Talk:Riviera: The Promised Land

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:


Contents

[edit] Some corrections this page needs...

Okay, just tell me something: WHY ARE YOU GUYS USING THE JAPANESE PLOT IF IT'S THE ENGLISH VERSION? At least you should have put the Japanese names in parenthesis, after the English ones, instead of just using the Japanese ones (which don't fit with Riviera: The Promised Land, but fit with Yakusoku no Chi Riviera).

Because the plot in general is the same. Most terms used are actually ones from the English version of the game (such as Grim Angel as opposed to Death Bring Angelix, and other terms).
And besides, the Yakusoku no Chi Riviera page isn't really anything. Just a small plot outline. And the Japanese terms in most if not all cases always has priority over the English. The purpose of this whole article in itself is to detail both the English and Japanese versions. That's why it's a Wikipedia article.

[edit] Working on the page itself

I have all the information needed to do a comprehensive page, but need some help wikifying.

-Z. Dan 24:18 CST 2 September 2005

Okay, sure. But why in the hell did you delete every other thing on the entire page?! Seriously, dude. WTF!! We HAD ALL THE INFORMATION WE NEEDED!! Did you not realize there was already something there?! If you were gonna go describe gameplay (which I have been nagging at people to do since that's something I'm not good at) why didn't you just create another section?! Why did you have to go and delete everything?! You better explain yourself. Tell me what you're up to, and why you think you have the right to desecrate the entire article. --Yamamoto114 16:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Er, I think I should apologize for being so rude to you in the above reply... I just found out that you were working off nothing at all, and somehow my article got lost on its own. You must have found the article to be nearly empty. I'm really sorry. None of it was your fault. And... the data from your edit is still in the history section somewhere. If you want, I can add it to the Wiki under a new section called gameplay. Because, you know... gameplay isn't described at all in the Wikipedia article, and we could really use that kind of a section. --Yamamoto114 17:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still need to get some facts straight...

Who was it that was locked in battle with Ursula at the end of Heaven's Gate? Was it Ledah or Malice? For some reason, I keep thinking Malice, but I can't be too sure on that. --Yamamoto114 21:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

In the North American version, which I played through around three times now. Ledah and Ein just reach the end of Heaven's gate and have to fight a flaming bird thing summoned by Ursula (as a sidenote, Ein was rather reluctant to fight, and only did so at command of Hector), named Aghart, "The Holy Beast". For some reason, Ledah opens that battle with a voice-acted "The Accursed." Which doesn't make sense, at least to me. After the battle, Ursula says something about the Retribution not being right or something and Hector orders Ledah and Ein to kill Ursula. Ein kinda just stands off to the side and Ledah swings Lorelei at Ursula, who appearently was not really there (hologram?). Then Ursula whisks Ein off and blah blah blah... Malice doesn't show up at all in the first chapter. She actually makes her first appearence in the second chapter but with the name of "????" (considering that Ein doesn't have his memory at the time and the others obviously should not have any info pretaining to Malice). Oh, and a slight clarification, Malice is NOT a real Grim Angel. Rather, she is a false one fashioned by Hector to collect souls for summoning Seth (this is revealed at the end of the game, just before the final battle with Seth-Ra). her diviner's also fake, which could explain why she had to flee in the second chapter when her diviner started 'resonating' with Ein's. I think I may be able to help with this article, just give me a buzz if you have questions. -Mxuxl1 17:22 EST, September 8, 2005

[edit] And so it ends

And so it ends. I was able to talk to one of the awesome people at Atlus, named Mike, and he kindly explained everything to me. I'm including a copy of both E-mails, though his will be hidden. Just in case.

---

This isn't exactly a rant, however I was afraid to use the other E-mail addresses availabe since this question didn't seem to fit well in those categories.
I was curious concerning the age of each character. Serene states that she is the same age as Ein, Lina says she's a year older than Fia (I highly doubt it unless Fia is very young, which I also highly doubt), and Cierra is an adult. However, there's no real concrete age provided. Just enough to make assumptions. Also, didn't Lina say she was 80-something pounds? I would really like to know the truth about how old everyone is.
Are Lina and Fia sisters? They definitely seem like it. But if they are, why do they have different-colored hair? I'm asking too much here, aren't I? =P
And were any details like these changed during translation from Japanese to English?
Thank you to whoever addresses my questions.
Sincerely, A Curious Fan

---

Hiya Takeru,
Thanks for writing. I'll do my best to answer your questions, but most of these are educated guesses and assumptions -- most of which you already know.
We don't have exact ages, but we can determine relative ages. Cierra is definitely the oldest (seen in Chapter 4 with the Red Panel). As you mentioned earlier, Serene and Ein are the same age. Lina, although immature and small for her age, is _definitely_ a year older than Fia (You've seen it, yourself). Fia's very mature for her age, but she is the youngest of the group. CoCo mentioned something about Fia, but never actually tells us. If I recall, she said something like "She may not look it, but Fia is actually... No, nevermind."
Finally, Fia and Lina are not sisters. If they were, the Elder would address Lina as granddaughter as well (which he does not). Also, hair-color does not necessarily convey blood relation (as seen with Sage and Fool in Chapter 4). And, to the best of my knowledge, important details such as these weren't changed. Hope that answers your questions.

---

Judging by what has finally been revealed, Fia is the youngest of the group. So now it makes sense! w00t! So if we make Ein's base age 14, then Cierra should be 16-20 since she doesn't look too old, Serene should be 14 like Ein, Fia would be maybe 10-12, and Lina a year older. Ledah is probably the same age as Cierra.

So in this war, everyone is both right and wrong. But it mainly focuses around me, since I was the one who said Fia was 15. >_< I'm SUCH an idiot. *gets to work on changing the details in the Wiki*

--Yamamoto114 17:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess that is resolved then. We have our answer, even if it does contradict common sense. Congratulations. --Tjstrf 08:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lyuri's Age

A'ight, that's it. I'm just going to make it very clear on the Wiki that Lyuri's age is extremely controversial. Take out everything ever suggesting that she was eight or sixteen. It's getting crazy out here. Everyone on GameFAQs is brawling amongst themselves, this topic is crazy. --Yamamoto114 23:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I say you should put it back in so that more people will notice the discrepency. GameFAQs really has no bearing on this article, and if they want to argue over it they should come here. Lina is approximately the same height as everyone else in the game, but I think that's just he art style. --Tjstrf 01:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Unrequired. I've noted the whole problem in itself under Lyuri's page. All references to her age within the profile have been removed, and a whole new category has been created underneath concerning the argument. I'm still looking for some sources who are familiar with the Japanese version to confirm this. But I seriously doubt she's 16. --Yamamoto114 05:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess that works. You now have two different sections on age though. Merge suggested. --Tjstrf 07:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I didn't write that section. Everything else I did, but I don't know... it feels like I should leave that thing alone. Though at the same time, when I read it over, it seems unnecessary to even exist. What do you think? --Yamamoto114 23:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I say kill it. Unless Arcs are immortal (unaging) or near-immortal, or Ein has only been an angel for a few years, the age comparison is worthless and impossible. Ein as an angel might be anywhere from 14 to 4,000. --Tjstrf 05:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like someone's already done it. Good. Takes a load off of this page. It looked bad, too; whoever wrote it doesn't know wiki formatting. As for Ecthel... well, he's too clueless to be 4,000. We'll just base his age off of how deep his voice is, since he looks like he's 11 and we all know he isn't. I think. --Yamamoto114 23:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Concerning age...

Lyuri, 16. I doubt that somehow. And older than Fia? This game isn't entirely unrealistic. I'm gonna have a look-see, and I'll confirm it with the rest of you. But let's also not forget you're reading the script from the dub version. Some details might be a tad different. It happens with most Japanese anime and video games; details get changed a lot.

--Yamamoto114 15:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, they could have changed that for the U.S. release to avoid the idea Ein/Ecthel is hitting on an 8 year old. Alternately, of course, Lina could just be lying about her age.
--Tjstrf 20:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Age Notes

You should probably get rid of them at this point, and replace them with something more condensed, summarized, and succinct. It's kind of strange having that age note before the character's profiles, and a note Lina's age just protruding there.

[edit] Weapons section

OK, I understand some of you are rather enthusiastic about this article, but you are significantly lowering the quality by editing it in the manner you are using. Wikipedia is not a FAQ. If we are going to have a weapons section, it cannot go into damage dealt, how to find weapons, or your personal opinion as to whether or not they suck. The only weapons that can really be listed validly are those with inmportance to the plot. Namely, the diviners. The list of weapon types wasn't a bad idea, but it was filled with POV comments and unclear terms ("insane" is not a description for power. Also, none of those weapons deal particularly high damage anyway unless you use an overdrive.) so I deleted it as well. I will continue to delete these sections until you are either able to rewrite them in an encyclopedic manner or we are able to reach a consensus on this page. --Tjstrf 09:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

"Ledah's name isn't clearly pronounced anything in the Voices (It might as well have been "Ldah"). I'm going by the Japanese voice." -Raijinili January 5 edit

If we're going by the Japanese voice, would it still be appropriate to add "English:" in front of the pronounciation?

The "official" English pronunciation is obscured beyond reasonable recognition. The Japanese pronunciation at least fits the spelling of the name.Raijinili 09:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, do we even need English pronounciations for each of them? Not all of them are even spoken aloud so it wouldn't make sense to include English pronounciations if not all of them exist. Axem Titanium 02:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what? You're right.Raijinili 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if no one else objects, I'm removing the English pronounciations then. Axem Titanium 04:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual game section

This article needs sections on the game play this is as much a game as it is a story, come on people lets get down to it-Anon

[edit] Merger?

The merge tag's been up for a while but no one's discussed it to my knowledge. From what I hear, they're the same game but I think some people said there are enough differences to warrant their own article. Thoughts? Axem Titanium 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a very brief (as in, virtually non-existant) discussion on the Yakuso no Chi page. The 2 of us who were there agreed it should be merged, but 2 people is not exactly enough to make a consensus. 3 people, however, might be enough. The only concern voiced would be to make sure we include a couple Japanese names that aren't in this article yet.--Tjstrf 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Such as? I'm sure it's really not that much work (from what I can see on the Yakusoku no Chi Riviera page). Axem Titanium 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Death Bring Angelix, some weapon names... I think he listed them on the talk page there. --Tjstrf 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Support: This is the exact same game on all 3 platforms, with just various differences due to the hardware it is being ported too. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Spoilers.

This isn't quite the right place for it as this is a general Wikipedia philosophy thing. Axem Titanium is sort of correct in that Wikipedia does not offer warnings or disclaimers aside from the general site-wide one. However, as should be known from reading what Axem Titanium linked to (which is why I find it strange you cited it for removal), the one exception to that is Spoilers. See WP:SPOIL. There's a reason that the spoilers template exists, and the Spoil page goes on to discuss them. From Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates:

The exception
Template:spoiler is the exception.
[...] The only disclaimer on wikipedia should be the spoiler warnings, because you don't know where they are, and they ruin things for you. You can choose to ignore medical-related content on Wikipedia, but once you've read a spoiler, you can't just pretend you never read it.

I would humbly propose that you take this debate to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC, Axem. If the spoiler tag is generally abolished, fine. But as long as Wikipedia still allows and encourages use of the spoiler tag, this seems clearly a legitimate usage in this article- it talks about a character's death, the circumstances thereof, that you have to fight them, etc. SnowFire 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It allows, yes, but it definitely doesn't encourage the use of spoiler tags. This is proven by the large tag on WP:SPOIL that states that spoiler tags are a disputed policy on wikipedia and that they are only a suggestion and not official policy.
Aside from the apparent contradiction inherent in the idea of spoilers on a subject can be "contained" within the begin and end spoiler tags (which is probably impossible since almost everything about anything could technically be considered a spoiler and as an editor, it would be awfully POV of me to decide for the reader what is and what isn't a spoiler), spoiler tags disrupt the flow of an article by creating awkward header paragraphs that should be so-called "spoiler-free". Also, by including a spoiler tag, it would discourage the spread of knowledge, which is a major tenet of wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is an institution created to promote free access to knowledge unhindered by censorship, which by definition, spoiler tags fall under.
Obviously, arguing about it here would do no good since with only two people, it's impossible to establish a majority/plurality. However, I can point to precedents set on many other game-related articles, through discussion by much better debaters than I, many of which have resulted in the removal of the tags (Including Final Fantasy VII and other Final Fantasy games, Shadow of the Colossus, the discussion held at WP:FF and the discussion held at WP:CVG).
I don't think I'll be able to convince you but I think I'll be able to get you to defer to the will of lots of (at the very least) game-related editors on this count. Axem Titanium 05:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned above, the place to have this discussion is Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC, which already has long, drawn-out arguments for both sides. The "disputed" mark you mention leads there, and that disputed mark is fairly recent, I'll add. Spoilers have been around and accepted for some time prior. You are also incorrect in saying that it is a "suggestion." To quote WP:SPOIL:

This page is a style guide for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes.

Now, these are not set in stone. As the RfC proves, a major change was proposed, and is being discussed there. Legitimate debate at the RfC does not somehow make the standard invalid.

Also, I don't understand your edit summary at all. "See talk" means that a longer reason for the revert is waiting at the talk page; you seem to imply that that doesn't count? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Also, I'm unfamiliar with the claim that older versions have precedence. This may be true in cases where the older version had a Peer Review or was made a featured article, and it may also be true if someone is restarting a war fought long ago that's already been discussed on the talk page (in which case the person should go to the talk page first). Neither of these apply.

Some notes:

  • Just so it's clear, there certainly are stylistic reasons to avoid the spoiler mark. As you say, it disrupts the flow of a page (out of neccesity, granted). Might I recommend looking at Shadow Hearts? Though it's not exactly a model example, I did write the initial draft for it and have done some work since on it. There isn't a spoiler tag at SH... because there aren't any spoilers. I haven't played Riviera, so I'm not qualified to adjust the article, but would it be feasible to simply only have instruction booklet type information? Or to move all the spoilery stuff to the end, and have a "plot synopsis" type section?
  • You mention the POV thing, which I know has been used at the RfC as well, but I'd just like to add that I totally do not get this objection (nor do I get the censorship objection). "Bob is the best character" is POV. "Bob is actually a ninja clone assassin you fight on Disc 3" is a factual statement that contains "Plot and/or Ending details." Sure, there are interpretation and magnitude issues, but that's true of all statements on Wikipedia that aren't logical tautologies (Much harder interpretations are things like "Reaction in the Arab world to the Iraq war has been generally negative" or "String theory seems to fit certain mathematical symmetries we'd want, given higher dimensions existing." Those aren't necessarily POV, but the truth and precision of the statements is nevertheless tricky to pin down.). Wikipedia is something that is meant to be read, and tools that aid in reading the proper parts are no different than things like section headers and the table of contents.
  • I looked at the talk pages you linked to, and I see that it's the same few hardcore editors there arguing against spoiler tags as on the RfC- in fact, that debate was apparently what helped start the RfC. The advocates there- notably Ryu Kaze- were clearly in favor of abolishing all spoiler tags, so there is not a gaming-specific argument for it. I wasn't going to mention this before, but since you seem to invoke the consensus on your side- the vote at the RfC is currently 40-8 in favor of keeping spoiler tags. Spoiler tags were official policy before the dispute, and until it is resolved, remain so. There are clearly spoilers here. Thus, a spoiler tag (for the current revision of the article) is appropriate.

Now. Something I can agree with is that spoilers should generally be avoided. If spoilers are introduced anyway, however, it should be very clear that the section contains spoilers- which doesn't always require the spoiler tag, mind. If there's a section called "plot synopsis" or the like, people are probably suitably warned by the header.

As an example, Suikoden V features a general overview of the game with no spoilers. If you go to the character pages associated with it, however, you can find (warned) spoilers galore, as they detail everything that happens to the character. This seems about right to me, as it allows people with a passing interest to safely read the article, while still providing all the plot information for those who want that.

Anyway. This article could use some work in any case. If you want to rewrite the article to avoid spoilers- or to better cordon them off to an area where it's clear that there are spoilers- by all means, go ahead. That's the best solution. However, the current revision of the article merits a spoiler warning.

I will once again propose that we visit Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC if you wish to continue your case, unless you have some argument specific to Riviera, and that we both respect whatever result is found from the RfC. SnowFire 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A "spoiler-free" article would defeat the purpose of having the article in the first place. This is a place of learning and intentionally omitting information would go against that. Also, aside from the general content disclaimer, the header "Story" would obviously equate to, if not spoilers, at least the same thing as "Plot synopsis" in terms of warning and it would convey the same thing without disrupting the article with a tag. Also, it can be argued that anything is a spoiler. How "far" do you go before it's considered a spoiler? The first disc? The first few hours? The first minute during the opening sequence?
I was going to rewrite the article at some point but I've never had the chance between other edits. There's no guarantee ever that spoilers couldn't end up being in other sections but as general common sense, a plot section would contain spoilers about the entire plot and not some fraction of it. Eventually, the article will hopefully look something like Final Fantasy X or something with the same general layout. Axem Titanium 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
All problems that pale compared to the kind of questions Wikipedia faces all the time- what, exactly, is relevant information to an article? How large should an article's scope be, and when should articles be split off/merged? How much background should be given to reader's not familiar with a technique/genre/science? How are readability and precision balanced? Questions like "What is a spoiler" will also have different people give perhaps different answers, but I guarantee you'll find much closer agreement.
Anyway. I was only sticking a band-aid on the article before. I tried to reorganize the article somewhat to follow a more logical flow, and make it more clear what's what- the section above was mostly backstory (part of why I thought it was safe to read on), which is now clearly named that. The Diviners section felt a little bit awkward in there anyway, since we hadn't met the characters yet. I could easily see each character's diviner being included next to their character profile, actually; I considered doing that over a new section, but Malice currently isn't listed (should she be?) so that wasn't feasible. Ideally, a subheader for the other characters to cleanly differentiate them from the "Grim Angels" header would also be good, but again, I don't know the game well enough to choose, and it's not a huge deal (I'd have used "Sprites," except apparently Serene isn't one, and "other" is a bit meh.).
If the article ever gets rewritten to, say, include a plot snyopsis, and the characters section ends up beneath that, by all means remove the spoiler tag. Until then, however, as we have discussed, it is proper within current Wikipedia guidelines to have a spoiler tag. SnowFire 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll defer to that for now. The article needs to be cleaned up first, tag or no tag. Axem Titanium 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Netjak and MobyGames, while technically relevant and abiding by the rules, have no place in this article. Nothing is stated in the links that is not said in the article, aside from personal opinions in the Netjak review and the Chinese name of the game, which is completely pointless. These links do not contribute anything except page length. Stop adding them.

The "personal opinions of Netjack" which you so deride, as well as Mobygames, are both reliable sources, some of which should be included in every article. Stop removing them, it will be considered vandalism. --tjstrf 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether they are reliable sources, they add nothing. And you know that thing you kept citing that supposedly gives them the right to be there? It actually says they shouldn't. They add nothing to the article, and WP:EL says that links that add nothing should be avoided. So, sorry, you're wrong, if you attempt to add it again, I will report it.

People know all about generic gaming sites. They're incredibly easy to find. Search for the title of any game and you'll get a ton of links from those generic gaming sites. They're not hard to find at all, and are very well-known. All it's doing is wasting space to have them. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are well-known, and that's exactly WHY we are supposed to include them. We even have a template for the Mobygames links for that exact reason. If you wish to dispute this idea, please take your concern to WT:CVG, as it is a project-wide issue. --tjstrf 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
They're well-known, so we should put links to them? That doesn't seem logical in the slightest. The sites that are not well-known, and would be more difficult to find, should be the ones we link to. Not the ones that everyone already knows about. Even if they don't know about them, it's not difficult to find them, as I have said. -Yggdra Juril Altwaltz 20:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Their status as well-known sites is the very reason we are actually allowed to link to them to begin with. Unknown review and fansites are not reliable, and cannot be included. Wikipedia duplicates Wikipedia's sources, that should be obvious. We're an encyclopedia, we don't do original research. --tjstrf 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Their notability doesn't exclude them from being linked to. However, I don't feel that the MobyGames link in THIS article is justified under the external links policy, seeing as it doesn't provide much information that would not fit into the Wiki. I see... ratings. From OTHER sites. Not very important. Even if MobyGames does have a template, this doesn't justify it being added to the Riviera page. Vote Delete
The Netjak review, I say, can be kept. But only if you cite it. And you would have to allow other reviews from AUTHORS that have: 1) been KNOWN to play the game through, since so many reviewers are known to base their reviews on the first chapter only, or 2) are detailed in their description of the game. Or, again, are cited. Can you give a specific reason why to include this PARTICULAR review, instead of simply saying that reviews fit ELP? --Raijinili 00:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
>>>14:54, 9 October 2006 Tjstrf (Talk | contribs) (→External links - I never broke 3RR, check the times. Readding Mobygames per the CVG discussion.)<<<
How clever of you to ALMOST break 3RR, but not quite. Not. Don't try to get out on a loophole. It was an edit war and it should've went to the talk page as soon as it was clear that there was an issue to resolve.
And how can you consider the discussion "won"? Most of the arguments, if not all, for MobyGames did NOT apply to Riviera, a fact which people conveniently ignored. We didn't take a vote, and not all of the points were addressed. The discussion is still open. --Raijinili 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"Almost" break it? The gap between my edits has been over 24 hours in most cases, with the occasional double-revert. None of those come even close to system gaming. Stop overreacting. I never stated I "won" anything, merely that there is a clear consensus for inclusion of Mobygames links on CVG project articles as a whole, therefore for the sake of consistency they should be included here as well. --tjstrf 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact was, you participated in an edit war. And now I'm participating. At least two people on this page, maybe three or four, don't want MobyGames here and we have good reasons. You are outnumbered for this specific page.
As for CVG, there is a consensus that MobyGames is acceptable, not that it should be in every article that has a MobyGames page, and where the hell did you get "consistency" from? Only you and Frecklefoot wanted them on ALL pages. Hahnchen didn't want the links on pages that didn't have the information. Yggdra and an anon user wanted the pages out. Everyone else defended MobyGames, but in the general case, not in Riviera's case. --Raijinili 01:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If an external link is acceptable on a class of article as a whole, it should be included on every instance of that class except where its presence actively harms Wikipedia. There is widespread support for the linking in general, and not a single argument that including Mobygames on this page actually hurts Wikipedia in any way whatsoever. This page has no "specific issues". If the complaint is that the EL section is too long, we can fix that without removing standard links. --tjstrf 17:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This huge debate is, if you don't mind my saying, completely ridiculous. Try to take a step back and look at what you're all freaking out over: two little links that have legitimate information. I don't see why some people here are so concerned about having too many links. Compared to many other pages, this article is completely within bounds. On another hand, the mobygames site has a lot of information not appropriate for inclusion on wikipedia but is still helpful knowledge (such as external reviews, cover art, screenshots, etc.). Also, with the Netjak review, it may not be appropriate for the external links section but it would be completely fine as a source for citations in a reception section that this article still needs. Axem Titanium 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Try paying closer attention; the MobyGames page for Riviera has less information than any other site on the internet.
Which has what relevancy to any actual harm done by including the link? That's right, none. No harm is done by including it, and it matches the normal standardization. --tjstrf 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
When arguing with me, argue with ME. I never said anything about the External Links section being too big. I said that there are other more informational links that do everything the MobyGames page does and more, unless you count "consistency" as something RPGamer and Metacritic don't fulfill. In fact, I'm adding those two, and that should cover everything MobyGames has, rendering it redundant. Feel free to debate about that now.
No argument that it's hurting Wikipedia? I already said that it makes Wikipedia look bad to link to a near-empty page, and I should also mention that it encourages people to link to sites that have barely any information. Just because you ignore me doesn't mean I didn't say anything. And there's no such thing as "standard links".
Axem, I'm with Sturm. Pay attention. The MobyGames site does NOT have a lot of information that's not already on the page or on one of the higher-priority external links (Atlus' site has screenshots and cover art). --Raijinili 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, excuse me for not caring about your little crusade that is of utmost importance to the quality of Wikipedia in general. I think your efforts are better directed towards improving the article in more substantial ways than having good external links. Axem Titanium 01:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
We could, but it seems just about every little edit to this page is met with fierce opposition on all sides. DrSturm 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, excuse me for expecting some level of competency in comments on an issue. I just think that people should understand the issue before taking sides.
And we do what we can. --Raijinili 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese or English?

Okay, the second most recent edit removed the links to the official Japanese sites for the game. Fine, I don't really want to get into another pissing fight over links, especially since these aren't the most necessary, though I do think they should have been kept. But, then, the most recent one added information on the Japanese release, and put it in the 2004 Video Games category, following the Japanese release instead of the American. But the links were kept out. Also, with the removal of the links, the characters' Japanese names were kept. So, what exactly are we going for on this page, complete information, English-only information, or some random mish-mash? DrSturm 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in the Japanese site links. --tjstrf 20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Being EN Wikipedia, pages here need to represent the English perspective while respecting the original language. As such, we have stuff like the nihongo template and etc. which help with that. Axem Titanium 02:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the fact that it's the Japanese site isn't enough, so I stole something from the first Japanese article I could think of: 2ch. --Raijinili 00:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

Please. Final Fantasy VIII is not the be all and end all in video game formats. One must realize that Riviera is a very different game and needs a different treatment: one cannot just slap on a format amd expect it to work. For this article, i think a more Max Payne-like treatment is in order.

WoodElf 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using Final Fantasy 8's format, personally. And as a side note, the image gallery in the story section and the collage of the characters in the characters section are really disruptive looking. -- Tenks 16:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
One must remember that Max Payne is not the most amazing article ever. The ultimate goal of any article is to become a featured article. Please see WP:CVG#Featured_Articles for the featured articles within Wikiproject Computer and video games. They provide good examples of what to emulate. Axem Titanium 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Reception" section.

Completely useless? There's nothing in the section, and the things that could be placed in the section are covered by the metacritic link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrSturm (talk • contribs).

The Reception section is the most important part of any video game article because that is where the article asserts its own notability. Otherwise, it might just get deleted. Axem Titanium 21:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wow, so, when it comes to MobyGames, it's information beyond the scope of the article, but now it's information required for the article to remain on the site? What an interesting roundabout we ride here on Wikipedia... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrSturm (talk • contribs) 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
Right. Your rhetoric doesn't work here. I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I didn't really care about the MobyGames link, I just wanted everyone to drop it because it was just a stupid link. However, concerning the Reception section, Wikipedia is not just for gamers. It's for everyone. What that entails is that a game-related article should not be overrun by story or gameplay elements, rather it should discuss the real-world impact this game has had, how critics responded to it and any awards it has received. That way, a general viewer can make his or her own decision about the game or at least find out a little about how it was received by reading this page. Axem Titanium 02:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So it's our job to give them all the information they need to know if they should buy the game or not? Didn't know Wikipedia was in the business.
No need to act purposefully dense, my dear. Much as we may sometimes wish otherwise, Wikipedia is supposed to primarily cover the real world. In the case of video games that real world coverage consists of development information and reviews. --tjstrf talk 05:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Reviews are covered by the metacritic link. We have a development section, not that that would have anything to do with how the general public received it, so I have no idea why you even bothered bringing it up.
Player reviews aren't covered by the Metacritic link. --Raijinili 05:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Player reviews are quite often trashing or praising the game, disregarding the pros or cons respectively, but if you really care so much about those, a GFAQs link could be easily added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrSturm (talk • contribs) 07:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Citations and references

The game script has been ripped and most of it posted here. Is that WP:RS enough, or should they also be hosted on the site itself?
And then there's the fact that the names aren't included. Well, we have a version with the faces included too. --Raijinili 18:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Game script is considered a primary source. Talk a look at Final Fantasy X to see how script is cited. Axem Titanium 23:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BlameTheControlPad Article

Does not belong. It's an awful article, which contains error after error, as well as being riddled with opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrSturm (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rating?

I think its time to reassess this article. Any supports? --WoodElf 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs a lot of work before then. Probably a fully rewrite. It's in quite the state of disarray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrSturm (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/v/Talk%7ERiviera%7E_The_Promised_Land_568f.html"