Talk:Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward

Opening paragraph spoiler, and possible FAC?

I've been reading through the article a couple times recently, and the one line that is always a bit problematic is "As the story progresses, Sigma discovers his ability to transport his consciousness through time and experience different timelines to the one he initially chose, which he uses to find an outcome in which everyone can survive." This line has been removed by a couple of IP editors, saying that it was a spoiler for later in the game. Honestly, I never thought it was a spoiler, but thinking about it now, Sigma doesn't actually learn he's transporting his consciousness through time until very late in the game. Until then, the whole flowchart was pretty vague as to why Sigma could jump around everywhere. So should we remove that line?

Also, I've been doing numerous copyedits, trying to get this up to FA status, and honestly, I think it's ready. Just about every single source about VLR has been exhausted, and in my opinion, the article reads very nicely. The story section is still a bit confusing (especially that last paragraph), but obviously, we weren't given an easy story to summarize into under 700 words. Anyway, I just wanted to get your opinions on the article, and what still needs to be brought up for FA. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: I have thought about that line in the lead as well. I wouldn't be against omitting it - yes, we don't need to hide spoilers on WP, but that doesn't mean we absolutely should include them in the lead either. Perhaps it could be replaced with a very short explanation of the Nonary/AB game. Regarding FA, these are some things we might have to consider:

• The development section doesn't seem to mention that a third Zero Escape game was planned to be developed simultaneously with VLR (this is mentioned and sourced in the Zero Time Dilemma article)
• Is RPG Site a reliable source?
• There's a bit about the choice to use Cockney English for G-OLM on localization editor Ben Bateman's website - might be good to add to the localization section.
• Do we still need the sequel section, now that ZTD has its own article? If we do, should it be updated to focus just a bit less on what happened before it was announced?

--IDV^talk 08:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, this week has been a bit hectic for me. Anyway, I'll see what I can do about that sentence, but in regards to you points:

• This one has always been a bit confusing. While Uchikoshi has mentioned that it was intended to be developed as a pair several times, he never mentions why the development of Zero Time Dilemma didn't continue while he was developing Virtue's Last Reward. The problem I'm running into is how to phrase it. Should I possibly say something like "Uchikoshi had originally intended for Virtue's Last Reward to be developed simultaneously with it's sequel, Zero Escape 3, in order to lower costs. However, Zero Escape 3 did not begin development until after the release of Virtue's Last Reward for unknown reasons."
• No it is not. Fortunately, they're only used once, and they can easily be replaced with the Eurogamer review, which also disliked the puzzles for various reasons.
• I tried writing a sentence or two about the decision, but personally, I don't think it's necessary, since that G-OLM plays a very minor role in the game, at least from what I remember. Now, if Bateman discussed why he chose the main characters voice actors, I'll definitely add that.
• Your right, it does suffer a bit from "On this day, Uchikoshi blah blah blah..." I can condense it down to two paragraphs with a minor rewrite. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: No problem - real life should always take precedence over Wikipedia. Regarding the reason for ZE3's development not continuing... if no sources mention it, then we shouldn't either. Perhaps it went into pre-production, but didn't get any further due to disappointing sales - there are probably plenty of possible scenarios, but that would only be speculation. We only need to say that a third Zero Escape was planned to be developed simultaneously with VLR, and that they were intended to be a set. If Uchikoshi elaborates on it in a ZTD interview, great, then we can add it, but until then there's nothing we can or need to do about it. I haven't looked at the Eurogamer review in a while, but that sounds good, and yeah, I think I have to agree with you about the G-OLM thing. Maybe it could be in a Characters of the Zero Escape series article if we do end up making one at some point.--IDV^talk 08:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the last paragraph of the story section to better clarify how Sigma is Zero Sr, as the previous version did not make sense. Feel free to modify or condense as needed. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Checking the sources

All right, so I'm going through the sources to check that they all support the statements. Numbering is based on this revision.--IDV^talk 14:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

OK b: No. All others: OK Mostly OK, doesn't mention it being the first ZE game to get released in Europe OK OK b: Doesn't mention jumping back to previous AB rounds and betraying/allying. All others: OK OK OK No, at least not completely OK, but it would be better to use an archivable source OK OK a: Mostly OK, doesn't mention items. All others: OK OK, but it would be better to use an archivable source OK Mostly OK, doesn't mention safes, keys and folders specifically. Mostly OK, doesn't call Phi "mysterious" (which isn't even that descriptive... "no-nonsense attitude" seems more useful), doesn't mention K's amnesia or voice changer and Zero III explaining the rules and being a CGI rabbit OK OK Maybe. We should either replace the source (positive reception of 999 being what led to VLR's creation is mentioned in ref 21) or provide a time code. It's unreasonable to ask a reader to watch a 43m video just to verify that one single detail. No, the source talks about videos for VLR, not 999 - because of this, the statement no longer seems particularly relevant for development - perhaps promotion/release instead. The other use, for the quote box, is predictably OK. Mostly OK, but 2D -> 3D being the biggest change is mentioned in ref #23, not #22 Mostly OK, but it seems what Chunsoft had problems with was the 3D effect on the 3DS, not 3D modeling in general OK OK Mostly OK. Q66 doesn't mention creating a mystery and balancing genders/personalities/ages represented. I think I recall reading it in one of those lengthy Gamasutra interviews, but I might be wrong. For Q36, I wonder if that needs to be in quotes. OK OK OK Mostly OK, but doesn't mention the individual discs' titles OK on title and release date, but doesn't mention number of tracks or discs. Also, I'm pretty sure the CD Japan link is just to be convenient to Destructoid readers, as it's an English-language site - the album is available for purchase elsewhere, too. OK OK OK Mostly OK. The article was published on December 14, but if you look at the youtube page, it says it was released on December 11. Also, it was released by Chunsoft, not Gonzo. OK, but they released it on the 19th - the actual dubbing was obviously done earlier. OK OK, but would probably fit better under reception OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Not reliable OK. Should probably be in the review table, too OK, but the Vita doesn't make use a stylus - should be changed to touchscreen controls OK, but if possible, it would be good to replace it with a text-based source as they are less likely to die. Also, this and the next few refs could be spread out through the sentence rather than having all of them added to the end. OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK, but again, would be great if a text-based source could be used OK OK OK From this point and onwards, it's just the sequel section left, which was going to be reworked anyway, so I won't look through these refs.

So, I'm done with the ref check now. I see that Famous Hobo has already started working on fixing the statements that are not supported by the given sources, so that's great. One thing that I thought about while going through these is how the reception section sometimes says stuff like "The cast of characters were well received.[13][49]" - like, yeah, those two reviewers liked the cast, but I don't think those two sources support that the characters were well received in general. We need to do something about that.--IDV^talk 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, everything has been taken care of. Reworded the opening sentence (it's a bit cheesy, but it gets the job done), mentioned the simultaneous development with Zero Escape 3, replaced the RPG Site review with the Eurogamer review, did not add the bit about the G-OLM (in regards to earlier in the talk page), reworked the sequel section to only mention the important parts (I must admit, I did copy some sentences from the ZTD page, :), and fixed all the refs with the exception of a few:

• Ref 2b, I couldn't find an source mentioning what the text you read represents, though I feel the EGM review comes the closest.
• Ref 38, personally, I really like having sales in the release section, as it fits in nice. I'm not sure where to put it if moved to the reception section (though if anyone can think of a good place to put it, I'll have no problem with moving it)
• Ref 57 and 65, apparently GameSpot only did videos for their year end awards, so unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with.

In regards to the reception refs, we could do one of two things. We could either throw in every review that liked those aspects in one long line, or just not reference those sentences, and use the specific quotes as the refs for the broad statements. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this! I'll take a closer look at your edits and comments later tonight. --IDV^talk 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay versus Story

I notice that the gameplay section goes into great detail about the AB game... is this actually gameplay? It seems it would do better in the story section, under a new subsection, "Characters and setting", like we do in the 999 article. We can also flesh out description of the setting ("The events take place in a warehouse-like facility with many rooms...") too. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@ThomasO1989 and Famous Hobo: I've been thinking about that, too. The AB game decisions are gameplay, but the circumstances surrounding them are not... still, I think some context is needed for it to make sense. A lot should be moved to setting/characters, but I think some needs to be kept under gameplay.--IDV^talk 15:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Final checklist

I might be getting a bit ahead of myself here, but with all the previous issues addressed, there are just a couple things left to fix before I personally feel comfortable nominating this article. I'll probably be able to fix most of the issues, but I'd still like to hear what others think of the issues. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw this on my phone, and then forgot to reply when I came back to my PC.--IDV^talk 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I should also mention that I requested this article at the Guild of Copyeditors, just in case. It'll take a while to get to since they have a lot of requests, so there's that. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I hadn't even thought of request a copy edit from there. I don't remember the game's plot well enough to do any of the changes you proposed, but regarding the general reception statements, I guess we should look at what other video game FAs do.--IDV^talk 11:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at recent FAs, I'm seeing this:

• Killer Instinct Gold puts all used review refs that agree with that position after the general statement, like Reviewers highly praised the game's sound (...).[3][2][16][18][4][19][17]
• Seiken Densetsu 3 and The Last of Us leave the general statement without attached refs, and then follow it with a number of sourced reviewer statements
• Jumping Flash! doesn't use those general statements at all

I think I prefer the last one myself - the others kind of feel like WP:SYNTH to me.--IDV^talk 11:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989: Thoughts?--IDV^talk 11:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I also prefer the last one, though it'll take some restructuring and a bit of rewording in the reception section before it's up to that standard. I'm going to be pretty busy today, so if anyone wants to take a shot at it, go ahead. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

Infobox and lead I really like the lead, so I'll move on Gameplay If the player finds a puzzle too difficult, they may switch the puzzle's difficulty level from hard to easy, where the characters offer more specific hints. It hasn't been mentioned yet in the paragraph that characters will give hints on hard difficulty. Done.--IDVtalk 11:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Plot Akane and Zero Sr. had developed the AB project to train Sigma and Phi to transport their consciousnesses through time. The project hasn't been referred to as the AB project yet in the story section. Shouldn't it be called the Ambidex Game project? Also, I think we may be confusing the Ambidex Game with the Nonary Game, though I'm not sure, as I still don't understand the game's story 100% Done.--Famous Hobo (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Akane then attacks Phi and Sigma, transporting their consciousnesses to 2029. We should specify why she attacks them. Development In order to cut down on costs, Uchikoshi asked Chunsoft if he could develop Virtue's Last Reward and its eventual sequel simultaneously, as both games would use the same engine and digital assets; Chunsoft accepted the offer, and green-lit production. Is offer the best word to use? Changed to proposal.--IDVtalk 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC) When writing the game, Uchikoshi prioritized storylines over characters; he first designed a basic story, and then created the characters along with each of their backstories.[29][25] After deciding on the story and making the main character, he would look to get a balanced cast of supporting characters, in terms of genders, personalities, and ages represented;[29] when making character personalities, he used the Enneagram of Personality as reference. These two sentences are a bit contradictory. In the first sentence, it says that Uchikoshi created the story and the characters, but in the second sentence, he created the supporting characters. Forgot to mention I did this. The music section in general has always bugged me. It's short, completely relies on reviews (and one article talking about album releases), and half of the section is about how the album is structured. I think I brought up this argument once, but I don't remember how it went. I guess you already did this. I agree with you, so thanks for that.--IDVtalk 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Promotion and release Nothing here, moving on Reception We still haven't come to an agreement on how to reference the general statements like "The story received high acclaim from critics." I just removed them - it works fine without them.--IDVtalk 01:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Sequel Nothing here, as it looks much better now

More plot fixes needed before FAC?

@Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989: I did some further minor fixes. Is there anything else left that needs to be done before we nominate this article to FAC?--IDV^talk 13:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The story section is still bothering me... think we should get a second or third opinion to ensure that it's both comprehensive and makes sense to someone who has never played the game? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Thomas. No matter how many times I read that final paragraph in the story section, the years start to become a bit confusing. And with Zero Time Dilemma right around the corner, it might be best to get that article up to good standards with the plot and reception section, before focusing most of our attention on an FAC. I'm assuming another peer review then? Famous Hobo (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... After posting this reply, I'll open a thread at WPVG and ask for help. Regarding ZTD reception: I prefer going into these types of games without knowing too much beforehand, so I won't do any work on that until I've played through the game myself.--IDV^talk 20:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@IDV and ThomasO1989: So it seems that no one took up IDV's comment on WPVG. Honestly, at this point, we could just nominate the article in it's current state. I just reread the plot section, and the points that I could see being problematic is when Sigma and Phi save Akane, and the fact that Sigma doesn't go back to 2028, and instead goes to 2029 (some readers might think that's a typo). The nice thing is that the Zero Time Dilemma is in pretty decent condition, so if some reviewers point out that we shouldn't nominate this article until it's sequel article is in decent condition, we have an excuse. The plot section looks a bit too long, but since no wants to even read it until they've beaten the game, I'll say it's fine to assume it's accurate, if maybe a bit too detailed. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't see the ZTD article having anything to do with this article's FAC nomination. Has that ever been the case with any other FAC nomination for a game in a series? VLR's article should work on its own, and if it does, then that should be enough.--IDV^talk 15:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So I left a message on ThomasO1989's talk page about the FAC nomination about a week ago, but it doesn't seem he responded. I'll leave a followup message, but if there's no response within the next three days, and no other issues are brought up, I'll nominate this article for FAC. Again, sorry for getting a bit antsy here, but I personally think this article in its current condition will make it through the FAC process. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do think that the last part of the plot summary is a bit confusing. I guess that was the case with the actual game, too, but we should strive to be understandable despite that. I replayed VLR a few weeks ago in anticipation of ZTD, so I tried rewriting the last paragraph, but I don't know if my rewrite is good enough either. Perhaps we should add some sort of visual that shows the time jumps they do - I'll see if I can make something.--IDV^talk 12:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: I quickly made a simple infographic for the time jumps, which could be added to the end of the plot summary: File:Virtue's Last Reward timeline.png--IDV^talk 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary suggestions

A - the original

Akane explains that Sigma, after being abducted in 2028, had his consciousness transported to 2074 and is inhabiting the body of his elder self. Sigma is Zero Sr., destined to jump back to the year 2029 and develop the AB project. Sigma had created a clone as a spare in case his body was damaged. The chief goal of the AB project was to transport Sigma's and Phi's consciousnesses, with all their future knowledge, to 2028 to prevent the Radical-6 pandemic; Dio sought to prevent this goal. Akane then attacks Phi and Sigma, transporting their consciousnesses to 2029. Sigma spends the next 45 years developing the AB project, while Phi is kept in cold sleep. In 2074, Sigma and Phi jump back to 2028 and infiltrate the Mars mission test site.

B - IDV's rewrite

Akane explains that Sigma, after his abduction in 2028, had his consciousness transported into his elder self's body in 2074, while his elder self's consciousness was transported into the younger Sigma's body in 2028. This was the goal of the AB project, to make it possible for the elder Sigma to prevent the Radical-6 outbreak in 2028 with his future knowledge; Dio sought to prevent this goal. Akane makes Phi and Sigma's consciousnesses jump to 2029, after the outbreak. Sigma, as Zero Sr., spends 45 years developing the AB project together with Akane, while Phi is kept in cold sleep. Sigma also creates a clone of himself as a spare, in case his own body gets damaged. When they again reach 2074, Sigma and Phi jump back to 2028 to infiltrate the Mars mission test site.

I like the majority of your rewrite, but I do think the last sentence might be a bit confusing. When they again reach 2074, Sigma and Phi jump back to 2028 to infiltrate the Mars mission test site. I don't like the use of "When they again reach 2074", as it makes it sound like they transported to that year. If I remember correctly, Zero Sr. just spent a really long time making the AB project, and by the time 2074 rolled around, then Sigma and Phi got transported to 2028. As for the diagram of the endings, I think the game also did something similar, but even so, I don't think a diagram of the ending is necessary. We could always bring it up for discussion whether the use of the diagram would be helpful on the WP:VG talk page, but our last request was unanswered, so I'm not sure how well that will go. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, now that IDV's rewrite has been added, I'm nominating this article for FAC. It's been a long time coming, but I think we're finally ready. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, missed your reply. But yeah, thanks for going ahead and nominating it.--IDV^talk 13:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

Glad to see this at FA status. Liar's Lair (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad it finally happened, too. This is my first FA, and it was a good experience working on it - makes me want to bring more articles up to FA level. @Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989: what are your thoughts on what to do next? I think bringing ZTD to GA is more important than any other Zero Escape article work at the moment, as it is the least complete one, and that we probably should wait with bringing 999 to FA until the PC/Vita version comes out and we have development/reception information for it covered. --IDV^talk 22:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with that, it's about time we started putting serious time into that article. I could work up a rough reception tomorrow, and possibly expand on the gameplay section. The part that really worries me is that damn plot section. Long story short, it's insane, but given how me managed to turn VLR's plot into just a little over 700 words, I'm sure we'll find something. On the plus side, the development section is amazing, great job IDV. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I just did some work on the plot summary and got it down to 698 words - might need further copy-editing, but I'd say it's mostly finished.--IDV^talk 10:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

+1, and congrats on the Main Page appearance! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150326063719/http://www.aksysgames.com/game-series/zero-escape-series/ to http://www.aksysgames.com/game-series/zero-escape-series/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)