Talk:Elden Ring/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit request

This article is missing the very important word "video game" in the first sentence. Can't edit the page because it's listed as "semi-protected."

Leaked Trailer

On March 1, 2021, a low quality YouTube video surfaced, revealing multiple cinematic trailers for Elden Ring. Despite being uploaded in a resolution of 240p, the trailers give insight into the mystic and dreadful world of Elden Ring. The trailers revealed potential weapons, armor, abilities, enemies, and locations of the final game. Some familiar gameplay was also shown in the trailers. Characters could be seen fighting towering enemies, and dodging hits at just the right times. The narrator in the trailer also gives some clues to the lore involved in the world of Elden Ring, and the journey that awaits the player. After the leaked videos, fans were hoping for an official trailer release or development update at Microsoft's March event. However, fans were disappointed when there were no signs of Elden Ring at the event on March 23. While fans remain grasping at straws for more Elden Ring information, Phil Spencer (the head of Xbox) claims he has played quite a bit of it already. Without giving too much information, Spencer praised Miyazaki's game. He stated it is one of the most ambitious titles with new gameplay mechanics, settings, and story.

Willis2510 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Willis2510

 Not done for now: Seems like WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. We don't need to cover everything about a subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It is rumor and speculation which should be avoided per WP:VGSCOPE #9 anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Lead writer

Hey, User:Dissident93. The IP editor isn't engaging on the Talk, so I figured I would. I actually agree with them. Martin hasn't had any involvement in the game beyond the real early developmental stages. In a recent interview, he explained that he created the setting's far-gone backstory and—outside of occasionally getting an image of a monster from them—hasn't seen much else. I think Martin's presence in the article will only diminish over time, and that Miyazaki should be credited first for now. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, but the problem is we would be considering Miyazaki to be the lead writer when he's technically never been credited as one in the games. I'm well aware of Martin's role in the game but putting Miyazaki over him (for now anyway) feels like WP:OR to me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The simple solution is to remove both for the time being? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, removing both would have been a terrible compromise due to how often they are mentioned by sources. But it should no longer be an issue thanks to this source. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noAXc4VABS0&t=168s ~ Kaminari (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Similar discussion, but does anybody else oppose listing Martin as the first writer in the infobox? My stance is that he designed the setting in which Miyazaki/FromSoft used as a base to write the narrative, not to mention how often his contribution gets promoted and brought up by the media. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In cases where there is any amount of uncertainty as to who should go first I would simply choose to list them alphabetically, perhaps with an edit-mode comment so that future editors know why it is like that.--Alexandra^IDV 11:23, 2 January
  • My view was that Miyazaki, per sources, is writing the ingame text, which includes the plot, dialogues, and item descriptions. In GRRM's video interview, he stated FromSoftware took his foundation which were already done sometimes ago from there and was occasionally sent out character design and the like. If he had a hand in the plot, further lore, and dialogue, he would have said so. To illustrate my view, I will reference Shin Megami Tensei IV; Kazuma Kaneko was responsible for the scenario draft and concept for the setting, and has been credited as such in the game's intro, but the game credits Shinji Yamamoto and Kazuyuki Yamai as the lead writers. If infoboxes for writers when the game's credits are unavailable are based on the order of significance in terms of contributions, then Miyazaki should be placed first. If it's based on the order of contributions chronologically, then I suppose Martin. Video game infobox guidelines states "with those who wrote the game's scenarios/scripts listed before the game's story writers" but what complicates this is that Martin did the initial worldbuilding for the setting, with nothing on the script, plot and characters, cited in interviews to be more sgnificant to the game ala Sekiro. Item descriptions also play a huge part in the lore, which Miyazaki did write, giving him even more significance, in addition to writing the plot. Rakewater (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC) 2022 (UTC)

    I agree with everything you said, but it still feels somewhat "wrong" to me to not have Martin listed first since he designed the foundation that Miyazaki/FromSoft expanded upon in detail. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    Writing credits tend to be like that sometimes, and it doesn't help FromSoft can be inconsistent with giving straightforward writer credits. Regardless, I still think GRRM deserves a place in the infobox, and will oppose removing him. After all, "If there is a person credited as "scenario concept writer" or "[original] concept", also list that person here."Rakewater (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    Martin should be credited second. His early contributions do not make him more important than anyone who worked on game the entire way through its development. Martin's work is doubtlessly going to shape Elden Ring, but to nowhere near the extent that those who wrote the actual game will. From Martin himself: Miyazaki and his team from From Software were doing groundbreaking stuff with gorgeous art, and what they wanted from me was just a bit of worldbuilding: a deep, dark, resonant world to serve as a foundation for the game they planned to create. And as it happens, I love creating worlds and writing imaginary history [...] So I did my bit, and handed off to my new friends in Japan, and they took it from there. And years passed. It really does feel, to me, like the collaboration is mostly a marketing gimmick ("just a bit of world building", "years passed" (without any further meaningful involvement). But it’s basically moot: info-box documentation is pretty clear: scenario writers above story writers. Martin didn't even write the story—he provided a backstory for hundreds of years before the events of the game. Because of how important he will be to the game's marketing, I would likewise strongly oppose any attempt to remove him from the infobox, but his involvement in the game has been practically nothing since he did that initial work. I'm going to move him to second now. If the edit is reverted, we can seek more input from WT:VG. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Skill Trees?

Souls games don't use skill trees, where did that come from? 99.159.28.37 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Among the highest reviewed games in 2022"

It seems odd to highlight this, considering we're only in March of 2022. It could add value in a year as a historical fact, but right now it seems to serve as more of a biased fan-based remark. 106.72.144.0 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Steam Deck

Why isn't Steam Deck listed as one of the platforms? Neocorelight (Talk) 21:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The game has no official/dedicated Steam Deck release. While it's been verified that it runs on the machine, it's principally not designed for it - the game runs through a compatibility layer on a Linux operating system. Since it's still operating with Windows platform expectations in mind, it wouldn't make sense to list "Steam Deck" as a platform considering it is in essence a portable Linux computer. This would be different if the game had a dedicated Steam Deck build, but arguably the correct platform would then be still "Linux". 106.72.144.0 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like technical pedantics to me. If it runs on the device, then I think it should be noted. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, because in that case we'd also have to add Linux, Mac (it can run Steam games), GPD Win devices - and other portables. In a similar fashion, because you can run Android on Nintendo Switch - all Android games would have 'Nintendo Switch' in their platforms list as well. SNES games can run on PC, should we add Windows to the list of platforms for all of the games? I think we should respect the clear boundaries of official platforms vs. platforms that can unofficially run the game - the latter being the case here. It's not really noteworthy outside of the list of platforms either - many games run on Steam Deck, and you can see compatibility lists on Steam itself. 106.72.144.0 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Premise and Synopsis

What's the point of having both of these sections? The premise bit seems useless if there's a much more detailed version right under it. It doesn't seem necessary to have both of them if they have generally the same information. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 21:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A premise section could act as spoiler-free information. It can also elaborate on the setting and theme better than a synopsis. Another way to view it is like the back cover of a book - it doesn't summarize the storyline but instead gives you an idea of the world you're about to delve into. I think it's important to retain, but if there's a lot of duplicate information - like details in the synopsis that would fit better under premise - it'd probably be cleaner to refactor the sections. 106.72.144.0 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Elden" in the title

Do we have some source on the meaning of the word "Elden" in the title? Betty (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It’s just an archaic word for 'a thing which is becoming old'. Unlikely we'll see any clarification in a RS until after the game's release (and even then, isn't really vague enough that it requires much clarification, IMO). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You make it sound like a noun, but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elden says it's a verb. A verb does not make sense here. I've also seen discussions about "Elden" being Swedish for "the fire", but they are all speculations. That's why I'm asking if we have some official clarification. Guess we'll have to wait till the game is released after all. Betty (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It’s an adjective in the sense I'm using it above. It’s adjectivally applied to words to mean, '[this thing] which is becoming old'. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is not an adjective either, according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/elden. Do you have any source to back up your claim? Betty (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. It is a verb derived from the noun eld, whence elder and eldest. Infinitives (like elden) cannot be used adjectively. Elden Ring is ungrammatical and has either been chosen for some stylistic reason, or whoever came up with it is making the same mistake that ImaginesTigers is. – Dyolf87 (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dyolf87: Usage defines meaning, not derivation. Elden is being used as an adjective in the game's title. I didn't make any mistake above: I said it was being used as an adjective to mean 'a thing that is old', which is true. It was a verb once, but it makes a convincing adjective in modern speech, is distinctive, and so works well for a game title. Doesn't seem that hard to wrap one's head around... — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Usage does not define meaning; it's true that sometimes words change meaning when a people use it differently and its new meaning becomes ingrained in the language, but this is not the case with elden. Elden is an infinitive form of a verb and English doesn't allow infinitives to be used as nominals (i.e. nouns and adjectives), this is why we have participles. One cannot simply say "if I want to use X as an adjective, then it's an adjective, therefore I am correct". The truth of the matter is the developers stumbled upon an archaic word – elden and used it because it sounded good without caring about its meaning, not that it really matters because the game is a huge success regardless of its ungrammatical name. It's not difficult to see where the mistake has been made: elden can be a synonym of olden, however olden can be a verb and an adjective but elden is only a verb. I haven't looked into it, but I would put money on olden replacing elden as an everyday verb around the late Middle English period or early Modern English period as olden is more useful (however, it has been used in 20th century texts to give an archaic feel to the writing) . This kind of suppletion is common in languages. To make Elden Ring grammatical it would have to be Eldening Ring - and even then it can only be used intransitively, that is to say the verb refers to the verb happening to the Ring, not the Ring causing the verb to happen to something else (i.e. one cannot "elden" something). – Dyolf87 (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sales

Would it be appropriate to add sales figures for comparison with other released FromSoftware titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TestEd0 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

"Harrison Harvey"

Is there a source for someone named Harrison Harvey being brought in as a play tester, as included in the Development and Release section? I couldn't find anything and the cited article doesn't mention them. AcidM8 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Reception: Steam?

Seeing as how Steam is the primary delivery platform for the PC port, as well as its less than stellar reviews especially compared to news outlets (~60%, Mixed on launch day) it seems reasonable to include this.

There seems to be a lack of negative reviews on the reception section even though there are many news articles on complaints on the UI of this game etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryXihao123 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Not too sure on the precedent but not including it seems to be ignoring player response upon release, which is rather important. Fermuto (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of the UI complaints I've seen have just been from people on twitter (mostly game devs). If you can find an actual review that mentions these, please share. ― Tuna + 04:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually got the game on "day 1" and heard podcasters saying for weeks that "they heard" there are lots of problems on PC but never experienced them personally. I had very few hiccups with Elden Ring on PC. The game crashed exactly twice and started chugging a couple of times for me. But that happened in the first week and I've sunk 200 hours into this game. With exception of those isolated experiences (a few seconds of play time), the game is buttery-smooth. I really wonder if there was ever really such an issue on PC at all or if people were just blasting the game because they didn't have good hardware to run it on? LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No Section Yet On Critical Consensus That Elden Ring is a Gamechanger for Open-World Games, Contrast with "Ubisoft Model"

I don't want to write too much (since I'm a very shitty writer) but there's critical consensus among...critics...players, and savvy developers that Elden Ring is a milestone in modern game design; a rebuttal to microtransactions, hand-holding, overbearing UI, copy-pasted quest design, not trusting players to solve problems, and other gripes that have come to define open-world videogame experiences. By now, most of you are aware of the Twitter Commentary by 3 Ubisoft and Guerrilla Games designers about fans comparing Elden Ring's design philosophy favorably to their own perceived practices. Some have argued these comments at least began in jest, but it is also easy to interpret this as a symptom of over-engineered games whose developers are resistant to accepting criticism and changing their design philosophy.

I think it is worth documenting this feedback now while the praise, fallout, etc. is relatively fresh. This topic will continue to develop as AAA studios incorporate Elden Ring's open-world design philosophy (which critics have pointed out is, for the most part, just "open-world Dark Souls") into their projects.

So, I think somebody(ies) should get on this, but not me, because I mean...look at how awful this is.

References:

https://www.denofgeek.com/games/elden-ring-review-open-world-game-comparisons-best-features/

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/blogs/how-elden-ring-succeeds-by-ignoring-20-years-of-open-world-design

https://www.cbr.com/elden-ring-open-world-fatigue/

https://www.windowscentral.com/elden-rings-open-world-destroys-all-others

https://news.knowyourmeme.com/news/ubisoft-and-guerrilla-developers-ratiod-into-going-private-after-complaining-that-elden-ring-is-so-beloved

https://boundingintocomics.com/2022/03/07/western-game-devs-mocked-after-criticizing-elden-ring-as-poorly-designed/

https://www.eurogamer.net/elden-ring-is-a-reminder-that-the-discourse-is-always-the-toughest-enemy-in-a-souls-game

LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the game itself and is WP:NOTANESSAY. Know Your Meme, boundingintocomicscom, and gamedeveloper.com also appear to not be WP:RS. Any other editor is free to validate this content if they wish, but I wholeheartedly oppose its inclusion at the moment. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, my talk page summary is quite shit. I am suggesting that better editors than I overhaul #Reception or get the jump on a #Legacy section, because I don't have the chops to spearhead that effort. I am confident in my read on Elden Ring's critical consensus and in the trends I am predicting for future games (which can be documented after they reveal themselves--looking at you, delayed-Breath of the Wild sequel!). I keep hearing the same things from critics and insiders, regardless of whether we agree the feedback or feuds are worth documenting now (or which sources are worth documenting). We will be seeing big changes in open-world games. I am a safe bet on this. I've predicted much bigger things on Wikipedia 👀. LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not WP:CRYSTALBALL though. We would probably see more impacts of Elden Ring on open world games later, but it is too soon to have a legacy section. I am fine with a more elaborated reception section, but the "feud" between developers is probably too peripheral to the actual game and should be concluded in at most one sentence. OceanHok (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Souls"

The article makes many mentions of "the Souls formula", "the Souls series", and "previous Souls games" without any explanation of what this means. I'm not familiar with the "Souls" formula/series/games, else I would propose an edit myself. It's not until the 8th mention of the concept that we get a link to the "Souls (series)" page. I've added a few links, but someone more familiar with the property may want to add something to the first paragraph to indicate that this game is part of (or based on) "the Souls series" (with a link) before we get to the mention of "the Souls formula" with no context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straffin (talk • contribs) 15:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Initial sales

@Maestro2016: Five weeks should be considered initial sales, since the next guaranteed sales update get would be at the end of Bandai Namco's next fiscal quarter in three months. I also kept the Steam player count figures but condensed into a single sentence since sales always take priority over that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a very loose interpretation of "initial" or "debut" sales. Usually, "debut" means the first weekend/week/month. If it's been over a month, then I would definitely not consider that "debut" sales. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but the 12 million figure was only 2 weeks prior to the latest report (3 weeks vs 5). Nether of them really have a distinction as being the "debut". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The 12 million figure is the more notable debut figure, since it's closer to the actual release date and that's what sources cite in reference to the game's fastest-selling FromSoftware (and Bandai Namco) game record. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. The 13.4 figure would be the one that gets replaced on the next sales report then. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Let me solo her

I have been looking at this entry in "Player community" and it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. Is there a way that this section can be reworded? Perhaps some information on the rest of the online community? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity Information on the rest would be a good idea, I think the let me solo her stuff should be noted in a sentence or two. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moneytrees I will be working on that after I finish up my work on the Development and Gameplay sections. While you're here, is there anything that you suggest that I change for my recent overhauls of both sections? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@CollectiveSolidarity I don't have the time right now to really focus down and assess and read through the sources, so maybe take this response with levity. If you want to get this to GA (which is something I've wanted to start working on but have been busy with other stuff recently) then a free image would be a good addition to one of the sections. I thought there was one of Martin in the development section a few weeks ago, but it seems to have disappeared. There's some inconsistent use of NPC vs non-player character in the gameplay section, and I think more detail about the world of the game- the dungeons and overworld exploration- would be helpful, since they are a big part of what makes the game different from other Souls games. I was going to say something about adding more coverage about the soundtrack, but there is a surprising lack of good coverage on it. There are some copyedits I would do, along with some sentences I might merge/remove from the development and release section. For example, the multiple mentions of Ice and Fire plus the sentences "FromSoftware staff member Atsuo Yoshimura said the stealth and summoning systems were implemented in order to increase the strategic freedom of players. These additions were designed in order to allow a greater variety of players to enjoy the game, as they offered alternatives to direct engagement in combat."- which could probably be merged together, or the second part could be removed as it's kind of restating what was said in the previous sentence. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I think too much emphasis is put on a very minute detail that will likely only become less relevant in the grand scheme of things as time goes on. Regardless of its importance, I also think that it's debatable as to whether the "let me solo her" phenomenon belongs in the "reception" portion of the article in the first place, as it isn't really in line with the other subsections which hone in on raw critical and commercial perception. Since there are no other details in the player community section I would ague it could be worth removing at least for now. Mdibble (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I would honestly delete the whole thing if there isn't any other information about the game's player community. OceanHok (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't really think a single player known only for his in-game notoriety deserves to be mentioned here, even if there are plenty of sources about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have searched for details on the community on WP:VG's reliable source engine, and most of it is just insubstantial commentary about memes and game builds. I have boldly removed this section, because I do not see why this player should be singled out in a non-notable community. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The consensus from this AfD decided that its contents should be merged together with this page, not omit it for being covered on Wikipedia. If now, we as editors are debating over whether it should be included as a section of this article due to undue weight concerns, but at the same time we also cannot deny that it has been subject to significant coverage from sources that are reliable and independent from the developer and publisher, perhap the issue of whether a standalone article about the subject is warranted should be revisited. As for the rest of the online community, there is plenty of online fan-driven phenomena that have emerged, like the Maidenless meme, or a fad surrounding the Soldier of Godrick boss. We can easily write one substantial paragraph about the assorted stuff that the Elden Ring fandom have obsessed over. Haleth (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That just sounds like WP:FANCRUFT to me. There are plenty of memes and fads surrounding games such as Skyrim [1] [2] Breath of the Wild [3] [4] and Halo Infinite [5] [6]. Only the last meme was included in the Halo Infinite article because it had an impact on the development of the game. The rest of the stuff is just trivia. The reason why some communities such as Undertale or Sonic the Hedgehog are notable is because the community is either notoriously toxic (Undertale) or caused a very large amount of notable fan games (Sonic). CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is we don't really have anything other than Let Me Solo Her as content in the "Player community" section, making it WP:UNDUE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Reception

I recently expanded the Reception section with details on how Elden Ring was criticized, such as how some reviewers thought that the story lacked George R. R. Martin's involvement. User:Bigbossbalrog has been trying to remove my changes [7] [8] [9] as undue weight, saying that the criticisms are too long, or are only sparsely referenced. However, since they have been mentioned by multiple reviews, I think it is appropriate to mention it. I do not want to edit war, so please, what do you guys think? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

See my topic,

For the first selected two or three reviewers out of a body of over 200 reviewers, took a tiny piece of their articles and put forwards opinions that weren't even those shared by the reviewers. You did not state there was a criticism of George R.R Marin's involvement but said there was a general disappointment in the storyline itself, which I changed for you. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits by CollectiveSolidarity

Not to insult the user in any way, but I question a couple of CollectiveSolidarity and the user has requested a discussion and arbitration of some kind before an Edit War happens and I agree, let's talk it out.

1. The section on criticisms aimed at the game's story are not in any way reflective of the quotes or articles. They claim a general disappointment in the game's storyline, which they even put at the top of the page, but the quotes are about the lack of George's involvement in the storyline, not the storyline itself, and the sources barely discuss the topic in length. My edit keeps the bulk of that, but rephrases it to be about the subject, and I completely removed it from the top, because it is super minor and not a statement about the general "disappointment of the story".

2. As for the addition in the reception section of the UI, i'll post my edit summarize as a summation of why I felt the edit needed to be changed. "I just feel like the section is too long considering how little those articles bring up the complaints with UI. I think if it must be in the article it should be shortened into a general section on criticism towards the game with the complaints towards performance" and "The first half of this section seems quite forced and arbitrary. Calling the reception of the "UI" mixed seems flimsy when the articles that are linked in this section barely talk about it beyond footnotes and sparse references within the reviews themselves, as well as the fact that UI is such a minor aspect that's barely discussed at all leads me to believe this doesn't belong on the page" I made the section smaller because the sources barely talked about the subject/alongside the subject being barely discussed by most reviewers, alongside the gaming section in general, but I kept the source. Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bigbossbalrog

1. I can reword that. The current wording is a bit flimsy at the moment. I see this concern.

2. These criticisms are legitimate. Opinions do not need to be shared by a majority of reviewers. They're just that. Opinions. There are some opinions that some of the menu, combat, and quest systems could be improved a small bit. This does not mean that these remarks should be removed entirely. Since these reviewers gave some minor criticisms, I can simply reword it so that the appropriate weight can be given. How does that sound? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the section about George is fine with my edit, alongside keeping the first section unchanged (As I do believe such minor and minority opinions should be kept out of the page's first top section) But yes, I think it's okay to restore your version of the UI portion.

As the game's difficulty was much more divisive, I'll add to the section on the top with a note about that.

Is that agreeable? Bigbossbalrog (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I can agree to that CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate sentence

@CollectiveSolidarity: The sentence "An admirer of Martin's work, Miyazaki hoped his contributions would produce a more accessible narrative than FromSoftware's previous games." appears twice in the lead: once in the first paragraph and another time in the third paragraph. Which one is meant to be the good one? DemianStratford (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@DemianStratfordThe third paragraph. My mistake. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Wording in the "Gameplay" section.

I had an issue with the way that the multiplayer aspect was worded, either being slightly confusing or straight up incorrect.

I propose changing "Cooperative play involves the placing of a Summon Sign on the ground, which causes the sign to appear in front of online players. If another player interacts with the sign, they are transported into the game area of whoever placed it down. Cooperative players remain in the same world until the boss of the area is defeated, or until a summoned player dies and is sent back to their home world. PvP combat involves using a Summon Sign to directly challenge another player to a duel, or using an item called the Bloody Finger to invade the worlds of others."

to

"Cooperative play involves the placing of a Summon Sign on the ground, which causes the sign to appear in the world of online players who have used a Furlcalling Finger Remedy. If another player interacts with the sign, whoever placed down the sign is summoned into the world. Cooperative players remain in the same world until the boss of the area is defeated, or until a summoned player dies and is sent back to their home world. PvP combat involves using a Summon Sign to directly challenge another player to a duel, or using items called the Bloody Finger or Recusant Finger to invade the worlds of others. World hosts may also use a Taunter's Tongue to summon up to 2 hostile players and remove the invasion cool-down."

I don't know if this is really the correct way to propose a change. SammyWhell (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@SammyWhell As long as the information about Recusant fingers and Taunter's tongue is included in the two cited sources, they you can include it. Though I don't think the bit about the invasion cool-down should be included, and it should be rephrased with less video game jargon. My preferences is just "World hosts may also use a Taunter's Tongue to increase the likelihood that their world will be invaded by others, as well as decreasing the time between hostile invasions." I have a source that backs this information up. [10] CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agreed :) SammyWhell (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Marika & Radagon's body

Is it worth mentioning that Marika & Radagon share the same body? Without this tidbit, it almost seems like Radagon is merely a loyal consort, rather than something supernaturally entwined. BOTTO _(T•C) 03:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

if you can find a good way to word it, then sure. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I went with "Inside, they fight Radagon, Queen Marika's consort cohabitating her body..." It's a very difficult concept to write out, I must admit. BOTTO _(T•C) 13:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Information about the Coliseums

As of December 7th, the Coliseums that were previously locked were opened and revealed to be PvP arenas. This let players engage in duels, 2-6 player Team Deathmatch and Free For All PvP gamemodes.

I feel like something that even briefly covers this should be added into the part that talks about Elden Ring's multiplayer system(s). SammyWhell (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@SammyWhell I’ll probably add something about it sooner or later. I’m a bit busy at the moment, but eventually I’ll do some source hunting and include it with multiplayer. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@SammyWhell Go ahead and add it in! Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022

I want to remove an unnecessary comma Iamjamesmadison (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

To be clearer, we won't know which comma you're talking about. You could paste in the sentence here, like "The comma in this sentence is unnecessary: [the sentence you want fixed]".--Alexandra^IDV 11:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request Feb 22

Under "Sales", "rising to 20 million by February 2022" should be "rising to 20 million by February 2023" 2.30.152.141 (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of accolades received by Elden Ring into Elden Ring

Just a unnecessary table fork of a table that isn't even that big. DecafPotato (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. I already think the existing accolades lists are too short to warrant separate pages, and this one is even shorter. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT knee-jerk response. Accolades lists are common for major works of media - see everything on Category:Lists of accolades by film. Elden Ring is easily one of the most famous video games ever made by any measure, so if it should not have an accolade list, maybe you should start an overall discussion about whether accolades lists should exist in general rather than specifically targeting Elden Ring. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Policy follows practice. WP:Films do things their own way. Games, a far less established medium with way fewer respectable awards bodies, need not necessarily match them, for various reasons. Elden Ring is a game that is barely a year old and its long term impact is completely unknown (WP:CRYSTAL). The least we could do is wait for calendar year 2022 award shows to all take place before conferring grandiose titles like "easily one of the most famous games ever made". My sense of the past few major discussions (1, 2, and to a lesser extent 3) is that the VG project has been trending away from separate pages for accolades. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

    Whether the game industry is "less established" and "less respectable" is your opinion; one which the sources don't back up. What the sources DO say is that Elden Ring is just as major as any book or film, your personal opinion notwithstanding. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

    The sources don't say Elden Ring has been nominated for as many awards as some films, so the table isn't big enough, that's what matters. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Whether Elden Ring is "famous" is irrelevant to whether its accolades should be split, the game is notable and the content will exist regardless. An accolades list of this length should not exist regardless of medium, they are warranted when there's far more nominations and the main article is longer, big difference. Indagate (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: I'm actually rather undecided here. Previous consensus at WT:VG has been pretty clear that unless an article's awards are *really* long, it should be part of the content (see discussions at [11], [12], [13]). Masem made a comment in one of these that a knee-jerk check should be "does it have 100 nominations" or so, and although the article in its current state doesn't, I'm sure that with a little bit of research, another dozen or so notable nominations could easily be found here. I came in all ready to talk about WP:CFORK and how the identical prose list in the article is sufficient, but I think that this game just passes the sniff test. Nomader (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It's not just a matter of "scrounging up" 100 nominations. Per WP:VG/AWARDS, they need to be notable awards (i.e. they have an article) in their own right, not just publication awards. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

    I got very irrationally defensive this morning and embarked on a full search of notable awards that were missing from the article, looking at other FLCs to see what other awards have been cited in the past... and my deep search has so far found a grand total of one award that is missing from the article. Striking my oppose. It'll still fit in the main article and is a content fork right now at present, and I !vote Merge. ([14]) Nomader (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

  • The possibility of finding more nominations shouldn't be reason to split, only when they exist. Plus another dozen still not really enough to split depending how many nominations from each of that dozen. Indagate (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Merge with no prejudice against recreation - the fact that half the table says "pending" really speaks for itself. casualdejekyll 12:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Merge no where near enough nominations to warrant a split. There many films and TV shows with longer awards lists which haven't been split, and the ones in Category:Lists of accolades by film have more nominations than this. This split was not discussed in the first place, so WP:STATUSQUO is with the awards on Elden Ring. Elden Ring is only at 18 Kb of "readable prose size" so in the "Length alone does not justify division" section of WP:SPLIT. Plus, proper attribution not done with {{Copied}}. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Merge - I'm personally opposed to any of these sorts of articles existing. I see them as a WP:CONTENTFORK. This is something a marketing team would cobble together, not an encyclopedia entry. Sergecross73 msg me 14:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
• Merge the main article has only 3000 words of prose. WP:SS isn't needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Development Sources

I remember doing the development section for this game, and finding a bit of a dearth on sources at the time. Talk page watchers, are there any new sources that have been published that may be of use for this section? I'm planning to do a rewrite eventually, but a quick search did not reveal many sources that weren’t already there. The Night Watch (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023

Please list Yui Tanimura as Co-Director. He is credited in the credits of the game itself, yet is mentioned nowhere in the article. BabsOfEao (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

monthy = monthly 2603:8000:D300:D0F:B031:8DEA:F0DA:7F4F (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. The Night Watch (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Elden Ring sales for Europe 2022 is wrong

The Wiki mentions that Elden Ring was the 10th best selling game for Europe when the source links to the United Kingdom, it was the 10th best selling PHSYICAL game in the UK.

It was the 3rd best selling game in Europe for Digital + Phsyical

Source: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/european-console-and-pc-game-sales-fall-71-over-2021

GSD Data does data for all of Europe, needs fixing. 178.84.210.208 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No one going to edit this? 178.84.210.208 (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Everybody is too busy playing Tears of the Kingdom. Fixed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Fix the 'tGeorge' typo in reviews section. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

Add Category Role-playing video games at category section, the other Souls games has this category but not Elden Ring 112.118.48.136 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Higher quality image

The image showcasing the player fighting a dragon is very low quality. I checked the source from which it is taken from, and the original image is 1080p. Someone may be able to replace the image with the higher quality version; I am not sure how to, since I'm new to Wikipedia editing. thanks Jeeves00 (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jeeves00 the image is of reduced quality in order to meet the non-free content criteria. According to criterion 3b on the list, the image has to be of low quality because it is from copyrighted media and we need to respect the commercial opportunities of said media by using as little of it as possible. Since having a low quality image likely won't hurt the commercial viability of this media, it was included instead of a high-quality image which might hurt it. The Night Watch (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my apologies. I will make sure I do more reading on Wikipedia rules in order to not cause clutter. Thank you Jeeves00 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

Change "Edtree" to "Erdtree" Glen Di Persio (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Grammar/clarity correction

Under the section Gameplay, a sentence ends with "...swap ashes of war, or walk to using fast travel."

This is unclear. Perhaps it means "swap ashes of war, or walk to another site of grace by using fast travel."

More clear would be "ashes of war, or fast travel to a site of grace that has been discovered." 2603:301D:1E0C:8000:C051:30CE:D405:A7D1 (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ending descriptions + Shadows of the Erdtree

While this shouldnt become voluminous, recommend expanding the plot to at least touch on all six endings, ala a bulleted list, as the endings are so wildly different that its warrants at least a few words for each.

Also, hows there no mention of the DLC anywhere as of yet? Brinlong (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No content has been teased, so it has been delegated to a brief mention in development thus far The Night Watch (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)