Talk:Chrono Break
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] GA Notes
Nice citations; needs to be broken up into multiple paragraphs and/or subsections, though. -Seventh Holy Scripture 10:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, could still use grammatical polish, but it's good enough :) (Sorry for the delay, finals week for summer classes!) -Seventh Holy Scripture 02:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removing Cross notes
Tanaka's recent interviews and the fact that Square is still developing the Mana series (which doesn't sell on such a level) warrant the removal of the Cross section. For those that missed it, it was a proposal that Chrono Cross's sales (over 1.5 million, but low compared to Final Fantasy's) caused the lack of development. However, comments by separate individuals at Square Enix have confirmed that it is a personnel and project planning issue. --Zeality 02:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opposing nomination for deletion
Chrono Break is notable, having been mentioned in the gaming press and registered as a trademark. Earthbound 64 was also never made, but that does not wound its notability. Should we delete Unfinished work as well? --Zeality 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not for the deletion at all, but Mother 3 for GBA is the same as EarthBound 64, it was just completed in 2D... 208.101.130.232 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
At least there was some media released for Earthbound 64, Chrono Break is just an empty trademark with no released info at all. This is the same as having an article about the highly hypothesized Shenmue III (which has been several times deleted and is now protected). --Mika1h 21:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Square, Square Enix, and Chrono-related freelance developers have given tons of statements about the game's possibility or non-possibility. Besides, this article has been listed as Good Article, it's not like it's a random stub. Kariteh 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, compared again to Shenmue III, Yu Suzuki has given plenty of updates about the game's production status but that's not a reason to have an article. Also I don't think Good Article status is a definitive proof of article's notability. Anyone can review and promote the article. I remember one article didn't survive an AFD although it was a GA. --Mika1h 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to demote the article's GA status if you believe it does not meet the GA criteria. In any case, this title wasn't talked about by the creators only, it also generated fan reactions, as proven by the fan poll stuff (and I'm sure other fan or professional reactions could be added to the article from websites and reliable sources). This asserts its notability. Kariteh 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, compared again to Shenmue III, Yu Suzuki has given plenty of updates about the game's production status but that's not a reason to have an article. Also I don't think Good Article status is a definitive proof of article's notability. Anyone can review and promote the article. I remember one article didn't survive an AFD although it was a GA. --Mika1h 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chrono Break verses Chrono Brake...
I say we change the title to Chrono Brake. Chrono Break is outdated and no longer officially trademarked by Square-Enix. 208.101.130.232 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that it was rendered as "Break" in English lends to the idea that "Brake" was a simple romaji on-the-spot translation with no thought behind it at the time. Zeality 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- But wouldn't "Brake" make more sense? The "Chrono Cross" was an object, "trigger" can be a reference to an object as well... So "Brake" would work pretty well, here. How can you tell which of the two spellings, "Brake" and "Break", is an "on-the-spot" one? You could argue that Japanese people are infamous for their "Engrish", but I could also argue that US teams are known to butcher translations of Japanese games because they don't do their homework... 88.161.129.43 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] This article sure clears up a few questions all right
So, the chrono team is maintaining FFXI eh? And they can't make a new chrono game until FFXI is done? I think this can offer an explanation of where WotG came from --67.160.118.193 (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)