Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002 video game)

It actually went Playstation -> Dreamcast -> PC -> Xbox.

I found references and updated this. Ace of Sevens 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Was this game not re-released for the PC? I'm almost convinced that I've seen a PC version of it out there. Research so far has been inconclusive. -- Jayunderscorezero 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Buffy (XBox Video Game).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the Malik link leads to a completely unrelated article that has nothing to do with the character. I was wondering if someone with the slightest knowledge of this TV show/video game (not me) could fix this link. Thanks! Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire "Story" section is awful, written like a damn brochure or advertisement. Someone rewrite it and make it encyclopaedic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I am working on improving this article and hope to bring it to GA status. At this time, all sections still need to be rewritten. This will include the following:

• Gameplay section needs to be created and properly sourced.
• Development section needs to be expanded with citations, including info from interviews with the developers.
• The reception section needs to be rewritten with proper paragraphs on important aspects of the game, such as gameplay, presentation, faithfulness to the show, and criticism.
• The plot summary needs to be significantly trimmed.
• The lead needs to better summarize the contents of the article.

This will take a while so I appreciate everyone's patience if the article is a bit of a mess in the meantime. Please feel free to help contribute to this project! MidnightMayhem 07:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Nominator: MidnightMayhem (talk · contribs) 11:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002 video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments to follow soon. ♦ JAGUAR  12:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Body

• "which can be performed consecutively to create combos" - link Combo (gaming)
• The Plot subsection is too choppy and would benefit from being merged into larger paragraphs
• The reception section is well written and does well by categorising itself. However, I would strongly recommend merging the legacy section into the reception, as it is actually a retrospective review section as opposed a legacy.
• "According to GameSpot, the game was commercially unsuccessful. It won the publication's annual "Best Game No One Played on Xbox" award, and was nominated in the "Best Action Adventure Game on Xbox" category" - I would move this sentence below that of the retrospective reviews, and just above that of the 'scholarly attention' paragraph

Overall this article is well-written, comprehensive and just shy of meeting the GA criteria - evidenced by the seemingly short review. A valiant first effort. I would recommend merging the legacy section with reception, as retrospective reviews don't really constitute a legacy, unless the game inspired others or a franchise, which in this case did not. I'll leave this on hold until the above are clarified. Jaguar (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the review! I've made adjustments to each section to address these concerns. In particular, I changed legacy to contemporary and retrospective reception subsections instead. Let me know if there's anything else I should improve. MidnightMayhem 19:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes, it looks good to me. Jaguar (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@MidnightMayhem: I have to admit, that I have not read the paper by Tanya Krzywinska. Still, I don't fully understand the meaning of how she researched "how [Buffy] and Primal draw from the show to create mass appeal and how they construct their protagonists after the show's Buffy".

For one thing, how exactly does this game an Primal achieve this? Drawing from the Buffy series to "create mass appeal"? Secondly, isn't the idea of "construct their protagonists after the show's Buffy" somewhat redundant here? I mean, this game is literally titled Buffy the Vampire Slayer and takes places in the show's continuity. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually did not add this (it was added by User:DasallmächtigeJ while I was rewriting the article for GA) but I checked the source and the paper does support the statement; one of the author's primary arguments was that female playable characters in video games create wider appeal, especially for existing fans of the show. Perhaps the sentence could be adjusted to be more focused on this game, though. The comparison to Primal is probably not needed here. MidnightMayhem (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Update, I took another look and decided to completely replace the sentence to more closely reflect what is written in the original paper. I think this bit is much clearer now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MidnightMayhem (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Glad my observation was able to help. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)