Jump to content

Talk:Dragon Quest (video game)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Rename to Dragon Quest?

The title doesn't seem to reflect a world view. The game was originally called Dragon Quest, and while the initial NA release was called Dragon Warrior the series as since reverted to calling the games Dragon Quest with the latest games being titled Dragon Quest even in the states. ScienceApe (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's at this title because all (two) English versions have been called Warrior. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I, II, III, IV, and VII. –MuZemike 06:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I meant THIS game had two English releases with the name. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to oppose such a change. As the English Wikipedia features a mostly English-speaking audience, and as most of the English-speaking part of the world was introduced to this game as Dragon Warrior, it needs to stay as such. –MuZemike 06:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree, unlike Dragon Quest IV this game has never been released as Dragon Quest anywhere in the English Speaking World and also the reason why the second, third, and seventh games still are titled Dragon Warrior. The way I see it is unless any of these games are later re-released under the Dragon Quest name they should stay under the existing title.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Also unless I am mistaken the post made earlier seems to imply that this game was released as Dragon Quest in English, if that is an accurate assessment can some proof be provided since to the best of my knowledge that was never the case.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, the thing is (and I think it's more of a terminology issue than anything) that in certain sections, we need to be more clear in certain parts of the article whether or not it's Quest or Warrior; I know that in most of the "Development" section before the subsection on the North American release, the game should be referred to as Quest. However, I don't think that is the case, and we should change that if at least for consistency reasons. –MuZemike 07:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Retrogamer material.

Someone has been removing the Retrogamer and Famitsu sources that have been added by MuZemike. Is the removal of this material necessary? If not, please let me know here. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a sock of de facto banned user KnowIG (talk · contribs), who is now apparently going after each and every one of my edits. –MuZemike 00:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ouch. Well hopefully he gets banned.陣内Jinnai 03:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, he's already banned. See this discussion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for finally restoring it. I didn't even realize the material was still gone until it popped on the watchlist :) –MuZemike 05:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC?

There isn't too much else to be done save maybe an independant copyedit. There will probably be more sources in the future, but I'd say this article is very well fleshed out, especiall when comparing it to Final Fantasy (video game).陣内Jinnai 04:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's almost there, I think; it's probably as good as A-Class, but I won't endorse it as it's clear my A-Class "review" turned into a "collaboration", and it wouldn't be fair if I did (but it's no big deal). A few things before I feel it's good to go:
  • I would like to see the lead expanded to 3 paragraphs, trying to cover most of the article's aspects.
  • Copyediting mostly. I've gone through the Gameplay, Plot, and Development sections myself many times and in great detail, and unless there were some things I obviously missed, the prose should be fairly good. I have not, however, gone through the remaining sections or the lead, yet.
  • There are a couple sources whose reliability I question, but I have to look them back up again.
I know I added quite a few things in the article myself, and hopefully they should still be within the article's scope and everything. Once I finish combing through the other sections and feel comfortable with them, I would support a run for FAC. –MuZemike 21:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While it's fresh on my mind, two images raise concern:
  • File:Dq comparison side.png → I don't think the image is really helping anymore with the readers' understanding of the article prose; I won't remove it myself, but I can forsee FAC reviewers raising issues over that.
I'd still disagee. The changes go above and beyond that which can easily be explained via prose, such as descibing how the characters look different. Describing how an 8-bit version of the Japanese populace vs. the NA ones, we don't have any source that goes into that great of detail. That is what I'd tell them and its true. You can't, without OR explain how the character differentiate other than the positions they face.陣内Jinnai 23:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, we can see how they feel at FAC when we get it up there, I suppose; we'll definitely get more opinions on it there. –MuZemike 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Dq1snes.png → This is more of a nitpick, but I would think it would make more sense to make a picture of the Hero standing outside Tantegel Castle, which Charlock Castle in the distance. This is because, when readers read about how players start the game with the final destination in plain sight, they would be expected to see a picture of what I just described.
For that, I'd agree. It should be fine if someone can get their own copy of the image. I might try doing so later. It should probably remain the SNES title.
It shouldn't be that hard. If there isn't one online, then you can probably get one off an emulator (with a legally-obtained ROM, of course ;) ) It's at the very beginning of the game, anyways. –MuZemike 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
–MuZemike 21:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Commented.陣内 Jinnai 23:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the Reception section, I will make some comments about those sections eventually (hopefully within the week). –MuZemike 00:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, two things on the Reception section:

  • I normally discourage the mentioning of ratings in the prose itself for two reasons: first, that should already be mentioned in the {{VG reviews}} box; second, readers are not as interested in reading what ratings it has. It should be replaced by what the reviews say, i.e. praises, criticisms, and any other critical commentary.
  • I'm not sure how the section is organized (i.e. chronological, by types of reception, etc.); I mean, it seems like a lot of the stuff is seemingly thrown in there hoping that it will stick.

Those are my two issues with the Reception section. I'll have to look in my old Nintendo Power issues and get you some "Top 30" rankings to put in there (and hopefully other reviews and stuff from a couple other gaming magazines, as I have quite a few of them from 1989 and 1990). –MuZemike 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only some extra stuff from Nintendo Power, mainly "Top 30" appearances and two "Nintendo Power Awards" nominations, as well as from EGM, which also talked about the circumstances behind Dragon Quest III's release. I've added both in there. –MuZemike 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is nothing else, then I think this is good to make a run for FAC. –MuZemike 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

...which has failed miserably, mostly due to prose reasons. I don't what else I can really do on my end, aside from getting someone outside the project to go over it. –MuZemike 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, sorry. Didn't make the Dragon Quest / Dragon Warrior distinction for the archived FACs – the article names are quite confusing, this one might even be located better at Dragon Warrior (video game), with Dragon Warrior redirecting to the Dragon Quest series article. Disregarding that, I could go over this article to clean it up a bit, if you want me to. I won't bring it up to FAC prose standards, but I could correct some of the more glaring problems before it goes to peer review. Just an offer. Prime Blue (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No, go right ahead if you like. As far as the naming is concerned, I can think of a certain company to blame who make the naming confusing. However, it's been called Dragon Warrior up until VII before it fell back in line with the rest of the games. As we all know, a similar thing occurred with the Final Fantasy titles, specifically IV and VI. However, I think just as many people in the English-speaking audience use the "correct numbering" as opposed to the "Nintendo numbering". I just don't think that's the case with Dragon Warrior, though; you could argue that with Dragon Warrior IV, however, which just saw a Nintendo DS rerelease under the Dragon Quest name. –MuZemike 20:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Strike that last sentence, as I just saw this: Dragon Quest IV: Chapters of the Chosen (which I won't oppose). –MuZemike 20:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't blame Nintendo, it was a tradmark issue. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There's other issues with WP:TITLE to consider. I think today most people refer to the series now as Dragon quest, but this game in particular i beleive is still referred to as dragon warrior. Less so, 2, 3 and 7, but still enough that their is no compelling reason for a name change.
I have also put this and DQ article up at COPYEDITORS for a copy edit, though more eyes never hurts.陣内Jinnai 21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I've been told the opposite on scores. They want them in the prose for every GAN/FAC I've gone through so there is less need to clutter the tables with an extra set of duplicate ref links. They also want it as a way to give a reason close to the score; the table is meant as an overview.陣内Jinnai 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

PC-9801 and X68000 ports

Although there are sources for both platforms (PC-9801 and X68000) I doubt they are correct.

  1. Both of the sources are devoid of details. How reliable are they?.
  2. No mention of the ports on the Japanese Wikipedia article
  3. Searched online in Japanese but found nothing convincing.
    • For ドラゴンクエスト PC-9801, the first hit is a video someone playing an unoffical port of the game for PC-9801. And rest of the result also does not indicate the existence of the offical port.
    • For ドラゴンクエスト X68000, the first hit is about T-Dragon Quest or TDQ; a free software which borrows much from the series. And rest of the result also does not indicate the existence of the offical port.

--Kusunose 03:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I used GameSpot, which is the most reliable you're going to get, given that there are no lists out there of these games. I suppose we'll have to request some further comments in order to avoid an imminent edit war. –MuZemike 03:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE copyedit July 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Lead
North American localization
  • "she sells tomatoes in the North American version rather than the sexually-explicit "puff puff" in the Japanese version – something that has been featured in the game's sequels as well as in the Dragon Ball" - which features later, tomato's, or puff puff?
General
  • It is only after reading about a third of the article that I finally get a clue as to what a Famicom is (and that was only after reading about a Super Famicom).
  • Why are there two "Related media" sections? One is a level 2 and the other is a level 3 subsection of "Reception and sales".

Copyedit finished, best wishes on the FAC! Chaosdruid (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Potentially unreliable sources

To go over the potentially unreliable sources at the previous premature FAC:

  1. RPGamer → According to WP:VG/S because this is part of the CraveOnline network, which is affiliated with Crave magazine.
  2. GameFAQs → I know WP:VG/S lists it as a "situational source", but I think the current consensus has been leaning away from using that at all, even for release dates. We should try to find something more reliable, such as IGN or something.
  3. Square Enix Music Online (and → This one I might agree that it may not be reliable, as it's more or less a fansite about Square Enix music. However, WP:VG/S lists it as a "situation source", on the condition that the site's staff has made a review on something. I don't see Georg Vallant's or Juan2Darien's names anywhere [http://www.squareenixmusic.com/contributors.shtml here.
  4. Destructoid → The Destructoid article virtually speaks for itself. It has been nominated for several awards, including a couple Webbys. It also has a large presence in the video gaming community. In this article, Andrew Kauz is the community blog manager of Destructoid, and their full editorial staff is located here.
  5. DQshrine → I too have to question the reliability of this site, as even though it says it's one of the first Dragon Quest websites on the Internet, it's also basically a fansite. I know it says: The former Enix of America even expressed to the Shrine how much they appreciated our efforts, but I don't think that's enough to confer reliability to satisfy our requirements.
  6. The Magic Box → This is the first time I have come across this website, and this has not been discussed at WP:VG/S yet. However, I'm leaning towards "unreliable" as there is zero information on editorial expectations, oversight, reputation, etc.

I would say GameFAQs, Square Enix Music Online, DQshrine, and The Magic Box sources should either be replaced or removed entirely before considering another FAC run. –MuZemike 19:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I was bold and started addressing a few of them (see edit). I found that there were no references to GameFAQs, so I crossed that one out. I removed all stuff from DQshrine except for the Dragon Quest Saga: Emblem of Roto, which I left in with an accompanying tag after the source as a reminder. For that one, I would think the plot information could come from the manga itself, while release information could be obtained from reliable manga sites with Anime News Network or similar. If someone is more inclined with manga, they might be more able to address this.
Then, the Magicbox source was used for Famicom sales, but there is no source for this, which is probably why its reliability is seriously questioned. There are figures published for the GBC remake's sales, but none, from what I can see, for Famicom sales. Aside from any official information from Square-Enix, maybe Famitsu could have info on sales, but those magazines are very hard to come by, not to mention they're all in Japanese, which I can't read. –MuZemike 20:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Did some more research on the Magicbox source, and I found the following discussions about its reliability:
WP:VG discussions tend to say that it is reliable, but from what I have read, people say they compile their charts from reliable sources, but I have seen no proof of this (just from "word of mouth"). On the other hand, several reliable media outlets sometimes use this in their articles, including ABC News. I'm tempted to start another WT:VG discussion on this, but I don't know if anymore progress will be made as to its usage here. However, WP:FAC tends to consider it unreliable according to the FACs I listed above, so unless we get a more reliable source on Famicom sales, I'm afraid keeping the source in there will likely draw opposes.
Finally, if anyone is wondering where I got the EGM source for the Japanese GBC remake release date, I got it from here, which sourced it all the way back to EGM; in most of their magazines in their first incarnation, they have included "International Outlook" sections in which they review Japan-only (or at the time) releases. –MuZemike 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you check WP:SE? When DQ TF was moved, several of the sources were moved there, including stuff about why DQShrine is considered reliable, ie its been cited in an encycolopedia by a reknown expert in the field meeting SPS.陣内Jinnai 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, I reverted edits back to before then. Since this would have drastic changes to the article, they should be discussed first and check all relevant wikiprojects just like WP:VG/S for info they might have on why a source is considered legit.陣内Jinnai 18:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. RPGamer - It's a staff review and its been considered reliable by other FA reviewers when pressed (and believe me, its been pressed a lot).
  2. GameFAQs - they use the same databases! I apologize if you don't know that, but they are no "less" reliable than IGN except perhaps for user input ones (which are marked as such). IGN is no "more" reliable here therefore there's no reason to change the original citations. IE, if the sources aren't more reliable WP defaults to leaving it alone (or removing the info if its unreliable). The info from that page comes from developers (except the afore mentioned marked user ones that were staff verified).
  3. SEMO - I'll have to check on that. I believe they were staff at the time, but I'll check.
  4. Destructoid - i think you already answered that one.
  5. Mentioned before; that one has been asked several times at FACs and once explained, no one has had any issue. I excpet people to ask about it again, and like you question its reliability, but I also expect that once I explain the reasoning, I expect it to be fine.
  6. Magic Box here, here. The one it was challenged with Super Smash Bros. Melee was later promoted with Magic Box left in. It appears to be part of Network Solutions.陣内Jinnai 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Internet archive Juan2darian. I cannot find Georg Vallan, but I am certain he was on the list when I checked. I can try emailing them to confirm.陣内Jinnai 19:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Change about the Magicbox. It appears to be owned/run by a guy named "Chris Tang. It appears to have been moved from [1]. So in that reguard it does make the site more questionable. However, I did manage to find some RSes using them:

1UP

1UP has just done a slew of retrospectives starting with this one. I don't know how much this will add to the main section, but the last 3 sections might get something. If other sites like IGN and offline mags like Gameinformer do stuff it may be worth its own section. I think they're giving it as much fanfare as Mario and Zelda. I know we have that one already used, but we should check around. I think 1UP has come out with more.陣内Jinnai 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we've used it several times in the article already – unless we need to use more relevant stuff from that source; I haven't looked at it in detail aside when I checked the sources against what's in the article. –MuZemike 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I think we can begin to be a bit more selective about what sources to use when they don't add anything. I added 2; one for reception because it was a whole group including a well known industry person. The other was because we lacked info on the artwork in localization. I probably won't add more unless its something like that. The exception might be if there is more on The Portopia Serial Murder Case as it relates to DQ (although most of that should still be relegated to that game's article.陣内Jinnai 04:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If you get a chance, these 2 look promising:
This one goes more indepth about dungeons, but more about the tradeoff the radiant spell vs. torch and some more legacy for furure DQ games, such as rivers being clues to monster power-ups, reoccuring enemies, etc. Used decided against 6he use of for radiant spell at the moment. Might add it to the review section if others feel it should be mentioned. Otherwise I just used to it help support how enemies scale in difficulty.
Retronauts comic I'm not sure if we can use this, but there is one key concept they touch upon specifically that others kind of ignore; the Dragon Lord's castle placement changed the purpose of video game RPGs from figuring out what the goal was to figuring out how to achieve the goal.陣内Jinnai 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Puff puff in remake

I'm not sure its mentioned anywhere by secondary sources, but as we mention that the term was used in sequels and Dragoball, it should be mentioned that it was featured in the remake. If anyone knows of a reliable secondary source that states it, feel free to mention it in the same area as the other info on it, otherwise I'll go about adding in a manner that tries not to add any OR (ie probably that it just appeared in the DW1 GBC remake). Considering the censorship Nintendo put into it and the commentary on it, it should be added.陣内Jinnai 21:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked this up a while ago, but this was mentioned by Destructoid when it came up in Dragon Quest IX. That was all I could find, so far. –MuZemike 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sales figures of Dragon Quest

the magic-box lists sales figures of Dragon Quest at 1.5m (presumably numbers taken from Media Create or other RSes (their info on other numbers has been reported elsewhere). Power-Up lists sales figures at "over 2 million". I'm not sure how we should go about resolving this. In general Power-Up would be considered a higher-quality source, but I believe the 1.5m numbers magicbox ueses are generally more widespread if one goes by their other numbers.陣内Jinnai 16:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Until we are sure on the reliability of that website, I feel more safe with the higher-quality source in this situation. –MuZemike 07:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe its passed RS check in multiple places, but we can do a check for the sales figures elsewhere. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but there's no rush atm as the article's undergoing another major copyedit.∞陣内Jinnai 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Other coverage

I just got my hands on a copy of Replay: The History of Video Games; there are a few pages dedicated to the game, but I'm not sure how much can be added in on top of what we have right now. I have to look into it a little more over this weekend. –MuZemike 07:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and replace any less reliable source (mostly primary sources and some websites) with that one if possible. The only really high-quality Rses we have that are website ones are ones that are interviews or from Kurt. This is especially true if we can use 1 reference to replace 2 or more.∞陣内Jinnai 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Gamasutra, 1UP.com, and the like are pretty high-quality. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about the highest quality. Gamasutra is probably higher quality than 1UP FE because the features are done by people are known in the industry. Doesn't mean 1UP isn't a high quality source, but its a tier thing and FA really wants the "highest quality sources". However, other than for some statemeents in the legacy section, I don't think many would push that.∞陣内Jinnai 23:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Quest_(video_game)/Archive_2&oldid=1257988607"