Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

That release date at the top of the page should be considered tentative. Zelda games are always delayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.90.148 (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Do NOT delete. The game has been officially announced and has a (tenative) release date. Faythoffenrir (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because it is "officially announced" and has a release date doesn't mean it can have an article. Just wait until more information is released. Once we have enough information to make a good sized article, then it can be separate. Why does it matter if the information is here or merged on another page? It still is covered somewhere, and the article WILL be made when more is released about it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Might I suggest we ponder a different name to call the article?., I (and maybe others) keep confusing this with twilight princess. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game). That's what the image says and that's when it's supposed to be released, as good as any other (and at this point in time as relevant as anything else). Someoneanother 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

sounds good. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Zelda XV?

Isn't The Legend of Zelda XV (or fifteen if you prefer) being used as the title of this game? Shouldn't that be the title, not The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game). I'm not sure if Nintendo itself is using the title or not, so I thought I ask here first. Thanks! 207.118.0.231 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Zelda games have never been numbered by Nintendo, and I don't think this is any different. It's actually difficult to assign numbers to Zelda games, because it is not clear which games are main titles are which aren't (I.E. spin-offs, like Four Swords). Some people only count console games, in which case this would be number eight, not fifteen. Zazaban (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that saying Zelda games have never been numbered isn't true. --Bentonia School (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While that may be true that has not been the case since Zelda 2 which was released in the last 80s so I don't think that fact is relevant.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That, and the latest Nintendo Power lists it as "The Legend of Zelda*", where the asterisk naturally means the name isn't set in stone. Digitelle (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with not using Zelda XV, since the last time they used numbered title for a Zelda game was Zelda II in the late eighties. I doubt that they would start now.--76.66.188.170 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Release date will probably not be in 2010

According to this totalvideo games article, the release date will be 2010 but only in Japan. I thought it might be important this part:

"It seems The Legend of Zelda won't be making an appearance in Europe or North America this year, but could make it to Japan. In a list of forthcoming Wii releases, The Legend of Zelda is listed as a 2010 release in Japan but is missing from the European and North American schedules".

Judge yourself: http://www.totalvideogames.com/The-Legend-of-Zelda-unannounced/news/Legend-of-Zelda-Misses-2010-15209.html I thought it might be worth adding to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.114.158.108 (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

More evidence is found on Here --Earboxer (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We sort of knew that already. But 2010 is the first release date. If things are listed by release date, it would be by the first date, not the US date. How else would you choose between US and UK dates? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you Are talking about the article title this game will likely have a subtitle like every other zelda game since OOT so the relase date will likely not be in the article title when that happens.--76.69.168.53 (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision on June 8, 2010

I rewrote and condensed the article, e.g. removing the claim of The Legend of Zelda as a tentative name, when it is just giving the series title. I also removed the Game Informer news of the game being in development even before Twilight Princess was released, as it was posted in their gossip section and didn't list a specific reliable source. Should the image go down, this is what it says: "Most gamers are still making their way through Twilight Princess, yet our sources tell us that the next installment in the series has been deep in development for around a year. It's highly unlikely that Nintendo would release two Zelda games a year apart, but don't be surprised if this game comes sooner than you think." As we all know, "sooner" turned out to be pretty late, and given Miyamoto's comments, the game's development really started sometime in 2008 rather than 2005. Prime Blue (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumors

Perhaps this is just my inexperience with Wikipedia showing, but I think it would be a good idea to include an "unconfirmed rumors" section near the end of the article. (e.g. the wii.tv spoof video, the identity of the mysterious figure in the picture, and other such gossip) I've encountered (and circulated) a few myself, and I always find it interesting when I encounter them. However, I would understand and take no offense if a section about rumors is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. That's why I'm proposing the idea here, rather than shoving it into the article myself. MilesEques (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is not appropriate to put any speculation on any article on Wikipedia. Take a look at WP:NOT (which includes speculation under "Crystal ball") to familiarize yourself with what's acceptable and what's not. Magiciandude (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is just fine with me. I found that there's a rumor section on the "Zeldapedia." (This section probably shouldn't be deleted. Likely, I'm not going to be the last to consider the idea.) MilesEques (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision on June 18, 2010

In the Joystiq interview, Miyamoto does not refer to the land beneath Skyloft as Hyrule. It could be that Hyrule includes Skyloft, or that Hyrule is the land under the clouds, so I removed this as speculation until there is a definite confirmation on the name of the ground world. And I'd appreciate if someone found a source for the similar gameplay to previous 3D entries, with the less apparent dungeon/overworld difference mentioned.

Also, I frequently see people adding information and speculation from fansites. Note that Wikipedia articles require reliable sources for everything, so please take a look at the list of accepted sources before you post one. Thanks to everyone contributing to the article these days! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if you watch the E3 press conference, Miyamoto talks about Hyrule near the end of it. 70.77.53.165 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gamescom

A single tradeshow appearance still bears no relevance on the development of a game. If some substantial new information is announced there and picked up by a reliable source, we can include it. Prime Blue (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

New Trailer

A new trailer was released on March 2 so if somebody wants to put a reference in to that with any new info that'd be great. I generally don't add new info because I haven't got a clue how to reference pages correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.11.149 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

I wasn't sure if this was a reliable date, but I know that I have already reserved my copy from Gamestop, and they said Nov 2, 2011. This article is from a website I don't know, so I thought I'd post it here and see what you guys think. http://www.thegamerbuzz.com/gamestop-leaks-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-release-date Vyselink (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Release dates from retail businesses are not considered reliable, because they frequently use "placeholder" or "best guess" dates. I'm unfamiliar with "gamerbuzz", but it looks like they're just forwarding Gamestops info on, so it's no different... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's why I asked. I'm getting really annoyed with people putting in unsourced release dates, and have reverted at least two. Vyselink (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Composer

Apparently the latest Iwata Asks mentions that in addition to remastering the soundtrack for OoT:3DS, Mahito Yokota (of Super Mario Galaxy fame) is composing for this title. Anyone feel like adding that in? (source: http://mynintendonews.com/2011/05/26/nintendo-mahito-yokota-composing-new-zelda-titles/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.208.186 (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've realised now that he is just credited for orchestrating the score but the composer(s) is/are not revealed. The information, however, is still helpful as we learn that the score will have some form of orchestral pieces. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, now the official composers are Hajime Wakai (The Wind Waker, New Super Mario Bros.) and Koji Kondo (Super Mario & Zelda Series). The source is found on page. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Release date II - the holiday season

I've been trying to work out how to re-word the phrase holiday season that was used for the release date. When I first read it, I assume it meant the Summer holidays and was thus rather pleased. Reading around I now know that "holidays" is US shorthand for what we would call "Christmas" over here. To avoid putting a religious holiday in - for obvious reasons of NPOV - I was trying to find a neutral term. "Winter" doesn't cut it. I've put in "late 2011" is that OK? I know holiday season directs to an explanation, but its not obvious from reading. Francis Davey (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact holiday season is a redirect to Christmas and holiday season. Francis Davey (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspected that "holiday season" would not be the clearest wording, though I initially kept it for the lack of clarifications from official sources. Now, I have changed the release frames throughout the article to "November or December", which may not sound too nice, but it is less ambiguous than "late 2011" or "end of 2011", and more definitive than the previous wording. Prime Blue (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Translating vague date periods is a known hard problem so I think you've done well there. Of course we all hope that more precise information will be available sometime soon. Francis Davey (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The only issue that I have with the "November/December" being added is that it is NOT supported by the reference given. Heck, the ref given doesn't even give something as vague as "holiday season". The only thing that I have heard, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that it will be out in 2011. If Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, and there is no actual date or even month given in the reference used to support it, how can we in good wiki-conscience put Nov/Dec? Vyselink (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed the (read: November or December) part of the article in question. Mouth, look out, here comes foot. Vyselink (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like people are contiually changing this back and forth. I'm starting to think holiday season (with the link to the corresponding article) is going to be the better way to go, considering it's the wording in the actual source. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The source makes it clear that "holiday season" means "November or December" which is a more precise and much more useful statement. "holiday season" really only means that period to an American (possibly a Canadian I don't know) which is way too POV. The constant changing is not always to "holiday season" but sometimes to other designations like seasons (which are hemispheric). I can't see any reason why the fact that lots of people keep changing it means it should change. What is there at the moment (as of my last edit) is the most precise information we have. I cannot see any reason why we shouldn't put that well sourced bit of information in the article instead of something which is vaguer and POV. Nor has anyone suggested any advantage in going with the vaguer term. Francis Davey (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't care whether the months or the season are used in the article, but if it's the season, "Christmas season" would probably be a good substitute that is easier to understand for international readers than "Holiday season". Either way, it's no biggie – anonymous editors just always seem to have this weird infatuation with future release dates. *shrug* Prime Blue (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a POV problem if it's literally, word for word quoting Nitendo. But hey, you're the one doing the enforcing on this one, so whatever you want... Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case the quoted source states "November-December" so that is the most accurate information we have. If that wasn't there we might need to think more carefully, but "holiday" would then need glossing (and a link aint good enough). In fact the only changes away from Q4 (which I don't like, but I'll leave) has been in favour of "July" so protection was probably needed anyway. Francis Davey (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Page is now semi-protected, so it should be easier for you to find a clear consensus. Prime Blue (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources I had come across just said "holiday season", I hadn't noticed this particular one specified months. I'm not sure that's what nintendo confirmed, but it's really splitting hairs. I have no qualms with what you're doing now. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghirahem

The name of the game's main antagonist is Ghirahim. Should this be incorporated into the Plot section? http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/11/the-legend-of-zelda-skyward-sword-preview-swinging-for-the-ski/

--ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.226.58.204, 28 June 2011

There was debate on using the terms "Fall" and "Holiday" in regards to release date.

"Fall" is exclusive to the N Hemisphere and "Holiday" is exclusive to North Americans.

I would like to see it preferably changed back to Q4 2011, so there is no confusion among the world's regions.

Using "November-December" is a little questionable, because a title with a "Holiday" date can sometimes be released in late October. 66.226.58.204 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it reads "Fall" after semi-protection, which must be wrong. Most of the vandalism has in fact been anonymous users trying to make it read July which is of course wrong on any analysis. I am happy with Q4 or November-December, but the source itself states "November-December". I'll replace "Fall" with Q4 and leave others to debate the merits of that over the quoted month range. Really you should get some reliable source for your Q4.Francis Davey (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Already done by Francis. I believe that since the source stated "holiday season" Q4 is a good and generic choice. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

European release date

November 25, 2011 [1][2][3] wolfblake 15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited your information so you don't need a "reflist" at the bottom. Anyways, it looks like this is just "leaked" information, so it's not official confirmation, right? Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

-release date Switzerland

The link [3] that should verify a Swiss release on 11.11.2011 informs me the game won't be out until Nov, 18th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.87.0 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

SS team would like a worldwide release, Game is officially complete.

Can someone add that with this as the source.

Source:

says the team, in the interest of no spoilers floating about, is trying to get a worldwide release.

SS derives inspiration from Majora's Mask (Skyloft acts as a hub town à la Clock Town in MM).

SS is officially complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.254.105 (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

First in the series?

Isn't this game the first in the series? I don't see it mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBradford (talk • contribs) 22:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

At first I was like "what the heck are you talking about"? Then I realized you meant plot-wise, not game-release-wise. Dx I don't think the fact that it is the first in the plot is reliably mentioned anywhere, or is too trivial to be mentioned here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that has been confirmed (in an interview with Eiji Aonuma in Official Nintendo Magazine) is that Skyward Sword takes place before Ocarina of Time. It has not been confirmed to be the "first" game of the series, for as Eiji Aonuma says: "Yes, there is a master timeline but it is a confidential document!" explains Aonuma-san. "The only people to have access to that document are myself, Mr. Miyamoto and the director of the title. We can't share it with anyone else! I have already talked to Mr. Miyamoto about this so I am comfortable releasing this information--this title [Skyward Sword] takes place before Ocarina of Time. If I said that a certain title was 'the first Zelda game', then that means we cant ever make a title that takes place before that! So for us to be able to add titles to the series, we have to have a way of putting the titles before or after each other."" (Official Nintendo Magazine (Future Publishing), pg. 51) Vyselink (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Skyward Sword is not cel shaded

How many times does this have to stated? Skyward Sword does not combine Twilight Princess or Wind Waker's graphical styles with each other; rather, it has it's own distinct style that resembles neither of them. If the game was cel shaded it would look significantly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.61.190 (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless a sourced stated it, I'd have to agree. Looks like original research. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

True, it is not cel-shaded. But it combines visual styles from each--the more realistic style of Twilight Princess (or Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask if you prefer) and the more cartoony style of Wind Waker/Phantom Hourglass/Spirit Tracks. Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is cel-shaded, and I would like clarify that cel-shading is a graphical technique and not an art style, wherein the only difference is that in cel-shading the shading is rendered in cells instead of being a continuous gradient. While SS uses more cells to give it a more realistic look and to make the cel-shading more subtle, it is clearly still cel-shaded: take a look here at the individual cells of shading on Link's robs, or here at the individual cells being shaded on the trees. Here are sources stating SS is cel-shaded:
  • E3 2010: Nintendo Reveals Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, 1up.com, "Skyward Sword features an adult-looking Link as in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess, but the graphics are cel-shaded as in Wind Waker (but not quite as heavily stylized)."
  • The 10 games to play this autumnGQmagazine "Blending the scale of Twighlight Princess with the cel-shading of Wind Waker,"

AerobicFox (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those are reliable sources. Doesn't seem like it would be out of line to mention cel shading as long as it describes it as a combination of the two games, like both of those sources say. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Gold

Why is the gold Wii remote not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.220 (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It is. It's written in the article's introduction. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Th Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword

The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword have been rated A all ages in Japan. Can someone add it for me? Look at the Japanese website. I can not do it because it is lock.69.131.127.150 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Australian release date

It seems as if though someone has already edited the intro to the article (along with an incorrect citation afaik) stating the Australian release date to be Nov 20 2011 as per the official website.

Two reasons I think it'd be prudent to wait for more information:

1. Australian games are always released on a Thursday (Nov 20 is a Sunday) 2. Australians don't use the mm/dd/yyyy format for dates as the website currently does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.156.244 (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The dreaded RPG discussion..

Do we really need a source for listing RPG as a genre?

The other Zelda games qualify as RPGs, so why not this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepard Commander (talk • contribs) 04:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's a separate game (It obviously is.) I would have to say yes. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What? I thought the only Zelda RPG was 2:The Adventure of Link. RPGs are where the player levels up. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an age-old argument. I personally don't consider it an RPG either, but there's a lot of people who argue it is just because of some of it's similarities to action-RPGs. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even the article that Shepard Commander is using as his source for calling SS an RPG states that, with the exception (in the author's mind) of AoL, none of the Zelda's have been RPG's, and personally I would have to agree. Customizable characters are essential for an RPG (in my opinion), which is why I never considered AoL to be an RPG, although I can see the argument. It has a couple elements of an RPG (exp/leveling up, choosing between stats), but beyond that not much. RPG's are games like Skies of Arcadia, the Elder Scrolls games and the like. Games where the character can be a truly unique creation. The only reason I reverted Shepard Commander's initial RPG labeling was because the article, while interesting, does not have enough information beyond the first dungeon, and is, at the moment, incomplete. Vyselink (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article states that AoL is the only "RPG" of the games; however, I was referring to the fact that Twilight Princess and Wind Waker qualify as Action-RPGs (according to their Wikipedia pages). If that is so, this game most CERTAINLY meets that category.

I don't care either way, but if we can't call this an Action-RPG, then maybe we should re-think the Twilight Princess and Wind Waker wiki pages (regarding their inclusion of Action-RPG as a genre). Shepard Commander contribs) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're operating on a flawed premise. Just because another article does it doesn't mean it's right. Those may need to be fixed/changed as well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was suggesting that they need to be changed. Shepard Commander contribs) 01:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.244.173 (talk)

Then you should probably discuss that at the respective article discussion pages. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the action RPG additions (with the exception of Zelda II since that has been stabley listed for years) since having action adventure on its own has been longstanding and stable as well as the fact that there is no evidence that the other games are in fact RPGs. In fact the only discussion on this issue I can recall was a discussion on the Phantom hourglass page against using the term Action RPG--70.24.211.105 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering it has upgradable items, and different ways of building your items, maybe the RPG should be considered being re-added.

Also, rumored dialog choices. owo --96.30.189.52 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That depends. Have these changes caused reliable sources to start calling this game an RPG? Because if not it should not be up to Wikipedia editors to make that distinction--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception section - "Universal acclaim"

The opening sentence in the reception section keeps on getting changed to something along the lines of the game "Skyward Sword has received universal critical acclaim." Even with a ton of reviews, I feel that's kind of a WP:NPOV issue, but certainly that's not a valid claim based on only 4 reviews, correct? I wanted to make sure others agreed with this, and wanted some help in enforcing it, I don't want to edit war with these random IPs... Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I just changed it so it says critical acclaim from its reviewers which will hopefully satisfy both sides. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine. With more reviews in now, a somewhat less glowing tone is easier to implement. Stabby Joe (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so this is constantly getting changed. Is it really "universal critical acclaim" if the game has received a "B+" and an "85" from certain sources? I love Legend of Zelda, don't get me wrong...but universal makes it sounds like everyone unanimously gave it 100%'s or something... Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

While a B+, 85, 4/5 etc is still positive, there haven't really been any negative or mixed scores. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This argument does not make sense, a 90+ average on Metacritic and probably about the same on GameRankings indicates "universal acclaim". B+, 85, 4/5 etc. are good scores, even a 70 is fairly decent, a number of games with "universal acclaim" have 80's and such. I fail to see the problem, these issues are very uncommon for a reason. Also, if a game gets any "mixed" scores (for whatever reason) and still has a 90+ average (For example, Uncharted 3 got a 5/10 with an average still above 90), that is still universal acclaim, as those rare "mixed" to "decent" scores would be very limited in such a case. To aquire a 90+ average, a game needs very good reviews, obviously. I also suggest you check the high amount of 100's aswell. Flyingnarb (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My main problem is that "universal" leaves no room for exception. It is absolute. However, that Gamespot review wasn't really "critical acclaim". Thus, I don't feel the sentiment is "universal". (Also, my the other problem back when I originally started this discussion, was that people were saying "universal" based on like 4 reviews. You can't make a claim about "universal" sentiments based on only 4 people. But that has since been resolved I suppose.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Universal is the word that is given to games that reach a very high aggregate score (90+), Gamespots 75 is a "fairly decent" score, indicated as "good", even on their site, a score of 70 is above average, something around 50-60 would be "generally mixed", It is also one but review that counts towards the aggregate, depending on the current average, it either raises or lowers the score, basic counting. I suggest you read my previous response again, look at some other pages on games with 90+ averages, perhaps Uncharted 3 as listed above, and gain an understanding on this very strange issue. Flyingnarb (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I read what you said just fine, I just don't agree with it. There's a difference, you know. Please be patient wait and see what others say in order to gather consensus; so far very few people have weighed in on this. (Also, what Uncharted 3 does is irrelevent; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and it's not like it's a Good Article or Featured Article, so it isn't necessarily a good reference point.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, there is a reason no one else is commenting, this is a rare problem for a reason, Uncharted 3 was an example, go to any gaming article with a 90+ game. It's not about the quality of the article, its about the score. Also, here is the scoring system which determines acclaim, which EVERY game follows.

0-19: Overwhelming dislike

20-49: Generally unfavorable

50-74: Mixed or average reviews

75-89: Generally favorable reviews

90-100: Universal acclaim

Or perhaps basic scoring, which everything follows.

1/10 - Bad

2/10 - Pretty bad

3/10 - Well below average

4/10 - Below average

5/10 - Average - decent

6/10 - Above average

7/10 - Good

8/10 - Very good

9/10 - Great

10/10 - Fantastic

Whether you are trolling, showing dislike, or just have a limited understanding on games and counting/scoring in general, to reach universal acclaim is a great achievement for any game and is acknowledged, think about it, a MINIMUM average score of 9/10 is very impressive, regardless of a few 7/10's or 8/10's inside that (which are still positive), that do happen. Flyingnarb (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

2 Reminders you seem to need:

1. Assume good faith. Do not just assume that because I don't agree with you, that I'm trolling. I'm just trying to keep a neutral point of view here, nothing more or less.
2. Can you link me to where wikipedia or wikiproject video games has listed off these standards you're claiming? Because right now it looks like they're just your personal interpretations, or ripped from metacritic or something. If it's some wikipedia policy or Good article standard or something, then by all means, we'll go by it. But right now it just looks like you're working off of your personal opinions and/or observations of other articles, which again, just because you saw a random article do it, doesn't make it right. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal opinions? I don't think I have stated any opinions at all. Random Article? More like every article. I am going by the general gaming scoring system which other single game articles follow with no problems at all, as you would see if you viewed some, yet for some reason it appears to be a problem here. Therefore, I can safely assume this is your first game related article and that you hopefully do not go around and remove the word "universal" from other universally acclaimed games. Flyingnarb (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that you can look at other users contributions, and see what other articles they work on...so you don't need to make misguided "assumptions" like that. Beyond that, I don't understand why you're having such a hard time supporting what you're saying with any sort of policy, guideline, or standard if what you're talking about is so supposedly "obvious". Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, if you wish to continue your unsupported and pointless "opinion" then so be it, I have provided sources for my information if you actually read what I write like you claim. If you wish, I could save you further embarrassment from the community and wrap this up now, in a plain and simple way which hopefully you can understand this time, because so far we have seen nothing more than a trolling attempt.

1. The Metacritic scoring system is listed above, in which the line or two of the reception/review section is based on, along with GameRankings, as they are aggregate sites, gathering reviews from around the world to present an average score, all game articles on Wikipedia follow this, given the titles on the table with sometimes slight adjustments depending on how high or low they are in that certain section, except for universal acclaim.

2. Most games which have reached universal acclaim have a limited number of 70's or 80's reviews mixed into the average, which are still good and positive scores, the other scores are 90's to perfect 100's, there are very few which only have 90's to perfect 100's, those games end up reaching average scores around 97. Heres another reference, Uncharted 3, a universally acclaimed game, got one review of 50, which is a "mixed" or average review, not exactly a negative score, but probably the lowest for a 90+ game, but the review was however based on the game being too similar to the previous game in the series, the rest of the reviews appeared to be very positive.

3. The scoring system is similar to any other scoring system, basic counting, such as a school test, for example, to get a 75 on a test is a good score, yet there is still some room to improve, a similar score would be a 70 or 80. A B+ is a good score, which sits somewhere in the mid to high 80s. Great games have averages within the 80's, where as the most impressive games will be within the 90's, similar system.

4. Perhaps you are over-exaggerating the word "universal" a bit, it basically means "praised worldwide" or "well received everywhere". However, there are very few games that do push it a little further.

5. As a little extra, which applies to most scoring systems is that the average is not absolute, for example, a game that gets 94 is not flat out better than a game that gets 93, infact, the game with 93 may generally be considered to be better, it depends on the reviewing critics who may judge different things, therefore there may be 1%-2% give or take on scores, not much of a difference, for example, there are some games with 92 that are considered to be among the best games ever made, and there may be some games with 95 that are called incredible, but maybe not within the best of all time. There's other systems for that however.

This answers to your arguments with facts and common sense, simple reading and counting basically. "Critical acclaim" represents an average more along the lines of "Generally favourable reviews" or "Positive acclaim". Universal may have been a little over the top with only 4 reviews, but there is generally 10-20 reviews needed for the aggregate to basically become valid. Coming to a gaming article especially, I would expect you to know all this like everyone else. You can comment if you wish. I could explain some more, but keep in mind this is a general, ethical consensus. Flyingnarb (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My argument isn't "baseless", it's very much so based on the definition of the word "universal". According to Merriam-Webster, it is including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception Source I believe at least one exception has been found. (The Gamespot review.

This is wikipedia, we're not metacritic, and we have no responsibility to adhere to the exact descriptions or terms they use. All your other commentary is empty and pointless without relevent examples. Until you start linking me to some specific Wikipedia policy, guideline, or precedent, it doesn't matter how many walls of text you decide to write, you haven't proven anything. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception."

The aggregate does include and cover all suitable as a whole, the Gamespot review was included in the average, it was not an exception, there's your definition covered. Also, the Gamespot review had a positive score, 7.5, not a 2 or 1, which would be a negative score. Therefore, all the reviews are positive, as they are with universally acclaimed games. If you were actually reading what I said, you would have noticed the argument was settled after my first post, you continued on, so I provided more facts from the ethical side. Perhaps you should also check how "universal acclaim" is used in media terms, "Overwhelming positive acclaim and commercial success" may be a similar term, you could also look at the other definitions of "universal". Now that you have displayed your issue, your confusion should be resolved with simple revision of this entire discussion. Hopefully we have helped you out. Cheers. Flyingnarb (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, we're just talking circles, repeating the same argument, and it's clear we don't agree on how we interpet the situation. Like I said earlier, let's wait and see what others have to say. Right now there's still no consensus. (Right now we're really the only ones actively arguing this, so there's no consensus with a 1:1 ratio in an argument...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be taking the word "universal" way too literally. When using the word "universal" for ranking a game, it does not have to mean absolutely everybody. Generally speaking, if a game is getting overwhelming reviews of 90+ out of 100 (or the equivalent. i.e. A, 9/10, 4+ stars etc) then it meets the definition of "universal acclaim", even if there is the random 7/10 (or so). From what I can see, only 3 out of the 23 scores given in the box in the "Reception" section gave it less than an outright 90+, and of those, only one was less than 80% (I'm going to assume that those are correct, I did not check them all myself) and that one was a 70%, still pretty good. As an example, I'm sure that the reviews for the book "The Lord of the Flies" are overwhelmingly positive (hell, William Golding won a Nobel Prize due in large part to the book). Personally speaking, I think the book absolutely blows, and were I a book critic at the time, would have given it a 1/10 and thought myself charitable. However, my one random outlier opinion is just that, one opinion, and does not affect the overall view of the book in society. None of the reviews that I see in the box are less than 7. Using that criteria, I would say that this game qualifies as a "universally acclaimed" game (though I have yet to play it myself). Vyselink (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure, I own a copy of this game and the gold Wii Remote Plus (left them at home though because I don't want them distracting me from studying for finals). That said, universal means universal. There is not universal acclaim, there is near universal acclaim, but the Gamespot review makes it hard to say universal acclaim. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

-I believe neither side has shown any Wikipedia policy or consensus supporting their position. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no guideline as to what constitutes univeral good reviews, despite the scales put forth by some editors (which remain, in the absence of any documentation, merely interpretation & synthesis from personal views). However, a definition from a RS dictionary has been presented to explain the common use of the word universal, and the use proposed in this article fails to meet this definition, as evidenced by the very fact it is being debated. I would say the use of the word universal in the current context is unadvisable and would recommend a less "absolute" wording.

-I also am rather worried that at least one editor acts condescendingly towards another who holds a different opinion. Assuming good faith is not only strongly recommended, it's also basic common sense -- if you intend to reach consensus, be nice and discuss politely. There is no need to belittle others with a displeasant attitude.

-Flyingnarb, you've claimed a number of times "this is how it's done everywhere/by everyone", "this is the consensus" (or other paraphrasings conveying the same message). However, you have yet to present any evidence that these claims are true. I would also note that you should not need to invoke a silent majority if you can produce a solid argument. Salvidrim! 06:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Demo leak

Apparently someone released a leak of a demo of the game. Is it relevant enough to address in the article? --200.118.90.37 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that are reporting on it? Like Gamespot or IGN. (Giving a link to the actual download would not be considered a reliable source, and probably a big legal issue, so I'm not suggesting that...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Links in the GameSpot review paragraph

Whether people actually agree with this section or not aside (the review changes I suppose are relevant), I have to question the link that follows the line regarding community controversy given that all it links to is a blog hosted by 1UP from someone who doesn't appear to be a professional, if not more like a rant. As a result, I question the line about there being any cited controversy. Unless anything official can be linked to, we can't keep it. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it was "official", there's no need to document some fans getting riled up by a less than stellar review. With a game like this that gets so much coverage from the press, there are so many more important things that can be covered instead... Sergecross73 msg me 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But actually, I'm not convinced the GameSpot review belongs here at all. GameSpot is a situational source on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VG/RS#Situational_sources). Why? First, because it allows users to submit articles; second, because their database is shared with the unreliable source GameFAQs; and third, because "their methods of verification do not meet the standards of Wikipedia." It can only be used if the person who posted it can offer a cogent reason why it should be here, given the amount of coverage this AAA game is recieving from numerous other reliable sources. If anything, the fact that their review is so far out of the mainstream consensus, contains at least some inaccuracies by GameSpot's own admission, and clearly did not rely on robust methods of fact-checking is demonstrative of why GameSpot is not considered a reliable source. This is pure OR and please disregard it; but I'm convinced that their review is simply untrue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviews from staff are reliable. Just because there is also user-contributed data doesn't change the reliability of the official reviews. Reach Out to the Truth 06:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan or the review either but part of the statement regarding GameSpot as a situation source was ommitted. The actual statement was Their databse is shared by http://www.gamefaqs.com/features/help/entry.html?cat=42 [GameFAQs] which is considered unreliable and their methods of verification do not meet the standards of Wikipedia This was in fact saying that the site was not reliable for infomation regarding release dates etc not that there news and reviews did not meet Wikipedia standards.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the sentence is just saying that GameFAQs is unreliable, then the sentence "GameFAQs which is considered unreliable and their standards of verificiation do not meet the standards of Wikipedia" is a run-on. I think it suggests that GameSpot also does, indeed, lack reliable standards of verifiability. You're technically right that this only explicitly refers to data such as release dates, and that their opinions are opinions; but if they post inaccurate data in certain contexts, it damages their credibility all around. Remember: This is a AAA-game with massive media attention; the article only needs the most credible sources, because we can't fit them all (and right now we're giving GameSpot a whole paragraph). I'm wondering what kind of editorial standards of verifiability they had in place to scrutinize the accuracy of Skyward Sword's motion controls. In any case, you might still be right. But if we leave the review, I still don't like the way it is used. The very negative quote "Inconsistent controls continually torment poor Link, and the predictable structure does little to distract you from these faults" is so harsh, its odd that it's summarizing a positive review. There are many more positive quotes in the review. It just seems strange to me that if we all agree that GameSpot's data is frequently inaccurate, we nevertheless give them a whole paragraph in the review section, because their reviews aren't true or false--even when there are many, many reliable sources on Metacritic not mentioned here at all. What makes GameSpot special? The fact that their article is so out there? In a way, being out there is bad; we're supposed to be summarizing the critical consensus, but we're giving those that dispute it undue weight. This section seems to have as many or more negative quotes as it does positive, but on Metacritic the game has "universal acclaim." Should GameSpot's review really get a solo paragraph, or should all of the critics of motion control share one? Also: "This was in fact saying that the site was not reliable for infomation regarding release dates etc not that there [sic] news...did not meet Wikipedia standards." Release dates aren't news?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph about the GameSpot review can be shortened, yes. The quote used doesn't mention the IR sensor, so it's not necessary to point out the addendum. People can see it themselves if they choose to follow the link to the review.

Discussion of GameSpot's status as a source should go on WT:VG/RS, not here. Reach Out to the Truth 17:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think this is a case of not reading the statement properly. The part about not being in line with Wikipedia standards specifically refers to the database with the term news not being mentioned. The discussion rasgarding moving GameSpot to a sitaution sources Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 5#Gamespot. The only thing mentioned in that whole discussion was release dates stronly indicating that the database line does not have anything to do with news or reviews so therefore the part about not meeting Wikipedia standards does not apply to them. There is also another relevant line eariler on and that is GameSpot uses a similar interface for displaying news, user blogs, and "union" postings. Be careful to ensure that the author is a staff member. Now if GameSpot was not considered reliable for news or reviews there would be no need to make sure the article came from a staff member because it would not be considered reliable regardless. Based on my reading I don't see anything to indicate that GameSpot is not a reliable source for reviews written by staff members. Also come to think of it I don't believe that GameFaqs even has a news section of have staff members do reviews (I think they are all user subbmitted please correct me if I am wrong) so the database line couldn't possibily be talking about staff reviews or news. To be clear I do not agree with the review but I don't think there is a stong enough case for removal.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to yield to the consensus on this matter, but I still must respond to the above straw man. I never said GameSpot was inherently an unreliable source; I said it was a questionable source that can be used in the proper context. It is listed as a situational source; it doesn't have to be wholly reliable or unreliable, but my argument was merely that it is not needed when there are more reliable sources available and controversy surrounds their review (at least not unless a cogent argument is made for its inclusion). Just because something must be written by staff members to be reliable, does not mean everything written by staff is automatically reliable. You just said we can't trust their release dates. Who puts them up? The staff, surely?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I recall similar feelings when Twilight Princess came out. In short, GameSpot has always been mentioned in a good chuck of game article review sections. Despite all that has been argued above, I still get the feeling certain people just disagree with another persons feeling on a game they like. Just because a long standing review source doesn't fit with the norm isn't doesn't suddenly make it redundant. Granted however, I'm not sure if it requires this much weight, although the paragraph was actually cut down despite people's issues. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)