This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
P.N.03 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "P.N.03" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | P.N.03 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | P.N.03 is part of the Capcom Five series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
A gamecube game, P.N.03, or Product Number 03, sets the player as Venessa Schnieder, in the distant future. After C.A.M.S goes down (the main computer network on Mars), Venessa is sent in to clean up the mess. You only have one weapon, your suit, which is equipped wit ha hand shot, and a list of combo moves. Your main goal in each level is to get to a certain area, and/or destroy a certain objective. However, destroying enemies faster, without being hit, yields a higher combat point bonus, which is used to buy things like continues, or different suits. As you progress through the game, levels get longer, enemies get stronger, and your skills get better. The game has a pretty good future/techno soundtrack, and with all the bonus missions, it might take a while to complete.
Keep trying, send me a message if you need me to explain anything, H ig hway Batman! 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
--
Charlesr
09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note I'm biased here because it's a review on my website. I've not seen any other review out there that actually seems to understand how to play the game. All the others seem to be approaching it as a 3rd person action title like Bloodrayne, whereas it's much more akin to a 2D trad shooter (shmup). And they all think it's a memory test and learning the time between enemy fire, but all you need to do is listen to the audio cues and suddenly it makes sense. Just wait for the cue and jump out of they way. Even the insertcredit review misses this point completely. I've added a brief bit of text to the gameplay section to mention this and since it's an average game on gamestats etc, a fan's viewpoint (in the reaction section) to balance out the critic's notions. Anyway, the review link is:
[1]
The game can be completed in under 2 hours on hard mode, whereupon you get ranked and scored on your entire game's performance. Like a shmup, it's supposed to be brief so you play again and better your rank. Again, all most of the reviews do is talk about how short it is, with no mention of ranking. (discussed properly in the review link above). The aim isn't to finish (like normal action shooters like bloodrayne) - it's to finish with high scores.
-- Charlesr 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Ok, no reply yet so I'm adding it. Remove if you need to.
I found four magazine reviews, which I've indexed in the online print archive. These should come in handy when we write the Reception section. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy, where did the 7/10 from Edge come from? I don't think Edge ever went back to those games and revealed a numerical score for them, and Metacritic just assigned all games from that issue a 7/10 so that that they could assign some form of score to them, which could make the 7/10 not a true score. - X201 ( talk) 08:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we can find a better picture for the gameplay, maybe something that highlights the dance-like moves or the shooting (which was apparently criticized a lot). THe IGN had some good images without watermarks. It'll be easier to write a good FUR with more informative picture.
Also, any thoughts about keeping the pre-release image? ( Guyinblack25 talk 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC))
Hmmm... Resident Evil 4 appears to have failed its GAN, meaning that the topic will not be completed when this article reaches GA. Thought this should be discussed.
In other news, I should be finished with the Reception section very soon. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hammerbrodude ( talk · contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Well, it should be clear why I'm here tonight. A request to promote P.N.03 was made a couple days ago, and I've opted to personally review this article.
...I intended to do a bit more work tonight, but I'm going to have to temporarily pause the review as I seem to be falling asleep, and it sure would be a shame if I accidentally passed everything in this delirium. Perhaps take a moment to address the excruciatingly tiny issues mentioned below? I'll return to this tomorrow, as soon as I get a chance. Hammerbrodude ( talk) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
1a: "The player controls Vanessa via a third-person perspective and uses a green reticle to target enemies. Capcom aimed to portray a white delicate game world in contrast to its previous games. Shown is Vanessa using the Harrier energy drive against the targeted enemy."
This sentence is a little odd. Rephrase it slightly, perhaps:
Reword this sentence, and perhaps throw a couple internal links into it. It's a little confusing.
This (part of a) sentence just sounds a bit odd when read aloud. I'm probably sounding increasingly petty, but perhaps exchange it for something to the effect of: "Vanessa encounters a digital projection of the client, who appears identical to herself."
Of what? The Capcom Five, or P.N.03?
These are the last couple issues, and I'm prepared to pass the article as soon as they're addressed.
2b: One archived link does not seem to work; the one for Biglobe. May be a decent idea to find some other means of sourcing this.
6a: It may be a good idea to reduce the size of "PN03gun.jpg" somewhat.
{{
Non-free reduce}}
a week ago and am waiting for DASHBOT or some other image bot to make its rounds. (
Guyinblack25
talk
14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
This article has passed review against the Good Article criteria, and I'll list it momentarily. Hammerbrodude ( talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on P.N.03. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/gamings-biggest-flip-flopsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
P.N.03 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "P.N.03" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
![]() | P.N.03 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | P.N.03 is part of the Capcom Five series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
A gamecube game, P.N.03, or Product Number 03, sets the player as Venessa Schnieder, in the distant future. After C.A.M.S goes down (the main computer network on Mars), Venessa is sent in to clean up the mess. You only have one weapon, your suit, which is equipped wit ha hand shot, and a list of combo moves. Your main goal in each level is to get to a certain area, and/or destroy a certain objective. However, destroying enemies faster, without being hit, yields a higher combat point bonus, which is used to buy things like continues, or different suits. As you progress through the game, levels get longer, enemies get stronger, and your skills get better. The game has a pretty good future/techno soundtrack, and with all the bonus missions, it might take a while to complete.
Keep trying, send me a message if you need me to explain anything, H ig hway Batman! 10:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
--
Charlesr
09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Please note I'm biased here because it's a review on my website. I've not seen any other review out there that actually seems to understand how to play the game. All the others seem to be approaching it as a 3rd person action title like Bloodrayne, whereas it's much more akin to a 2D trad shooter (shmup). And they all think it's a memory test and learning the time between enemy fire, but all you need to do is listen to the audio cues and suddenly it makes sense. Just wait for the cue and jump out of they way. Even the insertcredit review misses this point completely. I've added a brief bit of text to the gameplay section to mention this and since it's an average game on gamestats etc, a fan's viewpoint (in the reaction section) to balance out the critic's notions. Anyway, the review link is:
[1]
The game can be completed in under 2 hours on hard mode, whereupon you get ranked and scored on your entire game's performance. Like a shmup, it's supposed to be brief so you play again and better your rank. Again, all most of the reviews do is talk about how short it is, with no mention of ranking. (discussed properly in the review link above). The aim isn't to finish (like normal action shooters like bloodrayne) - it's to finish with high scores.
-- Charlesr 11:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Ok, no reply yet so I'm adding it. Remove if you need to.
I found four magazine reviews, which I've indexed in the online print archive. These should come in handy when we write the Reception section. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 07:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Jimmy, where did the 7/10 from Edge come from? I don't think Edge ever went back to those games and revealed a numerical score for them, and Metacritic just assigned all games from that issue a 7/10 so that that they could assign some form of score to them, which could make the 7/10 not a true score. - X201 ( talk) 08:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we can find a better picture for the gameplay, maybe something that highlights the dance-like moves or the shooting (which was apparently criticized a lot). THe IGN had some good images without watermarks. It'll be easier to write a good FUR with more informative picture.
Also, any thoughts about keeping the pre-release image? ( Guyinblack25 talk 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC))
Hmmm... Resident Evil 4 appears to have failed its GAN, meaning that the topic will not be completed when this article reaches GA. Thought this should be discussed.
In other news, I should be finished with the Reception section very soon. JimmyBlackwing ( talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hammerbrodude ( talk · contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) Well, it should be clear why I'm here tonight. A request to promote P.N.03 was made a couple days ago, and I've opted to personally review this article.
...I intended to do a bit more work tonight, but I'm going to have to temporarily pause the review as I seem to be falling asleep, and it sure would be a shame if I accidentally passed everything in this delirium. Perhaps take a moment to address the excruciatingly tiny issues mentioned below? I'll return to this tomorrow, as soon as I get a chance. Hammerbrodude ( talk) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
1a: "The player controls Vanessa via a third-person perspective and uses a green reticle to target enemies. Capcom aimed to portray a white delicate game world in contrast to its previous games. Shown is Vanessa using the Harrier energy drive against the targeted enemy."
This sentence is a little odd. Rephrase it slightly, perhaps:
Reword this sentence, and perhaps throw a couple internal links into it. It's a little confusing.
This (part of a) sentence just sounds a bit odd when read aloud. I'm probably sounding increasingly petty, but perhaps exchange it for something to the effect of: "Vanessa encounters a digital projection of the client, who appears identical to herself."
Of what? The Capcom Five, or P.N.03?
These are the last couple issues, and I'm prepared to pass the article as soon as they're addressed.
2b: One archived link does not seem to work; the one for Biglobe. May be a decent idea to find some other means of sourcing this.
6a: It may be a good idea to reduce the size of "PN03gun.jpg" somewhat.
{{
Non-free reduce}}
a week ago and am waiting for DASHBOT or some other image bot to make its rounds. (
Guyinblack25
talk
14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
This article has passed review against the Good Article criteria, and I'll list it momentarily. Hammerbrodude ( talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on P.N.03. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/gamings-biggest-flip-flopsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)