Talk:Kameo: Elements of Power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kameo: Elements of Power article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
WikiProject Xbox This article is within the scope of WikiProject Xbox, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's articles on Xbox related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Comment

Can someone please cite where it has been confirmed that Kameo is to be an Xbox 360 game? You can feel free to assert that, but without any evidence, I'll also feel free to revert whenever it takes my fancy. Will leave sit for a couple of days, but do expect a revert if nothing crops up. - Vague | Rant 08:33, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It was moved to Xbox 360. Its pretty common knowledge on most gaming websites. Heres some starter stuff for you:
  • Xbox.com [1]
  • Xbox360.com has it, but you have to go through some flash stuff to see it.
  • Rareware.com [2] "and the double whammy of Kameo: Elements of Power and Perfect Dark Zero for Xbox 360."
  • IGN [3]
K1Bond007 05:44, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Like Zelda but...

Not to nitpick, but the sentence "The game appears to draw heavily from Nintendo generally and The Legend of Zelda specifically, but is enchanced by the ability to shape-shift into different forms, which provides more interesting possibilities when solving puzzles and fighting enemies." doesn't make a lot of sense, since a Legend of Zelda game specifically centered around the ability to transform into different forms to solve puzzles and fight enemies was made years ago.


Clarifying comment by a random passerby who forgot their username:

The actual sentence has been changed since then, but I have a suggestion for the article stemming from the same information.

Kameo, as a whole, does borrow gameplay elements and makes many homages to the Legend of Zelda in general. However, you are correct in saying there *is* a specific game in the series that uses transformations in the gameplay. That game is The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Development of Kameo apparently began around the time that Majora's Mask was released, so this was most likely intentional. I request that somebody edit the sentence again to clarify exactly which Zelda game is paralleled here.

For example:

"The game appears to draw heavily from Nintendo generally, Banjo-Kazooie and The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask specifically."

or

"The game appears to draw heavily from Nintendo generally, Banjo-Kazooie and Majora's Mask specifically.'

That said, Kameo goes an extra step and makes the actual process of transformation a gameplay element. (Such as changing into Chilla in mid-air to grab an icy ledge.) This was something Majora's Mask never did. Furthermore, all weapons and tools were replaced by creature abilities, rather than a few.

-The sentence that exists now doesn't make sense, since Banjo-Kazooie is a Rare property and not owned by Nintendo. -30 September

[edit] Co-op Multiplayer

I believe I read something about co-op over XBox Live being added to this game. Can anyone confirm?

  • This was in fact enabled via a free Xbox Live Marketplace download in April 2006. The relatively hefty patch adds two player co-operative gameplay over XBox Live and System Link. -Slordak 19:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looks like...

The game it's in my hands. Now I need wait 22 november to play :( --Mateusc 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

Although this has already been mentioned to Mateusc, Image:Kamo_cover.jpg is an official rendition of the cover art that was released for free use in a fansite kit (http://kameo.com/RoyalFun/FansiteSupport). It is a more apporpriate image than Image:Kameo_boxart.jpg because it displays the box art itself, sans the clutter of Xbox 360 packaging, and without the tilted perspective employed in that pic. --anetode╔╝ 10:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong disagree, for all many other games articles here in wikipedia. Infobox is a place of original boxcover, not artcover. --Mateusc 10:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"box cover not artcover" ?! The packaging features box art, Image:Kameo_cover.jpg is the box art, direct from Rare. No amount of disagreement on your part will change that, and no amount of reverting either. Further, the fair use rationale for using Amazon.com's product image is rather shady when there is a free alternative. --anetode╔╝ 10:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Wait. I request a comment of the uploader and a very experient WCVPG member. Thanks. --Mateusc 10:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest that you request a comment from someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use as well. Also, you have now violated WP:3RR. I wish that we could come to an amicable agreement without petty bickering or wasting the time of others, but our previous interactions make that seem unlikely. --anetode╔╝ 11:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what the big deal is. Just put the box art in the infobox and leave it there. We should put the image that appears on the store shelves. Thunderbrand 16:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The box art image used earlier is of dubious copyright (as it was produced by Amazon.com), and is tilted. The Image:Kameo_cover.jpg is uncluttered (all of the relevant packaging details are outlined in the infobox anyway), better quality, and officially released to promote the game. Outside of the traditional convention, I think that it makes a much better image header for the infobox. --anetode╔╝ 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont'n know why anedote are replacing boxarts in the articles. The same was made in Perfect Dark Zero. This is irresponsability for me for ignoring and disrespect the work of comunity. Just leave the **** box in the article, no reason to reaplace (Sorry if I some rude). --Mateusc 21:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Once again, don't pretend that your dissatisfaction with my edits reflects the greater communities' disapproval or disrespect. I can respect your difference of opinion, but when your only justification is this whole "irresponsibility" rhetoric (see WP:FAITH, WP:BOLD), I can't help but feel that the only reason you revert these changes is because of a personal distrust. Let's talk about making the article better, and this may include that the infobox image is changed, or it may not. Either way, to completely ignore such quality, sourced and licensed, content from Rare seems counterproductive. --anetode╔╝ 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think we should put this aside and just go with Image:Kameo_cover.jpg. It doesn't bother me now that I have thought about it more. I guess as long as the box art is somewhere in the article its ok with me. Thunderbrand 03:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Just can't understand why image need be replaced. Why not just leave the image? Why replace to grace anetode? --Mateusc 05:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, for one, because this is not about me, or your dislike of me. This is about the article, and in what ways it might be improved. --anetode╔╝ 05:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Improved? The only thing you make is replace the image, with the same artwork. The difference is your stetic (what the problem? Don't like XBOX360 style box?). By the way, I think we need respect the work of members already made, Nothing wrong with the actual boxshot, is compilant with fair use. --Mateusc 05:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you think that my edits are a detriment to the article? Do they remove any information? Oh, and copyright policy implies that use of images with permission is preferable to those where the case for fair use is more strained. Right now, the only thing you are doing is trolling and engaging in revert battles. --anetode╔╝ 05:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you need respect the work of other members. What's wrong with current boxshot? Nothing. The only thing here is your steticism. --Mateusc 05:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative process, I am one of the involved collaborators. It disgusts me that you are implying a disregard or disrespect of the work of others. I am trying, in good faith, and with ample justification, to improve the article. The only thing here is your vendetta. --anetode╔╝ 05:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't want make a game of personal attacks with you. You are the first guy engaged in replace boxshot of games-articles. Just look around:
--Mateusc 05:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Fine, then don't insult me with obtuse accusations of impropriety. Just to reiterate, the image I put in the infobox *is* the box art, see the above posts. I am not trying to go against the image use of the articles you mentioned, I agree that the box art should be used. The question is whether the box art should include the entire packaging details, or the cover image itself. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Infobox images. If you are in any way unclear as to why I replaced the image, please ask me about it. Try discussing things before reverting them, it's very much more polite. --anetode╔╝ 05:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Major of games-articles in Wikipedia contains the full boxshot, with all package details, including Grin Fandango Image:Gim fandango cover.jpg in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Infobox. And before say I'm accusing, trolling and "vendetta" remind that YOU start this dispute. I only revert to original images to keep the norms of WPCVG. --Mateusc 05:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The revert process is not meant to inforce any "norms", and you have no more authority, on behalf of WPCVG or Wikipedia in general, than anyone else, including me. This dispute began with your reverts, when I posted my reasons you simply ignored them. Then you requested Thunderbrand's comments, because he was the one who uploaded the first image. Now you are ignoring them because they do not fit with what you want to happen, so you revert. I have been foolish enough to revert a few times as well, and now the page is protected. What should have been a trivial matter to be discussed in a civilized way, has resorted to this. --anetode╔╝ 06:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have a proposal: let's discuss in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games. I'm not disrespect you, only try to protect a norm that I believe is right (WPCVG). I think this need lot of discussion in WPCVG before starting replacing boxshots in games articles. --Mateusc 06:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
As opposed to discussion here, at the article's talk page? I think it merits both. In any case, I am by no means abided to discuss it at WPCVG (even though I did just that). Every decision I make as an editor should not be put through reversion and harsh criticism, if everyone were exposed to that, no one would edit. This is why there's WP:FAITH. --anetode╔╝ 06:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have had trouble keeping the Xbox article clean from Mateusc's vandalism. In his latest vandalism, he wiped out contributions by several users simply to revert to his opinionated edit. Dionyseus 07:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear, discuss it in Talk:Xbox, thanks. --Mateusc 16:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Anetode, the official Kameo fansite kit was created just for this purpose, the art cover should be the infobox image. And as long as the Xbox 360 box cover image is available in the article's gallery, I don't see what's the problem. So far me, Thunderbrand, and K1Bond007 (at the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games) agree with Anetode that the cover art provided by the official Kameo fansite kit is the preferable image to be used in the Infobox. Dionyseus 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Dionyseus, don't distortn the things. K1Bond007 not agree fully with Anetode and He consider the actual boxshot system in Infobox (with full logos and boxart). User:Jacoplane fully disagree. I talk with Anetode and this need lot of discussion in WPCVG before crash with Infobox boxart norms. Anyway you seem to be pursuing me because of the discord of my contributions in Xbox including call-me "vandal". Thanks.--Mateusc 18:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
To clarify; K1Bond007 simply said that he doesn't care, and that the use of Kameo_cover.jpg is just as appropriate as Kameo_boxart.jpg for the infobox purpose of identification. This is precisely what the dispute is about. Also, I'm not sure whether Jacoplane fully disagrees, given his comments about my reply, and the discussion he pointed to stated that "Box art is recognizable based on logo" (presumably the game logo, like Kameo_cover.jpg). And Dionyseus, while I don't agree with Mateusc' penchant for reverting, it's not outright vandalism. --anetode╔╝ 19:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
After reading all of the discussions I would agree with Anetode that the cover art provided by the official fansite should be used. Personally I think that the flat box art is more consistant with other game pages in the wikipedia and that the rendered 3D image of the actual game should go into the gallery.--Thax 23:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Began production for the Nintendo 64?

I reverted the change that removed the mention of being originally developed for the Nintendo 64. The article has flip-flopped over time, either mentioning that development started for the GameCube, or that it started from the Nintendo 64. I personally don't know, but both seem to be somewhat widely held. Given that a google for Kameo "Nintendo 64" gets a significant number of hits, many of them semi-credible, that seems like it's most likely the correct answer. If there are some really solid sources we could cite, that would be the best resolution. --Interiot 17:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again before I read this, but I recall a trademark for Kameo being registered shortly before the GameCube version was revealed (or at least after it was way too late to start an N64 game). Also, IGN has listings for the GameCube and Xbox versions of Kameo, but none for an N64 version. I think it's safe to assume that Kameo was never for N64. If still not sure, I think it's best to just leave it. Chiphead 07:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

IGN mentions that it began on the N64 - that does not necessarily mean it started with the title of Kameo, which can explain why it would have been registered later in its life. EGM also mentions it in a timeline of Kameo development. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If anybody still cares, here's the answer straight from Rare: "I don't even know where that story about the game beginning on N64 even came from, but it is totally inaccurate as the game was never developed on N64 and began life early on GameCube." Chiphead 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So Much Missing!

This article has so much information missing! What about the Kameo manga, sequals, prequals and movies being made? I'm pretty sure I heard about all of those in one form or another somewhere. At least, I know for certain that they're making a manga because I've read some of it, even if the others turn out to just be rumors. --Aceizace 22:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i would also like to know about the possibility of a sequel. --Dallin Tanjo22 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

It would help if someone would upload pictures of the EWs. I would, but I don't want to create an account.

All I have are pictures of Kameo herself. Would you like those? --Coconutfred73 23:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elemental Warrior Descriptions

Someone should improve the descriptions of the elemental warriors because some of them aren't very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A2vg2a (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)