Battleship (Xbox 360) Walkthrough

Please use this thread to discuss the Battleship walkthrough

The walkthrough has now been published.

You can find it here: Battleship (Xbox 360) Walkthrough

Walkthrough explains the game ok, but of a waste of time, the game its self can be complete without much of a problem in one play through, doing 3 is just time wasting, good walkthrough, just should have made it simpler.

It does say on the overview page that it only takes one run to clear it. I simply write my walkthroughs the way I clear my games; enjoyment run, misc achievements run, hardest difficulty run, multiplayer cleanup.

The walkthrough shouldn't be based on how you do the game but how the game should be done, if you choose to run through this game 3 times that's your choice but if it can be done in one this is how the walkthrough should have been, it should be remade and improved.

It clearly states in several places that you don't have to follow my method. This is how I write my walkthroughs and the staff on TA don't seem to have a problem with that. If you don't like it, don't use my walkthrough. I'm not rewriting an entire walkthrough based on one person's disagreement with my formula when I have 2 other walkthroughs written exactly the same way, plus 2 more in the works, that nobody has raised a peep about.

That said, I'll try and implement more 'one-run' friendly tips in the future, though my structure will remain the same.

Okay, well if thats the way you do your walkthroughs good luck to you, but personally i wanted to use a walkthrough for this game and when i came to TA for one i found it useless, no offense aimed at you but TA isn't really full of 'average' gamers, most are hardcore gamers that use the walkthroughs.

Yes this game can be finished in one run but why would i use a walkthrough that guides me through almost 30 hours of gameplay when it can clearly be done in 10 hours, to enjoy the game? no this game was painful with one playthrough nevermind 3. I do agree with you on one thing, you write the walkthrough how you do the games, i do admire that, but i think they should be written how best to play the game, i only took one look at this walkthrough and i went elsewhere, relied on solutions instead, i feel that 3 playthroughs would put gamers off using the walkthrough and after all, thats not what we want.

No offense intended, i just think that the community should come first and personal gaming tactics should be the 'tips'

hello,

I have to agree with nick.
Why do you lead us through the first playthrough when every single achievement in there can be done on any difficulty.
As an example: for xcom you need a minimum of 5 playthroughs. For my own amusement I am aiming to do 7 or 8 playthroughs. But I'm not writing a guide with 8 playthroughs, just the 5.

Keep in mind for which audience (demographic) you are writing the guide.

Best Regards,

Theo

I agree with both parties, but i do like KJT CD ACDs. It's done in a way of manner. The usual routine and it gives me an idea of what it is. Of course you never have to follow a walkthrough. Most times i dont but i normally read them for ideas, personal experience. not for the generic this is the fastest way.

Either way you will not please all the audience, that said good job KJT CD ACD

I'm kind of torn on this one.

On one hand, KJT wrote the walkthrough from his perspective. Granted, it isn't the most efficient manner in which to complete the game, it will still get you to completion.

On the other hand, I imagine most people come to these walkthroughs with the idea that what they will get is the most efficient manner in which to complete a game. I mean that is part of the reason why we propose how long it will take to complete the game.

I mean take Bioshock: Infinite for example (since that is what I'm playing). You could complete the game in 1 playthrough. Is that the most efficient way, yes. However, it is the best way? Perhaps not. A run on easy/normal and then a cleanup on the hardest difficulty may make it easier and more efficient for a different type of player.

Keep in mind we're not limited to just what is on TA. There are other guides out there on the internet...

KJT CD ACDs, it's been cleared by the Walkthrough Co manager that we can re-write this walkthrough if the current owner agrees, myself and Theo Boots would actually like to take on the task of getting it re-wrote as we don't think it's good enough, other walkthroughs out there are an option to the users of TrueAchievements but we don't want to push them to other walkthroughs, we want them to use the ones provided by TA, me and Theo feel that this needs re-doing, if you'd like to join us your more then welcome.

Basically we are asking KJT CD ACD for permission to become editor and do some editing.
You, KJT CD ACD, will still remain the owner and have a final say in matters.

We know you put in a lot of good work. We are also aware of your motivations for the structure of the WT.
However we think it might not quite fit the TA-demographic in it's current state.

Agreed.

I have this game ready to start and when I read the walkthrough without knowing a drop on the game I was like surely I don't need 3 runs. I thought at first the achievements don't stack or something. This is an achievements site and i feel walkthroughs need to walk us through the quickest way to get the 1000.

If you guys (Theo Boots and nickKz) want to put in the time and effort to rewrite the walkthrough, I have no problem with that. I have to agree with dropK1CK ninJA though, with his example of BS:I. Some games need this type of walkthrough, but others just need an extended achievement guide. Battleship is the latter, while the walkthrough I wrote just before doing this one (The Darkness II) is the former.

TL;DR: Edit your hearts out, I've learned a valuable distinction between walkthrough types.

I like discussion. What dropK1CK ninJA says is open to interpretation.

starting point 1
I have been told that the TA-policy is aimed at making the site THE one-stop site for xbox-gamers. In other words we're trying to be so good/ complete/ all-round as possible. When people come to TA there should not be a need for them to look (for a guide) on any other website.
With this one-stop policy in mind the quote from ninja has to be seen as a warning. A warning that if the guide is not all it can be then people might start looking elsewhere. This is what TA does not want to happen and we have to try and prevent this.

I want to be supportive of TA because some basics are well done on the site. However regarding the guides there is still a lot of unlocked potential. In my opinion the WT-side of things can be improved. (taken to the next level is a popular expression)
starting point 2
For this post I want to limit the scope to "having the best guide". Well, it is an illusion to think this is possible. This thread is proof of that because several people point out that a guide to quickly / efficiently get all the achievements might not be the best option. Yet, this is the norm for all guides.

In my opinion it would be better to allow for more than one guide. It should be possible for a game to have multiple guides on TA. An example of this is the gamefaqs website. Almost every game on that site has multiple guides.
Not everyone looks for the same thing when looking for a guide.
- Some people want to explore/collect everything.
- Some people want to optimize their save/character.
- Some people want to get the achievements and move on. (current target group?)
- Some games are very complex and people look for a guide on one aspect of the game.
By giving the people a choice of guides they don't have to look for guides elsewhere. Which brings us closer to the goal of being a one-stop website for xbox-gamers.

Of course there are many options for the implementation and presentation of multiple guides. Discussing these isn't very useful as long as we only have one guide per game. So I just wanted to give some options without going into detail.
- A collection of guides with a very open structure is one possibility.
- Instead of an open structure one could work with guide-categories.

=============================================================
All of the above is just my view. In the current situation I think it would be best to have the same starting point for all guides.
I don't think it is a good situation if we allow some guide to deviate from the starting point.
Having said that the starting point isn't strictly enforced. Room is given for deviation from "the norm". This is also the reason why we first ask the owner for permission to make some edits.

As my first comment states, the guide is great, my only issue with it from the get go is that i didn't want to play this game three times so i looked else ware, as Theo Boots said, we at TA want to attract more people to OUR walkthroughs other than alternatives. I think the walkthrough should only be edited in a minor manner, taking away the time-consuming parts added by the original owner, in addition that that we should make it as that the three playthroughs are optional but theoretically it can be done in one.

I've got to side with nick on this one. I don't really see someone looking for a walkthrough in order to tell them how to get all the enjoyment out of a game by playing it multiple (and unnecessary) times. They can do that entirely on their own, and with little or no guidance. The whole point of a walkthrough is to guide you efficiently through the game. It's kind of the definition of "walkthrough", if you take my meaning. When you look for a walkthrough you're basically saying, "Help me get through this game."

If the walkthrough is structured for guiding you through the most efficient path to complete the game, then everyone is well served. The people who just want to get the game done as quickly as possible can do so, while the people who wish to take a little more time with the game can get the general information and guidelines that they need. This way no one is put off from using the walkthroughs on TA and forced to look elsewhere.

As for the example of games like BioShock: Infinite, where the user may be better served by being guided through multiple, though not strictly necessary, playthroughs, I think that is kind of a judgement call. I do think there need to be obvious and well thought out reasons for doing so, however. You can take my walkthrough for Gears of War as an example.

Technically, you can get every achievement in the game in one playthrough if you play in co-op and on Insane difficulty, but is it easiest for the user to do it this way? Probably not. It would be immensely more difficult for the gamer to get all of the collectible achievements, kill achievements, and other various things by playing the game only once. Therefore I structured the walkthrough around two playthroughs. The reasons that I did so are also clearly stated at the beginning of the walkthrough in the Overview, so that the user is aware of what they are in for.

Does a walkthrough for a game like Battleship serve the user well by being structured around three complete playthroughs? Clearly not. No offense intended, but a walkthrough like this is only doing a good job for a very small number of users. If that small number of users enjoy playing the game three times, there's no problem with that, but they can still get all of the information and guidance they need from a walkthrough that is structured to help everyone, not just those few.

Regarding multiple walkthroughs for the same game, I'm not too sure how I feel about that. As I said before, when I look for a walkthrough that means I need to get through this game efficiently. I'm not sure that I want to have to read through several walkthroughs before I even get started to see which one that I want to use. How would you classify the multiple walkthroughs? I've used many walkthroughs from gamefaqs, but it's just an unclassified list of links. You just have to kind of pick one at random and hope it's good.

I think the wiki-style walkthroughs that we employ have both good and bad points. It allows walkthroughs to be continually improved, but it also allows the site to be cluttered with many, many terrible, awful, horrible walkthroughs. I am in no way talking about this walkthrough in particular. I'm just saying that the current status of our walkthrough library at this point is comparable to a field full of coal, with a few diamonds scattered about. I'm just sayin'.

I totally agree of what you said above Weis, i've seen alot of walkthroughs on TA and i've also used many of them but some really need work, sometimes i get the feeling people do walkthroughs just to get a +1 to their TA badges, i think alot of walkthroughs need overlooking and some redoing.

Also i think overseer's with experience of the game they are proofreading should be important to, i'm not sure if KungFuRiki has played Battleship i'm guessing no, there for trusting the authors judgment, how can someone "proofread" something they have no knowledge on?

Thanks for the input Weis

I don't think I understand the problem. I followed the walkthrough and 1k'ed the game. Now, I did read the walkthrough properly, and I do recall getting the impression that the game could be done in one pass on the highest difficulty but that it would be hard. I started the game off on the highest difficulty and didn't find it all that hard, so I ran through the rest of the game that way.

So, as someone who actually used the walkthrough and got the 1k, I did actually understand from the outset that it could be done once, and I chose to do that. So what's the issue?