Talk:Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CaptainJoseph.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lots of buzz about difficulty

Sekiro seems to have prompted a lot of discussion within online game communities about difficulty. Seems like most major games outlets have run a story on that angle (particularly how it relates to accessibility), and it's not represented in the article. I also remember one article published on April 1 that suggested an assist mode, but it was an April Fools.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-03-23-as-expected-sekiro-is-not-messing-about
https://www.dailydot.com/parsec/sekiros-difficulty-accessibility/
https://venturebeat.com/2019/04/04/from-software-should-want-an-assist-mode-in-sekiro/
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/05/sekiro-accessibility-in-games-is-about-far-more-than-difficulty
I'd love to hear some more thoughts on notability here. Doopwii123 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Should go in the reception section, which I'm still planning to expand once I get the time. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't "online communities", it was only bloggers and self-professed journalists who can't play video games. But yes, just thought about just that. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Japanese characters?

The word "Sekiro" means "one-armed wolf" in Japanese

looks like what in? Kanji? Historical Japanese? Funny there's no other discussion on this page.--184.63.159.28 (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• It's sourced on the page with the kanji being 隻狼. There should be nothing historical about it because it is the name of fictional character. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not sourced where the quote is located (under Development) and it's not sourced correctly in the title either.... the text should be in the first sentence, in parentheses. If if means anything, it's probably historical and a proper noun of some kind. There's no way that "means" one armed wolf in any literal sense. The first kanji is said to mean "moth" in Chinese and Japanese, and it seems to be used as a counter for boats in every result that comes up on ja.wikipedia.org. --184.63.159.28 (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have to be cited in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, and it is cited in prose (using this source). And like I said, it's just a nickname for a fictional character in a video game, so you can't really get anything more than its face value from it. EDIT: Trying to find the source for the kanji simply lead me to realize that the game is under the same exact title in Japan, subtitle and all, thus the kanji isn't even important enough to be noted (and in fact lists セキロ：シャドウズ ダイ トゥワイス as an alternate reading in katakana. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Composers

@MrX Horror: You have already admitted that his role is minor in an edit summary, yet continue to add him in anyway despite consensus against it (as multiple editors have reverted you for the same reason). You are simply being disruptive at this point. Him being sourced or not is not the issue here (although he should still be). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disruptive, I contribute to improve the Wikipedia page, as sure you do too. First of all I haven't seen any consensus because other users like Wrath X (talk · contribs) have understood my position, but judging by your answers you seem more accustomed to undo than to do. Next I would like to know where it says on Wikipedia that the infobox is only for lead composers, because I not only disagree, but it seems elitist, hierarchical and biased, plus as I said before there are hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that don't comply with that. In all the years that my work companions and I've been using Wikipedia for our articles, I had seen how in most cases all the composers are reflected in the file in order of importance. That's crucial, because if this is the most relevant encyclopedia of our time, the information must be clear and precise at a glance. It doesn't hurt to put another name, but it's dangerous not to do it because it implies that there's only one person in charge of music. It leads to confusion. Finally, I won't go into what criteria are followed to say that MobyGames is not reliable (at least when the content has been checked, as in this case), because it's clear that all pages can make mistakes, but sometimes I found more contrasted information in there than in Wikipedia itself. It's ironic. ~ MrX Horror (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sekiro- Shadows Die Twice at Gamescom 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

What to do about objectively incorrect (but sourced) information?

"In a review for Destructoid, Chris Carter ... praised the variety of ways the combat could be approached, writing that players had more choices than in Dark Souls or Bloodborne."

This is no more than a massive gaming journalism moment. This is simply untrue. Combat can be approached one way and one way only in Sekiro - a far cry from Souls. Souls lets you have multiple builds with many different weapon types with tons of different playstyles associated with them, whereas the entire combat system of Sekiro is literally balanced around a single sword - the only main weapon you get. What little variety of secondary weapons exists in Sekiro is present largely as single-focus weapons meant to counter a specific enemy type (fire for red eyes, axe for big shields, etc).

The problem is, Wikipedia as far as policy goes does not care what my opinion of the truth of an article is - only that the article exists and can be referenced. Is there anything to be done about this, or must the page for this game state what amounts to a total lie about its combat relative to other associated titles? Nerdwizard (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)