, no where in policy does wikipedia dictate an article should not withold non-canon information. God Rugal is merely mentioned in the trivia section and is not connected to Rugal's history quota. Secondly, God Rugal is offical, and the game backs this. Finally, I still have absolutely no idea why you would request me to make a stub article of the same character. You have not made yourself understood. And now when I create a clear and concise admeddeum of what you want done, you descend to semantics.
- Gotta remember, non-canon and non-official are two different things. God Rugal isn't canon, but he's "official" in the sense that he does exist through SNKs Creation. Hell, technically the 2002 Rugal doesn't exist because Dream Matches are non canon. Either way I do like the compromise, I think the picture of Normal Rugal is more approriate. --Kayin 18:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
No, no and NO. Rugal isn't canon, AND, let it be noted, AND it is an official character (and I never said he wasn't an official character, just non-canon), considering that he actually exists in a game that SNK took part of. But, read this well, he WASN'T CREATED BY SNK. GOD RUGAL IS A CAPCOM INVENTION TO PROVIDE A BOSS FOR THE SNK SIDE in Capcom vs SNK. There's a reason why he is only mentioned in the trivia section. I argue that God Rugal shouldn't have a picture of his own.
Also, I feel curious, where are his secretaries with him in his pics? they're a very integral of his story. Things happen to him with them and because of them, and I see no pictures of the characters that are like parts of his body in the game. Wouldn't they enrich the article more than a pic of a non canon character? All I see in most articles about characters from this game are different incarnations and changes that have occured to them. There's no depiction of the connections of one character with the other, or why they're important to their story. The articles are enriched in only one direction. PabloG 18:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] God Rugal analysis
I think that God Rugal should actually be based on a Capcom amalgamation of "Omega Rugal" (since a stronger Rugal should be actually called "Omega Rugal" anyway) since God Rugal is noticeably more devastating and more nimble than Rugal noticeably. Therefore, God Rugal is somewhat based on Omega Rugal (IMO Capcom should've used "Omega Rugal" instead of God Rugal, since Omega Rugal sounded better) but with some Satsui No Hadou-infused properties (i.e. Shun Goku Satsu). — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 01:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- You know, I've thought a bit about this. It's hard to put what I wanted to say into words. After thinking about it for a hour, I've finally come up with precisely what I want to say to you about this chap: Its a complicated issue and over analogy. Simple as that. In 94' he started out as the generic Rugal. Nothing special. After the Orochi confrontation, he developed the Omega status. Getting there. And when the non-canonical Capcom vs. SNK was released, God Rugal was developed. Utterly imcomprehensible. Just a overpowered boss character meant to give us a difficult time. Fairly simple stuff I should have thought. -ZeroTalk 01:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rugal's surname
I quote the article:
- It was not officially known that his surname was Bernstein until KoF 2000.
However, I remember having a magazine with a movelist for King of Fighters '95, the Gameboy variant; and I distinctly remember them calling him Rugal Bernstein. I guess one can assume the redactors of that movelist got that name from somewhere, possibly the manual or from SNK/Takara themselves? Mamour 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fixed the general description
Fixed the article to a less dramatic version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZodiacZ (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rugal2002.jpg
Image:Rugal2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
