Talk:Clock Tower (series)

---

Link to fan game

A Facebook profile? Seriously? Is there no other, proper, website?

Untitled

If someone could clean up the game section, that would be nice. Currently, I am not available to.--William Pembroke 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

More info on film...

Someone might want to add the new info about the film, that it will be based off the second game and the new cast members (Milla Jovovich, Alyssa Jayne Hale.) Also, it says on the article that Brittney Snow will be playing the lead role, and yes Brittany Snow is still in the film, but the latest news on the film states that Milla Jovovich will be playing Alyssa Baron. --Jigsaw 541 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Jigsaw 541

Split film

not sure how to carry history over, but split should happen--Tehw1k1 (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

About film

The film project is so thin yet, i think it's not the time for split. Doing this, we only get another page with "this article is about a project in development..." and "this article is a stub.". Let's wait until things got more substantial.--MRFraga (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Remothered

That game is not by Capcom, it's just a fan remake, and I propose that it gets removed from this article, and has its own article deleted as well. In fact, aside from a couple of cleannup edits, only one user added the information on it and it seems that they're just trying to advertise.Byakuya Truelight (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am removing all mention of this game from the 'Games' section since it is not an official game. Looking at this article at the moment, the reader would probably think that this is an official game and part of the series, when it is not. I am leaving the dedicated section alone, however, since it should not be removed just because it is a fan game. Fan works are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The only problem is with notability. I'm really not sure if this game is notable enough to have its own article. The article should probably be deleted until the game is actually released and has proved to be notable. It does need to be made clear that this is a fan work, and not an official game. --Super Shy Guy Bros. (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the original Japanese main series and spin-off Clock Tower series titles

People have putting in the renamed US titles of the Clock Tower series (e.g. - Clock Tower Ghost Head (Japan), Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within (US title)), which are NOT in anyway in cannon with the main series. Please keep the original Japanese titles in main and spin-off series, which are the original main and spin-off order of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigAl2k6 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Remothered

Chris has announced that Remothered will be released at November 17 in Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poseidon1224 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I go to a survival horror forum, and we debated that it was about a game being revealed too soon. The developers have rarely released any news about it, so it's not even close to being available.78.148.97.27 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to years in gaming

Before I came along, there were links to years in gaming e.g. 2005. However, the Clock Tower games are not actually listed in those years? Idk know how to add them, or if they need to be. Anyway, I'm taking away the links in favour of a different format. (Emulating the Portal article) Msmarmalade (talk) 05:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Similar Game: Rule of Rose

I'm not sure about the relevance of this section. I've moved it under the Spin-off heading, but I think it needs a better heading~ or to be linked in with Haunting Ground. Also, Haunting Ground is not mentioned in the Rule of Rose article.

Msmarmalade (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clock Tower (series)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 01:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this submission shortly. I can say right off the bat that I do not see any issues in regards to plagiarism (as I incorrectly declined Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within for before immediately correcting the error after it was brought to my attention). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well written and the lead adequately summarizes the information within the article. Word choice is good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The statements made within the article are backed up by reliable sources and citations are included where appropriate/needed. Copyright violations and plagiarism are not a concern.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article broadly covers the topic. It covers the development, history, overall reception, and common elements between the games of the series.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written from a neutral point of view.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable, it has not had a single revert since 11 September 2016, I have no concerns here.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images within the article do have appropriate fair use rationales and do contain captions.

7. Overall: The article is well written and does not give me cause for concern.

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations to TarkusAB and all other editors who have positively contributed to this article!

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks for reviewing both this article and Clock Tower II. I understand the mistake from earlier so thanks for owning up to it. I hope you have an opportunity to use the On Hold function in the future to better understand its value at creating a dialogue about the article content. TarkusAB^talk 05:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Clock Tower (series)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 13:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "The game also features a dog companion the player can use to attack enemies and solve puzzles" - Why are you telling me this? Have I missed something?

   This is a feature which distinguishes it from Clock Tower 3. I reworded the passage. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

   "the sexual objectification of the main character, Fiona, has been repeatedly highlighted as one of the games strongest elements" - this is interesting. Reading it makes me very curious about how sexual objectification can be considered a strong element. Can you expand on this at all?

   The details are available on the Haunting Ground page. Didn't want to get into too much here since it's not even a Clock Tower game. I added a little more. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

   "The most recent entry, Clock Tower 3, received similar reviews to the first two titles." As this stage you've already mentioned it is the 'most recent entry' three times. You can drop this mention, and maybe the one before it as well.

   Dropped it from several mentions. Only mentioned once now. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

   "He is also often identified as one of the scariest characters in video games." - Why is he identified in this way? You can expand on this. One sentence would be enough.

   Expanded a little. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

   "The film was to be produced by Mayhem Project" - What is the Mayhem Project? Since there's no Wikilink, can you explain what this is in any way? Otherwise it's not helpful.

   This was mentioned to differentiate it from the other studio that picked it up later. I removed both studio names, not really important. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   There's some inconsitency in the reference formatting. For example some sources are listed with "www.gamerankings.com" as the publisher whereas others have "GameRankings". All references need to be formatted consistently. Either the name of the website, or the base url, no mixtures. Some of the references use the 'website=' parameter, others use 'publisher='. This is resulting in, for example, IGN appearing as both plain text and italics througout the reference section. Pick one parameter and make it consistent throughout the whole article.

   OK I fixed the reference formatting. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The third paragraph in the 'History and development' section is a bit thin in comparison to the others. Are you certain you can't expand it at all?

   I really...really wish I could. There's almost no sources out there. The only resource which may have details is the official JP strategy guide. I bought it and it's currently in transit from Japan. Until that arrives and I translate it, there's nothing I can do. I could merge it with the fourth paragraph for the time being if you think that looks better. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Placing this one of hold so minor issues can be addressed. Well done overall. Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Concerns addressed. TarkusAB^talk 21:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Happy to promote this now. Freikorp (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)