ZEQ2 Lite

Thursday, July 26, 2012

I went on wikipedia and about the HD Collection, look at the photo ...


the second picture are two different sites and the other one and Snapfish and multiplayer
Snapfish has the cover of Dragon Ball Budokai Tenkaichi HD COLLECTION
while the multiplayer Dragon Ball budokai HD COLLECTION
the site that gave its discovery (XTRALIFE) has the lining Budokai Tenkaichi HD COLLECTION but now the door lining budokai HD collection while the japan expo (who claims to have confirmed) has the lining Budokai Tenkaichi

Thursday, July 26, 2012

So, Budokai 1 and 3 will have multiplayer?

Thursday, July 26, 2012

I don't know
But look, budokai HD collection is PlayStation 3, and Budokai Tenkaichi HD Classic is Xbox 360

Thursday, July 26, 2012

mm nice idea..


and how will be the graphic this time?...

Thursday, July 26, 2012

HD ?!?

Thursday, July 26, 2012

You realize this is wikipedia....which is never a valid source.....for a lot of things. If there was an xbox version with Tenkaichi (which I could care less for), we would have seen some Comic Con footage.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

video.... is true..

http://www.eurogamer.it/articles/2012-07-06-news-videogiochi-dragon-ball-z-budokai-hd-collection-uscira-in-inverno

5 october will be released in Europe..I think(dragonball kinect) not good I think..

not tenkaichi...

is budokai and budokai3... not tenkaichi..

HD... pfui.. is the same graphic of Dragon Ball heroes..

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Looks slightly better than heroes. Heroes look kind of...blocky and stuff and one weird white shade. Still only improved slightly, and made to fit widescreen formats.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

I know nello :/

Thursday, July 26, 2012

They are the exact same models. So I don't see how the graphics could possible be better. That heroes, infinite world shader is not something better to me..

Thursday, July 26, 2012

You realize this is wikipedia....which is never a valid source.....for a lot of things.

That's not necessarily true. While anyone CAN edit an article, Wikipedia requires that information always be provided with citations and written in neutral form. They have a SLEW of people working around clock to help verify/validate new changes or otherwise flag articles as not meeting criteria. If an article has no such flag and its citations are verifiable from respectable sources, it's no different than receiving information from any other news outlet.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Zeth wrote :

You realize this is wikipedia....which is never a valid source.....for a lot of things.

That's not necessarily true. While anyone CAN edit an article, Wikipedia requires that information always be provided with citations and written in neutral form. They have a SLEW of people working around clock to help verify/validate new changes or otherwise flag articles as not meeting criteria. If an article has no such flag and its citations are verifiable from respectable sources, it's no different than receiving information from any other news outlet.

Actually, even sources that are known for their credibility have made mistakes, both honest and foolhardy, regarding the validity of their information.

Don't forget that many of the rumors on the internet can be so widely believed that they seem almost common knowledge. Even if Wikis have citations for each of their stated facts, the person quoting the information still has their own interpretation of the info which may or may not be in sync with the original author's purpose when posting the original citation.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Well, for those who want to see the link here it http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_di_videogiochi_di_Dragon_Ball

Thursday, July 26, 2012

its time I edited that article

you kids believe wikipedia like its lloyd

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Actually, even sources that are known for their credibility have made mistakes, both honest and foolhardy, regarding the validity of their information.

Articles become flagged in instances like this. If an article has some level of maturity and has been validated using wikipedia standards, there's a very high margin that it's true (to the extent of rational and neutral perception).

Don't forget that many of the rumors on the internet can be so widely believed that they seem almost common knowledge

Non-applicable sources are not acceptable as citations. Not only that, but citations are constantly in a state of challenge in order to authenticate their information.

Even if Wikis have citations for each of their stated facts, the person quoting the information still has their own interpretation of the info which may or may not be in sync with the original author's purpose when posting the original citation.

There's a HUGE difference in a wiki and wikipedia. ANYONE can have their own wiki of information by using the mediawiki or other similarly-typed software. Wikipedia on the other hand is a rigorously compliant and validated source of shared information that conforms to (very) strict standards. Misinformation spread through wikipedia itself is usually squelched quite quickly -- especially on more frequently visited articles.

you kids believe wikipedia like its lloyd

Please cite a more comprehensive and neutral source of information online.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Zeth sorry, or and the translator who translated wrong, or am I that I can not read well . in simple words: IT IS TRUE OR FALSE?
*I'm Italian sorry *

Friday, July 27, 2012

And here we go off-topic.

Friday, July 27, 2012

LegendarySS4 wrote : And here we go off-topic.

It's not entirely irrelevant, since really it's the question of validity of the subject that brought this up, and (for me) more interesting than the subject that spawned this.

By the way, do you ever post anything besides passive aggressive or derrogatory one-liners anymore? I miss when you used to, well, NOT do that. You know, at least somewhat positive and enthusiastic? Ah well, every party needs a pooper, I guess. <-- That's off topic!

Back on topic, I'm not a big supporter of these HD "remakes" or collections, or whatever. That said, I have always been the guy who, if I enjoyed a game, held onto it for dear life, so if I were interested in this, I'd naturally still have all of the games in that collection. I suppose a business has to make money somehow And those of you that will buy it, I hope you get your money's worth, and I mean that sincerely

Friday, July 27, 2012

Please cite a more comprehensive and neutral source of information online.

government site?

Friday, July 27, 2012

RealDeal wrote :

Please cite a more comprehensive and neutral source of information online.

government site? :*laughing out loud*: :*laughing out loud*: :*laughing out loud*:

I think neutrality would rule out government sources.

Friday, July 27, 2012

neutrality

what?

Friday, July 27, 2012

Governments aren't neutral obviously.

Except only in their international relations but that's a whole other thing.

I think the main problem here is that kids are mixing up wiki's and wikipedia. Dragonball wiki is not trustworthy for instance. Filled with nonsense.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Monday, July 30, 2012

it has multiplayer

Monday, July 30, 2012

They still aren't doing what the True fans want...
A free roam game with multiplayer.
it's not like its hard... for them.