Talk:Shining (video game series)

Rumor section removal relating to 07 September edit

Publishing mere rumors without relevant interest to potential readers of the article, or without encyclopedic style (what do I care if any moderador/admin abandons a website? CONFIRMED!!! is not very encyclopedic) is out of the Wikipedia editing lines.

Villodre

Shining Force Series versus Shining Series

This just seems very stupid to me: >>Shining in the Darkness; 1991, Sega Genesis (occasionally argued to not be part of the series, as it is a first-person dungeon-crawler RPG where the rest are third persons with elements of strategy.)<<

Why is Shining Soul considered part of the Shining Force series, then? I think that this should be called the Shining series, since "Force" wasn't even the first.

Raijinili 08:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that this should be titled as the Shining series. Shining Force is the longest-running subseries, but it wasn't even the first one made, and it doesn't have a monopoly on the canon storyline (which also includes both first-person RPGs, the Shining Soul games, and possibly Shining Wisdom). --67.62.109.178 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was wondering why it was called the Shining "Force" series.--Claude 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because the team of heroes in every single game is refered to as the Shining Force. Shining in the Darkness was sort of an introduction to the series (which was out of sync anyway). It's the Shining Force series, a series about the Shining Force. What we need is articles about the Gaidens :( DanPMK 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nowhere near "every single game" refers to the team of heroes as the Shining Force. The only games which refer to anyone as a "Shining Force" are Shining Force I, Shining Force II, Shining Force Gaiden I, and Shining Force Gaiden: Final Conflict. That's four games in a series that has over two dozen games, even if you don't count the remakes. Naming a series after a phrase briefly used in a tiny fraction of the installments doesn't make any sense at all.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

game added

I just started the page for Shining Soul and was wondering how to get it on the Shining Force box thing at the bottom of the page. thanks ^^

Evaunit666 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shining_Force&action=edit&section=18
Right underneath the external links. --Raijinili 05:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're refering to the template, I added it for you :P DanPMK 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Phantasy Star and Megami

Sorry for the lack of explanation in my original edit; I left it out because I couldn't word it concisely enough to fit within the word limit. The reason I reverted these two added examples is that they are not as good examples as the original two examples(for instance, Phantasy Star is only partly in 1st person and has open world gameplay) and hence only add unnecessary confusion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of POV paragraph

I removed the section beginning with "It can be argued that the Shining series started as an attempt by Sega to cover all of its bases..." as the whole paragraph simply stated an opinion on what the series is like vis-a-vis other RPG/Fantasy franchises. I didn't see much value in it and it seemed to me to clearly state a non-neutral point of view. CrinklyCrunk (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Chronology Template

Considering that the Shining series has a often-unclear/sometimes confusing timeline in regards to canonicity, I would like to see some sort of chronology timeline to the respectively canon installments. Is it in any way possible? Or better left alone altogether? I wish to discuss with other Wikipedians on this matter. (LonerXL (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC))

Unfortunately, there is no official timeline for the series. You can find fan-created timelines for the games from Shining in the Darkness up through Shining Force III (this one for instance), but nothing that is usable on Wikipedia. Don't know what you mean about the timeline being confusing in regards to canonicity; all the installments of the series are canon, and most of them have little or no continuity between them.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Shining (video game series) → Shining (series) – Unilateral under-the-radar move. "The Shining" and "Shining" are not the same. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 14:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment but the ability is called "shining", in the "The Shining" , so it would be able to use "shining (series)" -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Shining (miniseries) is far more significant, so use of the shorter name invites confusion for no gain. This may be a case of IAR. That policy is there for exactly such cases. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Video games has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 14:51, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - the (series) diambiguator is one of the worst - clarity is greatly enhanced by specifying what type of series it is, and the current name accomplishes that. Shining (series) should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- Netoholic @ 15:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with nom - if there aren't any other series to disambiguate from, "series" is sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The Shining (miniseries) gets more views (6,102) than this one (3,507)[1]] so the risk of the other being used without "The" seems high enough. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because the miniseries gets significant views. --Seggallion (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The term video game series will help differentiate from the miniseries. If both were called “series” and “miniseries”, then there would probably be reader confusion. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not liking some of the "oppose" arguments here - how many views The Shining (miniseries) gets has nothing to do with how likely it is to be confused with Shining (series) - but I'm not impressed by the "support" arguments either. People often mistakenly drop articles from titles, e.g. referring to The Terminator as just Terminator, and indexes often put articles at the end ("Terminator, The"), so it seems reasonably likely that someone searching for The Shining (miniseries) would type in "Shining (series)". If there's a reasonable potential for confusion, more precise disambiguation is the obvious and most simple solution.--Martin IIIa (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the sake of clarity, I think it's best to keep the article's name as such to avoid confusion. Beside, not every entry in the Shining series shares the "Force" moniker. If it was like Fire Emblem then yeah, but that is not the case here. Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate Development Credits

This article repeats a persistent fiction surrounding the development of the games in this series:

"Previously the Shining games from Shining in the Darkness to Shining Force III were solely developed by Sonic Software Planning which later became Camelot."

Shining in the Darkness was released in March 1991 with sole development credit going to Climax Entertainment. Sonic! Software Planning was founded June 12, 1991. There is a myth that Sonic! somehow grew out of an internal Sega studio called CD4, but there is no reliable source for this claim.

The timeline goes like this: Hiroyuki Takahashi leaves Enix in April 1990 and founds Climax. Climax develops Shining in the Darkness. With funding from Sega, Takahashi registers Sonic as a separate company in June 1991. Climax, supported by Sonic, develops the first Shining Force. Sonic goes on to develop subsequent Shining games without Climax including the Gaidens, CD, and Shining Force II. Shugo Takahashi founds Camelot as an independent studio in April 1994. Camelot provides development support to Sonic on Shining Wisdom, Shining the Holy Ark, and Shining Force III, but Camelot uses its status as an independent studio to develop Everybody's Golf and Beyond the Beyond for the PlayStation. By 1998, Sonic is no longer a subsidiary of Sega, but we do not have a source on whether they were absorbed by Camelot or simply shut down.

The history is clear, and Climax, Sonic, and Camelot are three distinct studios with their own bodies of work. Sonic and Camelot were frequent collaborators. Sonic did not become Camelot, as both studios were separate entities. Both studios existed as different companies with different staff, different investors, and different development credits.

This article does not even list Sonic as a Shining series developer in its infobox. There are many Shining games the development of which can be credited to Sonic before Camelot was ever founded, so it is not accurate to attribute work to Camelot that it did not and could not have done. Shining Lore (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to write Wikipedia according to what reliable sources can verify. Where are your reliable sources for all this? Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)