Jump to content

Talk:Pokémon Legends: Arceus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TFMonk19970531.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

open world

you know, pokemon themselves havent said its open world... people including journalists are just assuming because of it being an action rpg or whatever... remember when journalists said kasumi from persona 5 royal was a female protag and atlus had to come out and say "she isnt."Muur (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Open World refers to gating of the map and objectives, it is not yet known if that is the case or not; also Polygon is not a news source, they are a news aggregator and editorial blog. --2600:8801:B005:E00:25C2:1361:A5A9:6FDB (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

then it should be removed.Muur (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Polygon is a news source and review source, and is reliable according to WP:VG/RS. If news sources have come to a consensus, it's safe to assume until further information is revealed. Panini🥪 00:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
told you its not open world... https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/10/pokemon-legends-arceus-wont-actually-be-an-open-world-game https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-10-09-pokemon-company-confirms-monster-hunter-style-structure-of-pokemon-legends-arceus https://www.dexerto.com/pokemon/pokemon-legends-arceus-fans-furious-as-nintendo-confirms-no-open-world-google-maps-looks-better-1672366/ https://www.vg247.com/pokemon-legends-arecus-is-not-an-open-world-game Muur (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
also we know the main gmaeplay is turn based at this point.Muur (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(
)

Created by Juxlos (talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC).

I think the first hook has the most potential for "hookiness", as it mixes a couple of popular topics, but would recommend a minor GR tweak and a mention of Switch:

Otherwise, all is good to go. Long enough, new enough, well cited, and all of the hooks above are directly cited so the admins can take their pick. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Game setting historical influences

Various edits and counteredits to this page have been made regarding the real world historical influences of this historical version of Sinnoh in the game. For some reason people seem to think that the game is set in "feudal Japan" despite none of the citations or sources stating it is and yet the article was protected because of "Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content;" despite none of the sources stating that the game is influenced or inspired by feudal era Japan or Meiji-era Japan. In fact one of the citations for this [1] changed its title to reflect this. --Rx149 (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have enough knowledge of old Japan to know the innate differences between feudal era and Meiji era Japan, but I do know there definitely are multiple reliable sources on this page calling it feudal inspired. Check the references directly following the statement in question; there currently three, all from different publications calling it so. If there are reliable sources calling Meiji era inspired, I have yet to see them. User generated content like YouTube is not considered a reliable source. redspartatalk 04:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Except that none of the sources for the citations for the section claiming the game is feudal Japan inspired actually prove or claim the game is feudal inspired or are even close to being sources that would know the difference between feudal Japan and post-feudal Japan. While in this case these sources may be reliable sources regarding video game news and info they aren’t in regards to Japanese history. In fact, as mentioned, one of the citations changed its wording to reflect this and another later published citation from the same website, while claiming the feudal setting, cites the now changed article. Also why shouldn’t these sources be treated the same as user generated content since A. they aren’t educated or expert sources on Japanese history and B. are making baseless claims themselves by saying the game is feudal Japan inspired despite no official information from Game Freak, The Pokemon Company, Nintendo, etc. stating it is? If no agreement can be made as to what specific time period in Japanese history this game is inspired by then the article needs to be edited to simply say "The game appears to be set in a historical Japan-inspired Sinnoh region". Rx149 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
What would you and Redsparta say to something like this as a compromise, Rx149?
  • The game is set in a bygone era of the Sinnoh region, long before the events of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl take place.
Something of the sort both maintains accuracy as dictated by the known information from primary sources and skirts what could be called speculative statements from outlets without compromising the basic point. It's a default that means nothing potentially false or questionable is stated and that any source fitting the guidelines that reflects the official copy can be cited with little fuss.
I don't mind it being generalized. It seems being specific will only cause problems going forward. redspartatalk 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Great. If Rx149 responds in the next 24 hours and finds it suitable, I'll run the edit. Fact Scanner (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Rx149 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Good to hear. Since both of you find the compromise agreeable, I've made the change and added the official site -where the information is most overt- as a reference. Happy editing to the both of you! Fact Scanner (talk) 04:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

Hello. I'd like to suggest the following portion of the Development section be changed from:

  • Pokémon Legends: Arceus is being developed by Game Freak, a shift from the norms where the studio had been the sole developer of the standard Pokémon role-playing video games, including remakes; ILCA was instead assigned the development of Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl, the remakes of Diamond and Pearl.

to

  • Pokémon Legends: Arceus is a main-line entry of the Pokemon series being developed by Game Freak for the Nintendo Switch family of systems.

The reason for this suggested edit is that the portion of text highlighted doesn't directly reflect on Pokemon Legends: Arceus or contextualize its development in a notable manner. Instead, it serves as a contextualization of developer Game Freak in terms of Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl. Additionally, the current phrasing implies that the development of Pokemon Legends: Arceus is a part of the change of norms when it, in fact, reflects the standard conventions of development and is not evidently relevant to the contrasting point being presented. Thank you for your time. Fact Scanner (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Fact Scanner, is whatever the original sentence trying to say factually incorrect? I'm hesitant to remove a sourced sentence and replacing it with something explained in the intro already. Would you like to reword it instead? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've reworded/expanded it. Let me know if it can be improved upon. redspartatalk 07:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
My issue with the original sentence is not primarily its factuality, Ganbaruby, but its relevance. It would be a functional expansion of context for Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl, but in this situation it doesn't constitute development information of Pokemon Legends: Arceus and just becomes a digression that is expanded on. It doesn't have to be replaced with something that was stated in the intro already so much as it'd be reasonable to replace it with other known development information, which is sparse enough that the suggested alternative is what I thought to be potentially suitable. As an aside, the second half of the development section is also already explained in the intro. In summary, it is sourced information, but it's not functionally relevant information. It was also technically misleading in its phrasing. Your edit is appreciated, Redsparta, but there are other issues to resolve that come with the rewrite besides the previously noted ones, all of which I'll outline below.
  • Up to that point, the only Pokémon games the developer had made consisted solely of the core series Pokémon role-playing video games
The statement regarding the developer's prior titles is not accurate, unfortunately. We know that Game Freak has developed Pokemon Quest, a spinoff, for the Nintendo Switch and mobile devices. The statement is also an issue in that it implies that Pokemon Legends: Arceus is not a core series title when the currently known information indicates the opposite.
  • likewise, Game Freak had been the sole developer of the core series Pokémon games.
This portion returns to introducing the digression made in the previous variation of the text. If it were made directly relevant, it would be completely reasonable as a small aside. However, because Pokemon Legends: Arceus fits within the status-quo of being a core entry being developed by Game Freak, this detail introduces information on something that doesn't directly relate to the game.
  • ILCA was instead assigned the development of the contemporaneously released Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl, the remakes of Diamond and Pearl.
Because the link to Pokemon Legends: Arceus isn't established for the preceding text, this follow up becomes an expansion of a digression, which is two steps removed from relevance. This information is best suited for Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl's page entry and has actually already been added there to boot.
Unfortunately, due to the limited available information, I struggle to think of an alternative outside of the one I posed earlier, which was more meant to provide a clean way of removing what I saw as information of questionable relevance. If you have further suggestions on the matter or see something I don't, I'm all ears. Thanks to both of you for taking the time to look into the matter. Fact Scanner (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm absolutely supportive of more specific or targeted development information being added to the Development section. Problem is there doesn't seem to be much currently (which is unsurprising considering they were announced just over a week ago).
To your first point: I meant it more in that they had only been developing the more standard RPG's (which is I guess isn't entirely accurate) as opposed to the action-RPG that Legends: Arceus is. I wasn't trying to say that it isn't a core series title.
To your second/third points: I won't disagree that it is bit of a digression, but I don't see it to be entirely unrelated as both games are being developed and released relatively concurrently, and in a way their developmental histories are tied. I think it deserves to be mentioned on both pages; in context for each of course.
My problem with the initial proposal is that it removes all related information, digressive or not. I know the information there could be phrased clearer or more concisely but I don't think it should be outright removed.
Also, if you are suggesting the second para of the Development section be removed, that's a no go as even though it may mostly be reiterating what's in the lead, the lead is supposed to be a summary of information stated in the body. redspartatalk 12:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I recognize -and commend- your intent, as you yourself made a preliminary edit to that section trying to eliminate the implication even before I submitted this request. It's just a matter of the very information and ordering inherently making that implication regardless, though it's been adjusted. Efforts to make the matter explicitly clear would likely result in the contended information being more evidently disconnected in terms of relevance for now.
You've also noted in your response to my second and third points that you don't see the matter as entirely unrelated due to the development histories of the two games. I agree with this speculatively and in external terms, but I recognize that we are currently unable to substantiate the influence one project had on the other in a clear, citable way and may not be able to do so in the future depending on the subject matter/depth of interviews and press-releases. As such, the strength of the relevance stays meager due to it being speculative on our part. I do see the information as valuable, but I can only currently see avenues of it being entirely relevant to framing the development of Pokemon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl and as an aside in the Eighth Generation section of the Pokémon (video game series) article. Also perhaps in Game Freak's entry, but that'd be a difficult fit due to that page being more of a list outside of the company's history.
My remark with regard to the second portion of the Development section was simply context to reframe the reason posed by our friend Ganbaruby for the first portion being a reluctant edit: it's just something for them to consider, not a suggestion that the other portion also be removed. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider the matter. Fact Scanner (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
How about this... Change
Pokémon Legends: Arceus is being developed by Game Freak. In a shift for the developer, the game is an action role-playing game. Up to that point, the only Pokémon games the developer had made consisted solely of the core series Pokémon role-playing video games; likewise, Game Freak had been the sole developer of the core series Pokémon games. ILCA was instead assigned the development of the contemporaneously released Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl, the remakes of Diamond and Pearl.
to
Pokémon Legends: Arceus is being developed by Game Freak. In a first for the developer, and the main-series of Pokémon, the game is an action role-playing game.
And hopefully, at some point, some information about Game Freak's process dealing with developing an action-RPG will come to light where it can be more naturally integrated into its' development history. redspartatalk 04:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
That'd be more than acceptable to me, especially until we've gotten more information to better align the detail in contention. I apologize for the pedantry and I'll be sure to try and squeeze out some other significant known particulars from the site that can help flesh out the lost volume. Fact Scanner (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
It's all part of the process. 🙂 I've updated the page to reflect the consensus we've reached. redspartatalk 06:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Very much appreciated! 😊 I've added a detail from the official site to compliment the update as well as some rewording to allow for more specific source citation. Please feel free to adjust it to suit your standards or revert based on the degree of value you feel the information adds. Fact Scanner (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Good call on the edit. Definitely agree with the change in location for the info. I was realizing well into it that the detail ended up being another digression in the Development section when it'd be far more at home as proper info in the Gameplay section. Fact Scanner (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

How and Why is this consider a main series game?

Where on the Japanese website does it explicitly state that this is a mainline game? Why do you assume the buzzwords and phrases in the trailers aren't simply describing the experience? And by what logic does Game Freak being lead developer mean that this is a follow-up to Sword and Shield within the core series? Its not uncommon for "main series" installments from other franchises to be developed by other studios?Thecleanerand (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Its most likely a main series game. I don´t think they would do two non main line games The furret lover (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Because it is a prequel of Diamond and Pearl rather than a spin-off (Mistery Dungeon is a spin-off). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Tetris 99 crossover

Should we mention the Tetris 99 crossover on this page? The crossover was just announced here: [2]. Person077777777 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pokémon_Legends:_Arceus/Archive_1&oldid=1072912871"