Talk:Castlevania: Symphony of the Night

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:
Peer review This article had a CVG peer review that has been archived by the WikiProject computer and video games. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Armchair Lawyering/NPOV

At the end of the "Odds and Ends" section, the blurb about Tolkien references appaers to be a somewhat editorialized. The reference to "blatant use of copyrighted creations" may or may not even be entirely accurate. A (very) cursory scan looks like only the "new" additions ("new matter") to the original texts are covered by current copyright. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to comment on lawsuits which HAVEN'T taken place, but I'll defer to better judgement for the moment, to see if anyone else has a take on this. --GeminiDomino 11:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "What is a man?"

Something tells me there were changes made with the dialogue between the Japanese and English versions, knowing that the prologue conversation in the Japanese version is identical to that of Rondo of Blood's speech after defeating Dracula. However, I do not recall ever hearing Dracula quote Andre Malraux in Rondo. 9:06, November 13, 2006

[edit] Linkspam

I wouldn't have thought [these] were linkspam, but I guess Philip0 has a low tolerance for non-wiki links? Tzarius 12:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The OverClocked Remix link was certainly linkspam, IMO. The other two were a little more ambiguous, but both were more general Castlevania websites, and not SotN-specific. As such, I would personally think they would be more at home on the main Castlevania page than they would be here. – Seancdaug 15:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

incredible, exstounding, iree, but true

[edit] Map

Under level Lay-out it should be mentioned that the game pays homage to Metroid in that the the Map for the Non-Reversed Castle comes out to be the rough shape of a Metroid once you've explored it entirely.

I think it's been pretty exhausted that 2D Castlevania games are similar to 2D Metroid games, and explaining that the map looks like a metroid may considered fancruft. I'd steer clear of that. ~ Hibana 05:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RPG elements

Technically, Castlevania 2 was the first game to implement RPG elements into the series. I think the section that says that C:SOTN was the first should be amended appropriately. --Jazz Remington 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The entire article consists of weasel paragraphs and POV

It's true; go ahead and read it. Frankly, it shocks me to find whole sections full of this -

"The game's controls are thought of many fans as being the smoothest in the franchise, even now. While some could argue that that it's not saying much, seeing as how most of the characters in the series are known for being relatively limited in their control, it's still quite the feat. The gameplay still holds today in most gamers' minds, and has been proclaimed to be one of the most pleasing aspects of the game."

"Therein, however, lies the topic that is the constant of almost every player's complaints with the game. Whereas the older games in the series were infamous for their difficulty, Symphony of the Night's creators' decisions for the game's balance end up making the game extremely unchallenging."

"Despite Symphony of the Night being nearly a decade old, most fans consider it to be the unquestionable highlight of the series' visuals. The game's elegant and incredibly detailed look was "duplicated" in the two Game Boy Advance games made by Igarashi: Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance and Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow. However, the restraints of the system made the games, in most players eyes, still inferior to the visuals of SotN. In addition, the two handheld Igarashi games were noticeably brighter and more colorful in their conception, which was slightly unattractive to some players, seeing as how the series has usually had an emphasis on dreariness and darkness."

"That being said, SotN has even been called the most gorgeous and intricately detailed 2D game ever in terms of graphics. There are many areas that support these claims."

This sort of thing permeates most of the page. Here are the main problems in my opinion -

  • The main Gameplay section does have some fine information, but it's literally parenthesized by POV and nonsense.
  • The introductory paragraphs to the Graphics section do not bode well for the rest of the article.
  • As far as I can tell, the Environments section is completely devoid of facts and should be removed unless someone can quote some actual acclaim or find an interview with a designer.
  • The Enemies section is largely pointless. "a good amount of enemies being taken directly from Rondo of Blood" being probably the only line that belongs in a WP article.
  • The Alucard section is laughable fancruft in its current state. "The artist for his sprite was aware of how every facet of Alucard's design would react to certain movements, and, as a result, many fans believe the character is one of the most intriguing and personable ever in a video game." would be a nice factoid with a reference and rewording, but I doubt it's anything more than someone's opinion (along with everything in this section).
  • The Weapons and Spell section could work with less POV.
  • Level Layout should have been part of the Gameplay section. For some reason it's trailing out after the Graphics section.
  • Castle Areas doesn't belong, at least not in the main article.
  • Most of the Trivia could do with being cut, as much of it is either how-to/guide material or "uninteresting". I went ahead and removed the worst of it.
  • The Music section consists of a ridiculous summary paragraph of another article.
  • References - None!

If all of these things were to be unceremoniously cut, there would be virtually no article left, leaving something of a job left for editors.


This game is obviously beloved by many, including myself, but I just don't see the love here. Check any of the articles that are generally considered to be good - Katamari Damacy, Doom, Super Mario 64 - You can tell these games are loved, and not just because they have references. No, it's because they contain facts organized in an encyclopedic manner and exude a general aura of truth; something I sense a horrible lack of here. So again, it's obvious that many people like this game enough to write a great deal about it, but do they truly love it enough to create a great article that non-fans could appreciate? Kil 17:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just tried to cut out the drooling fanboyism, but a lot of the things described still won't be appreciated by non-fans. But this isn't about trying to get people to like the game, it's to describe the facts.
BTW, my eyes glazed over at the 'trivia' section. Maybe some other time... Tzarius 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

-

I completely fail to empathize with your claims of POV verbiage. Considering the sections you cited attribute the potentially POV rhetoric to some form of gamer/fan consensus (e.g., "The game's controls are thought of many fans as being the smoothest in the franchise, even now", "most fans consider it to be the unquestionable highlight of the series' visuals", ad nauseam), I think the main fault of the sections you highlighted is the fact that these attributions are unreferenced. However, any attempt to divulge adequate sources--that is, more accurately, trustworthy sources--for these attributions is nigh utterly futile. The methodry of citing scholarly or other passably trustworthy sources, which works so well elsewhere in Wikipedia, might as well be abandoned upon examination of video games.
Therefore, to alleviate some of these problems, I believe the article should have a disclaimer saying, more or less, "it is difficult to attain a consensual gamer opinion, but, to the best of the knowledge of the authors of this article, the consensual gamer opinion referred to is accurate". Further, I think in place of the void of "authentic" citation there should be some selections of gamer dialogue taken from Castlevania forums or other unadulterated sources, which appertain to the specific POV claims. Since it's likely there are more than a few people who visit both this website and Castlevania forums, these sources could easily be attained.
Also, why exactly do you consider the Castle Areas section misplaced? Super Mario 64--the same article you cited as well-made--makes room for a section about the levels of Super Mario 64. I hardly see any justification to completely truncate this section. Moneyobie 22:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, simply going on and on about how great fans believe a game is does not a good article make. When I first visited this page, I had many hopes for it. I hoped to learn something about it, for one; perhaps something I didn't already know. Instead, I was basically told that "fans really really like this game!" in 15 different ways. There was no real mention of Koji Igarashi or Ayami Kojima. No mention of any impartial impact the game had. No mention of how it affected the series or how it changed future 2d games. There just wasn't anything of real interest - not to fans, not to casual readers, not to anyone. There are ways to do these things without coming off as "fanboyish".
Please check User:Kilgamesh/testing to see my proposed changes for this page (keep in mind I am still working on them). Anyway, you mentioned some excerpts - take this line
The game's controls are thought of many fans as being the smoothest in the franchise, even now
First of all, even disregarding the weasely tone of the line, I don't believe any such claim or consensus can be reached, as HoD, AoS, and DoS all use similar control schemes. In addition, while HoD may not be quite the game SotN is, it features both backwards and forwards dashing. Wouldn't that technically make its controls the smoothest? At this point, the definition of "smooth" might be put up for debate. Things might escalate to discussion over Juste's whip or move cancelling. Wouldn't it just be easier to change the line? More importantly, many of those lines made me feel very suspicious about the article as a whole. The general tone just wasn't impartial. I believe a terrible mistake has been made if readers are ever made to feel this way.
At the same time, I believe there are places for these types of statements - in their own section under Impact or Acclaim. Those that truly represent consensus do belong, just not in seemingly random places.
As for the disclaimer, I really don't think it's neccessary. There are more than enough professional reviews touting this game, so stating its high level of acclaim is actually a matter of fact. Forums need not be referenced at all.
As for the castle sections - they're probably the weakest part of the Super Mario 64 article. There's only so much you can write about a videogame (due to lack of reference or mainstream popularity) before you have to start filling the page in with such things. If they were returned to this article, they would serve as little more than filler. People who have played the game already know all about them, and the rest wouldn't care. At best, they belong on a list of some kind. Kil 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Rust

The Red Rust is not completely useless. While it may appear to be so, it has actually one use. When fighting either incarnation of the Doppleganger boss, if hit with the Red Rust, they'll become poisoned and cannot attack, leaving them only their sub-weapon and animal forms, making the boss significantly easier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.163.21 (talk • contribs) .

As I understand it, Red Rust is slower and weaker than the Short Sword, but it's also longer, making it a tradeoff weapon and not completely useless at all. Kil 17:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Castlevania: Symphony of the Night on Xbox 360 Live Arcade

I made a minor change to the expected release date of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night for the Xbox 360 Live Arcade game. Konami actually lists the game with a release date of Winter 2006. The Winter 2006 quarter extends into 2007; however, some of the websites have said that it will be released before the Christmas of 2006. I briefly summarized this by making a minor adjustment. I sure am happy to see games like this being brought to the Xbox 360 Live Arcade. :) -- mike_mgoblue

[edit] Danm awards

I don't get why we should bother mentioning that this game got a game of the year award from EGM. The trivia section is plenty large and I don't see why this is important enough to clutter the Trivia section further. Not everyone reads or cares about EGM. --Iamstillhiro1112 7:39, 29 August 2006 (CST)

I think it's more important than many of the other trivia items we're listing. That being said, it would probably fit more comfortably as part of the "Impact" section, as evidence of the "massive critical and public success" of the game. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess we are in agreement. It shouldn't be a part of the trivia section. And that link to MrP's realm really should be added back. That site has a better SOTN section than Castlevania Dungeon. It covers the Saturn version and has sprites of the new enemies. I'm not much a fan of the site either but I have to say their SOTN section is better. Either way I'm gonna move that award stuff into that impact section tommorrow if noone else does. Read the top of the page. The trivia section is too large already so don't put it back. Thanks. – Iamstillhiro1112 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2006 (CST)
Huh, I did it for you before I noticed this conversation on this talk page. Hope you enjoy the different version. Erik Jensen (I appreciate talk!) 05:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction manual cites

Does anyone have a copy of the English instruction manual we can use for in-line citations of the Story and Gameplay sections of the article? I had to reorder a copy of the game, and it didn't come with one. -_-; ~ Hibana 09:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do! Maetch 18:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Maetch, September 2006

[edit] 'Considered by many...'

Perhaps I'm being too fussy, and I admit to being even more attached to the likes of Akumajou Densetsu and Castlevania IV than I am to SotN, but do you chaps not feel that this comment is slightly dismissive of, well, everything pre-1997? Feel free to tell me to sod off if you think this isn't the case at all. After all, the rest of the series is at least displayed at the bottom of the page! :)

Cheers. -- Klatrymadon

Yeah, that's a rather vague statement and not particularly verifiable either. Could we reword it please? Combination 23:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/s/Talk%7ECastlevania%7E_Symphony_of_the_Night_f2e1.html"