Talk:Star Ocean: The First Departure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sony PlayStation Portal
This article is within the scope of the The PlayStation Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of PlayStation products. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
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.
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.
VG To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Square Enix, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Square Enix-related merchandise and 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within Square Enix-related articles for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] Critical Reception?

The site below gives information about what Famitsu (Japanese gaming magazine) thought of this title. http://www.forever-fantasy.net/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=38 Helpful at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.86.61 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

This dicussion is pointless for the time being as the little information available to western audience in BOTH games isn't quite enough to judge if the remake and the original will be similar or otherwise. Since the PSP version will be using a new engine based on SO2 than SO1, it is likely that the game will be very different (combat system, character design, interface, level designs, etc). The page on the remake should be fully developed when someone has played the Japanese remake and compared it to the japanese original (or at least the fan-translated version from DeJap). 212.23.44.107 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC) SSH83

No other enhanced remake has it's own page unless it is very much different from the original, and even then, they're usually still on the same page. If it turns out that this game gets very different than the original, we can bring them back apart, but as it stands now, they should probably stay together. If no one opposes, I'll merge. See also: Talk:Star Ocean: The Second Evolution#Merger proposal -Platypus Man | Talk 15:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong OPPOSE! It's already confirmed to be different, that was the point. I see plenty of remakes with their own pages. I'd say it would be better to wait for the information to stop pouring otu before railroading it into another article and tryign to cram and squeeze every new detail into there.--Claude 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me how it's different (other than new cutscenes, enhanced graphics, and a different game system, as all enhanced remakes seem to have those). Also, as best I know, it isn't the policy of Wikipedia to keep an article separate because someone thinks it will be big; we keep it together until a section gets large enough, with its own independent information, and then give it its own page. As it is now, we can essentially put all the info here onto the main page with no trouble. Also, you might want to try a bit of spellcheck next time... -Platypus Man | Talk 03:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me how it's not different, show me from start to finish why it's considered exactly the same and why all the new information is irrelevant the day it's release and why my vote of opposition is magically null. Oh, and keep your smart ass spellcheck comments to yourself. Not everyone throws a tantrum at the sight of a typo. k thx bai :)--Claude 06:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS), Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS), Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, Tales of Phantasia (PS1), etc. --Teggles 07:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Claude: I'm not saying that your vote is magically null. We're having a discussion and I disagree with you, but your vote counts as much as mine. And I'm not saying that the two are exactly the same, but with a remake of a game, it's generally safe to assume that it will be exactly the same until new information is given that tells you exactly what is different. That's why I think this should be part of the main article until we know if it is different enough. Teggles: Those games do all have their own articles, but they were all deemed different enough to warrant it. Again, this one may be different enough to warrant it, but as of yet, we don't know, so I feel we should keep it in the main article until we do. -Platypus Man | Talk 13:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a full remake, it's not "exactly the same" by default. That said, there's no question of this somehow being the same; it's not, and the website just launched with an entire section dedicated to the enhancement and new features, we've already got a vague list in the article, and with all the new information that was released the past few days, we should be updating the article instead of railroading it into the main article where it'll swell and eventually burst from the outpour of new information.--Claude 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely from a rational point of view that this remake shares any code and assets from the Super Nintendo original, so everything in this game has been created from the grounds up. No single content, code, or asset is shared from the original. Therefore, while it handles the same general story with the same characters, it shares 0% of its original, and is therefore 100% different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.105.188 (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As it is unreleased in Japan, not much information is known about the title (unlike Final Fantasy IV DS). Normally, it would make sense to combine the two articles EXCEPT for the fact that The First Departure is being released in 7 days. Upon that time more information should become known, including but not limited to overall development information, US release, Japanese reception, and first week sales. Overall, I recommend a STRONG DO NOT MERGE. If in 1 months time, The first departure has not been expanded upon they should be combined (like the Tales of Eternia PSP port). 64.129.86.8 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want some proof on how different this game is, check this site (http://www.eternalsphere.com/so1/index) although it's in Japanese the titles are in english, revealing the new features. And for a hands on review from someone who has played it here http://www.gamespot.com/psp/rpg/staroceanthefirstdeparture/news.html?sid=6179632&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;2 The story is the same as the snes game, but it is told from a slightly different angle ("The game will feature a redone introduction, redesigned characters, fully voiced cutscenes as well as an enhanced battle system."-http://www.pspfanboy.com/2007/10/19/star-ocean-1-deets/) and runs through a completely new engine (so2 engine), i think this constitutes a seperate page, or at least a whole section on the SO1 page dedicated to it, -as a integrated article could cause confusion between the two games. Hopefully some of this helps you guys stop complaining, to be honest, as long as the two articles are seperate, i don't see why it matters so much to have them being together or seperate. I just care that there's some decent info on this new game, it was released a week ago, surely someone who can write an article can track this info down..00iddy (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

The image on this page isn't from the game.. it's a battle ground from SO2, with SO1 characters edited in, though until a proper screenshot is found, well a 'free' one anyway, this can do, but it really should say that it isnt from the game (the bg in the psp version has trees and better/different character designs.00iddy (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that was one of the first screenshots released, the description should be changed I guess to reflect the beta status.--Claude (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This actually IS an official screenshot of SO1:FD. It looks like SO2 because, well, it's the same engine, with SO1 characters not "edited in" but actually in the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.8.75 (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American Release Date

I'm guessing whoever put up the NA release date got their information from Gamefly:

http://www.gamefly.com/products/detail.asp?pid=131485&t=0&fcTrack=Search?-?-

It doesn't look very reliable, though. Siliconera states that the date is a "placeholder":

http://www.siliconera.com/2008/04/28/star-ocean-remakes-landing-on-north-american-psps/

I wish I could say that I know the release date is not going to be September 2008, but I can't prove it :P

60.42.131.161 (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Developer

I'm putting this here because I'm not sure how credible RPGFan is, but they list TOSE as the developer:

http://www.rpgfan.com/reviews/Star_Ocean_First_Departure/index.html

I'll leave it up to the Wikipedia veterans to decide if this is credible citation. 60.42.131.161 (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)