Talk:Odama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Redirect Name

Question - Shouldn't "Yoot Saito's Odama" redirect to "Odama" instead of the other way around? After all, the game (if the box art is any indication") is clearly titled "Odama"... Opinions? 70.106.192.85 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be perfectly valid to have it set up this way if there were another article called "Odama." However, since there is not, I see no reason to oppose this move. LordAmeth 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Striker

It seems to me that there was a game for the NES or SNES called "Holy Striker" (probably not released in English) which had a very similar, if not identical concept. Someone might want to follow up and check that out for inclusion in the article. Arvedui 04:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The game was indeed released in English as Firestriker, surprisingly, although it's very obscure. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 02:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks Link

Any reason that link is there? I clicked on it and got nothing. It says the search string of Odama yields no results. I'll just remove it unless there's a reason for it being there, like a future article or something in Wikibooks. Regardless, it seems a little silly to have a link to Wikibooks that doesn't go anywhere. Erik C 22:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion of getting rid of the useless link that has been useless for at least 2 months now Highlandlord 04:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Views

I suggest that this section be added to, with some more information. Yes, critics did dislike it for such reasons, but they liked it for many other reasons as well. Maybe add the latter to the article?