Talk:Romancing SaGa

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

Untitled[edit]

Note: the GameFAQs release data says that this game was released in the US in 1992, but I can find no other evidence of this, so I will exclude it from the article itself. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 14:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It was never released in the US. Gamefaqs is often wrong on those -- for instance, the other day I bought game that GF doesn't list as haveing a US release. Melodia Chaconne 15:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I've seen several of those.. Anyway, I am rather looking forward to the release of Romancing SaGa 3 in the US.. If they ever get around to it. The story was much easier to get into than RS1. RS1 just kinda throws you into the water and lets you see if you swim or not. I've heard(though I don't have any actual experience to support this) that RS-2 was the best in the series.--Vercalos 09:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your English cast list is 100% wrong except for Patrick Seitz. How sad.

Expanding the 'Plot' - Backstory and Characters' Main Quest Summaries[edit]

In hoping to better expand this article for this awesome game (the PS2 remake, more specifically, as I have not played the original SNES version at all), I was thinking that one of the first steps I should do is expand the "plot" section. Including, for example, revising what is already typed in the article, as the plot that is currently typed here is just a direct copying of what was typed in the game's intruction manual, and not properly cited at all.
Also, planning to include short introductory descriptions for each of the main playable characters which will tell how/why they have been involved in the events of the game's conflicts (without giving spoilers). I know that there is already a separate article for the long list of characters who appear in the game, but I am thinking that at least the eight playable characters should be described on this main article.
Another idea being to change the heading "Plot" to instead read "Story".
I was advised that expanding this article would be more appropriate than creating a new article for the PS2 remake, so I will see what I can do for this. What I am hoping, possibly from any others here that might know better, that if anything I will add soon to this article is exclusive to the PS2 remake (either new story part or a new feature) that it be pointed out so we can get it fixed. - Tydrian 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderswan[edit]

This Romancing SaGa game was not released for Wonderswan, SaGa 1 was released for Wonderswan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_Legend

Ultimania development information currently not in the article[edit]

The following sources should be translated and used to expand the current incomplete article:

Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song Ultimania
Ultimania Website

Anyone willing to help translate even one page is welcome! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the links. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source for translations for some of the Ultimania content. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Romancing SaGa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Romancing SaGa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Romancing SaGa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead

  • Infobox should link EZweb
    • Done.
  • Is SaGa 2 identifiable as SaGa 2 more than Final Fantasy Legend II?
    • Altered.
  • It may be worthwhile to mention the name origin in the lead.
    • Done.

Gameplay

  • I noticed that the section mentions the methods of going into battle twice ("Battles trigger when the player encounters enemy sprites in field and dungeon environments." and "Battle triggers when the player character touches an enemy character model, transitioning into the battle arena.")
    • I've removed it.
  • Make sure to be consistent with "player" versus "players."
    • Done.
  • I think we don't need to put LP in parenthesis, as it's used immediately after in the next sentence.
    • Done.

Plot

  • I noticed that the third paragraph doesn't have a citation like the previous ones do.
    • I've added a game-based citation.
  • What is the difference between the PS2 and SFC plots?
    • Basically nothing. They share the same basic plot, with the PS2 version adding context and events, plus the final secret ending. I also used it as it's the only one officially released in English.

Development

  • Are Hawk and Hawkin the same person?
    • Done.
  • "forty" > "40"
    • Done.

Release and versions

  • Does there exist any secondary source on Kan Navi's development?
    • I looked, but couldn't find anything. If you think it best, it can be removed.
  • "Artstyle" > "Art style"
    • Done.
  • "Without appealing" > "Without intending to appeal"
    • Done.
  • "The game was announced in September 2004 via an issue of Jump. Minstrel Song released in Japan on April 21, 2005." > "Minstrel Song was announced in September 2004 via an issue of Jump, and released in Japan on April 21, 2005."
    • Done.
  • "A dedicated guidebook in Square Enix's Ultimania was released on July 17. It contained" > "A dedicated guidebook in Square Enix's Ultimania was released on July 17, containing"
    • Done.

Music

  • You could say that Ito composed and arranged the music in the first sentence and cut the second.
    • Done.
  • "Ito worked on the revised score for two years. He was joined in his work by Tsuyoshi Sekito and Kenichiro Fukui." > "Ito worked on the revised score for two years, joined in his work by Tsuyoshi Sekito and Kenichiro Fukui."
    • Done.

Reception

  • I usually take "as of" to indicate the most recent figure, so I would swap "By" and "As of" locations.
    • Done.
  • You should clarify in the table that the reviews are PS2, or mark them as such.
    • Done.
  • You can probably drop GameRankings, since it's dead and the Metacritic link suffices.
    • Done.
  • Make sure that you stay consistent between citing websites and citing writers on websites in criticism; for instance, Jane Pinckard of 1Up.com. I understand not wanting to cite "The Watcher".
    • Done.

Images

  • The PS2 and SFC images have the same fair use rationale. Either remove the PS2 image or provide a reason to include it.
    • Done.

References

  • Some of the sources have a name that is not italicized in the ref.
    • Done my best here.

Misc

I would take away quotations around Free Scenario and Free Scenario system. Furthermore, make sure to use consistent capitalization for system.

    • Done.
@Abryn: I think I've addressed all the things you noted. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passed, nice job. Sorry, got bit by a wasp and got depressed, not in that order. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song should get its own page[edit]

Almost all of the major remakes have their own page, this includes Square Enix remakes like Final Fantasy VII Remake and Trials of Mana (2020 video game). Considering that the remake has enough information to get its own page and it will be getting a remaster this year just like Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together (2010 video game), which is also a remake, we should make a separate entry for Minstrel Song too. I wanted to get a consensus before making any changes. Phillyphil99 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - A remake that is significantly different from the original absolutely should get its own page since it is noteworthy enough to deserve it. WaraWaraPlaza (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - If all the remakes have their own page then this should too. I'm okay with the move and it should go ahead if no one else disagrees. VortexLover (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If no one has any other objections, then I will go ahead with the move then. Phillyphil99 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pinging Axem Titanium (who objected to the split the first time) and ProtoDrake (from the above GA review) Justiyaya 10:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there isn't enough mechanical difference between the two, compared to VII Remake or Tactics Ogre PSP or Trials of Mana which each saw substantial mechanical/narrative/m&n changes. Just because a pre-existing remake's been ported to another system doesn't automatically qualify it for a split. Also, just a comment, but all three users who proposed/support this split came into existence around the same time and have very similar ways of writing their messages/page descriptions, so I'm skeptical of the supports above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice: Phillyphil99, WaraWaraPlaza and VortexLover are CU confirmed sockpuppets of AquillaXIII, who has previously used sockpuppets to support their own split discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per ferret. No non-sock user supports this, including myself. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation does not "require" original cartridge[edit]

The article cited only says that to cover the sites collective bums legally. Technologically, a downloaded ROM would work just as well 2601:40C:8300:8A10:4D9A:3CCF:90B5:1332 (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romancing_SaGa&oldid=1201423851"