Jump to content

Talk:Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 06:37, 7 February 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Confusing plot section, and varying information about the start of the project

[edit]

Shin Megami Tensei IV: Final takes place in the 2030s. Fifteen years prior, a devastating war was waged between the Angels and the armies of Lucifer. To protect Tokyo from damage, a great rock dome was created. While it protected Tokyo, resources became progressively scarcer over the following twenty-five years,

@ProtoDrake: Am I reading this incorrectly, or does it just not make sense? Fifteen years prior to the present, there was a war. Then twenty-five years of scarce resources followed? So is the present 15 or 25 years after the war? Or does this try to say that fifteen years of scarce resources have passed, and there's gonna be another ten years like that? Another thing I've noticed is that some sources say the game came about because the developers wanted to make a Team Maniacs-style game or whatever, while some say the developers originally wanted to make a Maniax-style version of SMTIV. The second one makes more sense to me, because of the "Ultimately, they decided that they wanted to make a completely new title", but I'm not 100% sure.--IDVtalk 23:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Famitsu interview, which is translated as saying that they wanted to do something indicative of their team. As to the years thing, that was an honest mistake on my part and has been corrected. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, then. Thanks for fixing the time thing.--IDVtalk 08:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 16:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


About to take this on. Going to work through this section by section, and then come back to the lead. I will let you know when I've reached a good point. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay
  • The first two sentences of the gameplay section could use some work. Imagine that this will be a lot of peoples' introduction to the subject matter, so it's important to explain the main point and not clutter it with too much info. You can always add more detail after. Let me know if you want more feedback or suggestions.
  • "Navigation is done from a third-person perspective through local environments and using an overhead worldmap." -> "The player navigates local environments with a third-person perspective, with the aid of an overhead worldmap."
  • "As the protagonist gains a level" -> "When the protagonist gains a level"
  • "one of the supporting cast which has an automated turn and their own unique demon roster, giving them a different set of abilities" -> "an automated companion with a unique demon roster, giving them a different set of abilities."
  • "previous entries in the Shin Megami Tensei series" -> "previous entries in series" (it's implied)
  • "It also grants boosts to certain skills a character possesses" -> "It also grants temporary bonuses to a character's skills."
  • "In addition to fighting them, demons can be persuaded to join the party through negotiation, this being the only way to gather a playable party" -> "In addition to fighting demons, they can also be persuaded to join the player's side, as the only way to gather a party."
  • "If a demon agrees to join but Nanashi's level is too low, another demon is called in to take the first demon's place. If a demon does not immediately attack, it is open to negotiation and can be persuaded to join." -> switch the order of these two sentences, for flow and organization
  • "Once part of the party, demons can be talked with, and can grant status buffs and grant new skills to Nanashi." -> "Once part of the party, demons can engage in dialog, and grant skills and bonuses to Nanashi."
  • The sources appear to check out here.
Setting and characters
  • "To protect Tokyo from damage, a great rock dome was created. While it protected Tokyo, resources became progressively scarcer over the following years, while angels and demons ruled over humans." -> "[Someone] created a great rock dome to protect Tokyo from damage, but this also caused resources to become progressively more scarce. Humans continued to be ruled by angels and demons."
  • I know the real-world concepts of Odin / Krishna YHWH, but who are they to Dagda / Nanashi / in this world? It might be worth just separating the pantheon out into their own sentence, so you can explain who they even are. Alternatively, you could break out a separate paragraph or section where you introduce the key characters.
  • "The storyline takes an alternate turn from the beginning of the previous game's neutral route" -> it's not clear what this means. You might need to break this apart into its own sentence. "In the previous game, X happens. This time, the story takes a different direction, with ..."
  • "The story does not follow the previous game's three-tiered moral alignment system" -> this also might not make much sense in the context of a single article. It might be fine to just describe the different endings and how they are framed, without any description of a moral/immoral ending.
Plot
  • The first sentence here is very redundant to the previous setting section. I actually think it makes more sense here, and you can use the previous section just to give players context about the overall characters and setting.
  • "the revived" -> just cut it as it's implied
  • "in order to make his dream a reality" -> also worth cutting as it's implied by Krisha's stated goals
  • "fix their mistake" -> if the mistake is releasing Krishna, this is also redundant with their goal of defeating Krishna.
  • "Nanashi and his companions defeat Shesha, infiltrate Krishna's base in Tsukiji Konganji, defeat Krishna, and rescue Flynn" -> "Nanashi and his companions defeat Shesha, defeat Krishna at his base in Tsukiji Konganji, and rescue Flynn."
  • "and Lucifer and his demons" -> ", as well as Lucifer and his demons" (comma helps make this flow better)
  • "Nanashi has the option of siding with Merkabah; in which case Tokyo is destroyed and a kingdom of God is established in Mikado or with Lucifer; where Mikado is burned to the ground and the world descends into anarchy. If Nanashi remains on humanity's side, a massive three-way battle ensues, Lucifer and Merkabah are killed, and humanity emerges victorious." -> "Nanashi has the option of siding with Merkabah, Lucifer, or humanity. Supporting Merkabah will destroy Tokyo and transform Mikodo into the new Kingdom of God, while supporting Lucifer will destroy Mikodo and plunge the world into anarchy. Nanashi can lead humanity to victory if they kill both Lucifer and Merkabah in a massive three-way battle."
  • "and explains that Krishna faked his own defeat and used Shesha to manipulate the Hunters into getting rid of the angels and demons" -> "and explains that Krishna faked his own defeat to manipulate the Hunters into eliminating the angels and demons."
  • "but he defeats him and separates the two." -> the pronouns start to become ambiguous here and there's hopefully a better way to do this. Worst case, just use proper nouns.
  • Who's Stephen?
  • "Dagda resurrects Flynn and a companion of Nanashi's choice to be brainwashed into serving as his Godslayer and Goddess, respectively." -> I understand this on a few reads, but there's probably a cleaner way to phrase this
  • "wiping out" -> this is sort of a slang tone and could be phrased more clearly
  • "The old universe dies and is reborn as a new universe where humans are free from all outside influence, and Dagda fades away, leaving Nanashi to rule his new creation." -> probably break this into two sentences, for flow and clarity.
Going to pause it there, but I'll come back to this again soon to continue. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing from where I left off...

Development

[edit]
  • "Shin Megami Tensei IV: Apocalypse was born out of discussions about what Team Maniacs, the makers of Shin Megami Tensei IV, could do that was characteristic of their team" -> this doesn't really say very much for all the words. Is there a shorter way to say the same thing?
  • "Ultimately, they decided that they wanted to make a completely new title as opposed to an upgraded re-release: as they wanted the game to "make everything clear", they added the word "Final" to the title." -> "Ultimately, they decided to make a new title as opposed to an upgraded re-release, and added the word "Final" to the title to make this clear."
  • "for the game to improve and refine some aspects while keeping others" -> can probably cut this as it's implied by looking at feedback
  • Move the parts about the story's main themes into the next paragraph, where you start to discuss story themes there too. Keep the first paragraph about the assembly of the team.
  • That said, the second time you bring up themes, it's not clear what it means that the age and class of the character relates to the story's themes. I'm sure they do, it just needs a clearer explanation.
  • The music might fit better in the team paragraph as well.
  • The "90% complete" statement fits better with the announcement piece in the next section.
Promotion and release
  • This can be a section instead of subsection
  • "The localization team's main task in this respect, once they had Atlus' permission to make necessary alterations, was to create a name that would give the same implications as the Japanese title while being easier for Western players to understand." -> As this whole paragraph tells the story about changing the subtitle (the summary provided by the first sentence), I'd rephrase this second sentence to explain clearly that the localization team took their time with this decision.
  • Consider moving the localization section to the development, as this is about more than the release.
  • The sources appear to check out.
    • Excellent

Reception

[edit]
  • "with Heidi Kemp writing for GameSpot stating Apocalypse had an amazing sense of visual design" -> "with Heidi Kemp of GameSpot stating that Apocalypse had an amazing sense of visual design"
  • "the game's quality of life changes over those found in IV" -> "the game's quality of life improvements since the previous title"
  • "called them" -> "called the visuals"
  • maybe remove the quotes for the translation, since a translation is effectively a summary in a different language
  • "Chris Carter writing for Destructoid stated the graphics were "drab", but suggested it was more due to the limitations of the 3DS" -> "Chris Carter writing for Destructoid stated the graphics were "drab", attributing this to the limitations of the 3DS"
  • You're back to the quality of life stuff in the second paragraph. Consider removing it from the paragraph, to avoid the redundancy.
  • "whilst Forte commented on the large improvements on the in-game map being a positive" -> "while Forte noted the improvements to the game's map system."
  • "Apocalypse was critiqued in places for the in-game universe being the same as that in IV." -> "The in-game universe of Apocalypse was criticized for being too similar to that of the previous game."
  • It's not clear that the Kotaku article "expected" it to just be an update, and I'd likely remove this from the reception. The article is mostly a summary of press release type material.
  • Move the sales figures to the top of the reception, before getting into the critical stuff. It will flow better.
We can pause here. This should allow a lot of improvements and get the article well on its way to GA. It can get there with some work. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks generally good. A few last comments to hopefully wrap this up:
  • The lead describes this as an "alternative" timeline, but it doesn't seem to be supported in the article itself, or the sources.
  • Maybe briefly summarize the sales in the lead, just to give the second paragraph more thoroughness and information.
  • "Dagda and Odin into freeing Krishna from a prison made by YHVH," -> I'm guessing these are all related to the deities, but maybe just set up the concept a bit in the character paragraph. Something as simple as, "The story incorporates folklore from ancient religions, including deities such as Krishna, Odin, and YHVH."
  • "There are multiple endings, with both of the primary endings are neutral" -> grammar ("and" both of the primary endings?)
  • "creatinh" -> "creating"
  • ... actually this whole sentence could be constructed more simply: "The localization team took their time to make this change in creatinh a name that would give the same implications as the Japanese title while being easier for Western players to understand" -> "The localization took their time to select a name that..."
  • There's an extra line break in the development section.
  • "Toshi Nakamura for Kotaku held an expectation of Apocalypse being an update to the game or a DLC rather than a brand new game." -> I reiterate, I don't think the article supports this statement, and the article reads more like a news report than an actual review. I'd drop it entirely.
  • "Daniel Tack in a Game Informer piece commented" -> "Writing for Game Informer, Daniel Tack commented"
  • "whilst Forte highlighted in his article that Apocalypse was" -> "while Forte wrote that the game was"
I think that would be everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shooterwalker, I have covered the above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and did a couple minor fixes just to take this across the finish line. Great job, and happy to give this GA nomination a pass. If you have some time, I have a game FA nomination that could use another pair of eyes. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Zed controversy

[edit]

Shortly before the game's release in Japan, Hindu leader Rajan Zed issued a public statement protesting the game's depiction of Krishna. Is this fact notable enough for inclusion in the "Reception" section? AFriendlyIrin (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shin_Megami_Tensei_IV:_Apocalypse&oldid=1204493306"