Talk:Grandia III
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
External Links edit
Sounds more like a commerical than an article. edit
"Traverse the world of Grandia III as it's meant to be. In full 3D."
Is it just me, or does that sound like more of an advertisement?
--alsotop 19:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Added cleanup tags, to denote that some sections are in an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia article. Alex 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
was any of that stolen from the actual press releases and stuff? anyhow, that chick dying in the fire, that should probably be mentioned somewhere. and maybe that picture from penny-arcade? --JadenGuy 05:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Critical Responses! edit
This game got a louds of critical responses. And it ruined Grandias reputation. Somebody please fix this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.247.10 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what? That sort of comment does not belong on Wikipedia. Every single game in history has a bunch of "loud critics" behind it. If we listened to them rather than play the games, we'd never play games at all. Grandia III is a masterpiece, as are all other games of the Grandia series. They are a different genre of game to the Final Fantasy series however and must be enjoyed for what they are, not what other games are. Yaddy yadda, blah blah. Also, try learning some grammar before suggesting we add biased and uninformed opinions on a game's page.
- If this game was derided by critics that information definitely belongs in the article regardless of whether or not editors think the game is a "masterpiece". AMHR285 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's a stupid claim. Unless you have proof that Grandia III was poorly received and "ruined" the series' reputation, that information does not belong in the article. Cite your sources and make sure your sources are official, and that's it that's all. You can't just shout 'OMG IT RUINED THE SERIES!!!' when the game got a whole damn lot of sales and high enough scores to be included in PS2 Classics bundles.70.83.146.151 (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Um, 70.83.146.151, AMHR285 did not say any of the things you claim he said. Nor did he make any edits to the article, as you claim. And the info on criticism for Grandia III does cite its sources. If your only way of arguing your point is by flat-out lying, it's a good idea to not argue at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's a stupid claim. Unless you have proof that Grandia III was poorly received and "ruined" the series' reputation, that information does not belong in the article. Cite your sources and make sure your sources are official, and that's it that's all. You can't just shout 'OMG IT RUINED THE SERIES!!!' when the game got a whole damn lot of sales and high enough scores to be included in PS2 Classics bundles.70.83.146.151 (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- If this game was derided by critics that information definitely belongs in the article regardless of whether or not editors think the game is a "masterpiece". AMHR285 (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Grandia III. 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://www.webcitation.org/6B8khZGuk?url=http://www.ign.com/ to http://ps2.ign.com/articles/608/608024p1.htmll
- Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ADng5WEe?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/grandia-iii to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3148014&did=1
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612140246/http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5345 to http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5345
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051024174725/http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5399 to http://www.gamesarefun.com/news.php?newsid=5399
When 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: 18 January 2022).
- 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)