Talk:Armored Core V

Article Issue

It looks just as if this article was made by cutting and pasting info from some gaming website into the edit field. This probably could use fixing. kitsune02 {talk} —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

Improved

I have improved this page somewhat, some of the tags could be removed now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.148.234 (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I have added the No More Links Template in an effort to quell the ongoing linkspam that this and related pages have been experiencing. Please see the Links to be Avoided page to learn what it is inappropriate to link to.

Further addition of links without consensus in the talk page will be treated as spam and will be removed. Ninety (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other Armored Core games

Can anyone prove that the storyline reboots in this one? Because otherwise, I'm going to change the last sentence in the opening paragraph to reflect that it's not known whether or not this is a sequel to the Armored Core 4 sequence until more information comes forward.Theorycreation (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consistency in storyline, and a storyline doesn't qualify as a "reboot". AC has never been rebooted... it's changed enough to ruffle a few geeks feathers, but it's not changed formula wise to any extent.--67.54.192.53 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier statement, I was talking of this game marking the beginning of a new storyline completely unrelated to the others, as has happened with the last two numbered entries. If that's an incorrect use of "reboot" in the strictest sense of the word, I acknowledge that. That said, there's still no source I've seen that confirms a new storyline is starting with this game, and it has been the case before that a numbered entry (AC2) took place in the universe of its numbered predecessor. If a source exists confirming a new storyline, it should be brought forward and added to the article ASAP.Theorycreation (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Armored Core V

No ambiguity here, website even redirects to /acv/ now. Can someone get a nice image of the new logo? Despatche (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Online Only

Based on the interview(http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/sim/armoredcore5/video/6297414/armored-core-v-video-interview-armored-core-v-1) this game will be ONLINE ONLY and not a sequel to Armored Core: For Answer or Armored Core 4 --203.45.161.215 (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Story

The Story "section" inside the Characters section seems to be needlessly in-depth and furthermore out of place. I do not think that it should be present in the article at all and should be removed. If anything from those sections is truly important, than it should probably be moved to the Plot section, which by itself already seems to be written in an unusual style for Wikipedia. Sjrct (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Armored Core V is a return to the more traditional style of gameplay found in the original series of games."

This line in the opening paragraph is utter bunk. Every AC game has the exact same formula UNTIL this game completely threw out the mold. Whoever wrote this line could not have played any other AC game --72.173.4.14 (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Update: Here's [1] a discussion about the appropriateness of this sentence. The overall consensus seems iffy, many agree it's either tantamount to "trolling" (a complete inversion of commonsense) or was possibly a marketing gimmick (needs citation) or somehow is meaning to refer to a perceived difference in the two games preceding this game, which are all at the tail end of the series, and it's not clear what "original" means here. A lay person would read "original" to mean the PlayStation series (like 10 games ago) so, I will strike the sentence once this discussion (soon) goes stale since it links to the article and would be confusing if the sentence/context were removed from it --72.173.4.14 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)