Talk:Bravely Default

Localization information

The information from the Joystiq article is perfectly acceptable. Speculation is acceptable if it comes from a reliable source and is presented accurately. There is an established consensus at WP:VG/S that Joystiq is a usable source. Please discuss and come to a consensus before removing. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Europe 2013

Where did they say the game will be released in Europe in 2013? If it is 2013 we need a reference. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a reference for it in the lead, but someone removed it, referring to the "localization" section whose source only mentions the NA release.--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I had removed your Twitter refs because the information was already referenced in the body of the article. I thought the "2013" was a typo, since I've been seeing "2014" all over the internet... Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless the tweet came after the announcement, we should probably use the announcements 2014 date: after all, if it was ready this year, why would they hold it into 2014 in North America if they are both in English? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I found it weird too, but the trailer in the European Nintendo Direct did end with "Coming this year...": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HO_uabrY3o#t=89s --In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of confusion across the internet on this right now. (I'd provide links, but its mostly non-RS type stuff. Messageboards and comments sections and whatnot.) Hopefully this will lead to clarification or futher confirmation soon. Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure the confusion is just because most people only watched the NA stream. I wouldn't be surprised if Europe gets the game in December and America in January.--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Could be. The official word from NOE is 2013, so I'm fine with keeping that in until/unless its proven otherwise... Sergecross73 msg me 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a new English trailer that also says 2013 for Europe. Siliconera confirms it too. http://www.siliconera.com/2013/04/17/bravely-default-flying-fairy-has-an-english-subtitled-trailer/ Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Naming the article only Bravely Default

It seems there is no official evidence that supports the title Bravely Default will have a subtitle outside of Japan, as neither Flying Fairy nor For The Sequel were used in any of the English trailers. The Nintendo Direct that aired on October 1, 2013 suggests the game will only be known as Bravely Default in both North America and Europe, and hence this English article must reflect this and be renamed simply as Bravely Default. Hope(N Forever) (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should probably take a look to see what the most WP:COMMONNAME is, not necessarily just take what today's trailers say. (Though, if that is the most common name, then yeah, I'd support it.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  I think I agree with Sergecross73 on this one. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Release Date?

So, more confusion on the release date.

1. Most sources I've seen in passing, have said Dec '13 in Europe, Q1 '14 for NA
2. However, someone just added an IGN source that says Nov '13 for Europe, Dec '13 for NA

I've assumed its scenario 1, but IGN is a reliable source, and its spelled out directly in the article, its not even just a database entry or something. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been through most reliable sites, and IGN is the only I've seen which gives a 2013 release in America. I've got the feeling it's a misunderstanding of the info that hasn't been rectified. So I'd take scenario 1. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"Flying Fairy" subtitle

As it states in the article, the game will be known in PAL regions simply as Bravely Default, dropping the Flying Fairy subtitle from the Japanese name. However, it also implies that the Flying Fairy subtitle will be kept in North America. Whilst we might not have a definitive word on this, the subtitle might actually be dropped in North America and thus the article should be moved. The reason I think it may also be dropped in NA is because it appears that way on an official trailer from NOA's official YouTube channel, and also in a news article from their website. Does anyone know any more about this? DarkToonLink 09:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I just noticed there was a very similar discussion just above. However, I should point out that places like IGN have started dropping the subtitle as well, within new articles, although it is still kept in the old game listing. DarkToonLink 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The most recent trailer for the NA version did not include flying fairy so it looks like its unlikely that the subtitle will be used anywhere outside of Japan.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that too. I seem to have been the only one who was holding things back, so I went and made the move... Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So, NA subtitle seems to be "Where the Fairy Flies". Can we add this to the article? Emerald Grave (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get that subtitle from? While I don't own the game I have seen the boxart and Where the Fairy Flies is not there.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

At the very least, I remember it being on the in-game title screen. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cover art

Buh6173, Sergecross73 and I have switched between the North American and the European/Australian cover art a few times now. Since we aren't having a consensus, I figured I'd open a thread about it here on the talk page so we can see what others think as well. As you can see in the page history, I'm in favor of keeping the European/Australian cover, as: a) it was the first English language cover, b) the game was not developed in North America, thus not giving that cover priority, and c) it was the first English language cover added to this article.--IDV^talk 05:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And I made the counter-argument that a) Being the first English language cover doesn't give it special privilege since otherwise Mario and Luigi: Dream Team would use the "Dream Team Bros." cover, b) the US cover is most similar to the original Japanese art so it's more sufficient, and c) again, being "the first" means nothing. Now the new one is the second. And it's superior. So the change should be maintained. Buh6173 (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar case to ICO when the cover that least portrayed the series or deviated from the original didn't make it in. but those are known cover art that have had specific reputation. Here, its not the case, but i think its fine to have the north american version if it resembles closer to the original japanese.Lucia Black (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

My main hang up was that his original edit summary said his reason was Keeping US art since it's the US Wiki, which is very terrible rationale on a number of levels. His following arguments, saying things like "its superior", just sound more like its more or less his personal preference, which is also not a valid rationale. Per WP:VGBOX, the first English language image that is added to the article is used. Not by release date, but dependent on when the image was added to the article. Dream Team is a terrible, irrelevant example, the article is in terrible shape, and hasn't been in any sort of peer review, WP:GA review, etc. Just an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sergecross73 msg me 11:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I ever said it was "superior" for being US, but my other points still stand, in that it more resembles the Japanese cover. And yes, Dream Team is relevant; despite the article's overall shape, it still uses the US cover even though technically the EU version came out first. Buh6173 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter too much. the rule is there so people don't complain about adding in a different cover each time. Overall, its not bad to have the US version or the NA version, but i prefer the NA version simply because its closer to the design of the Japanese, and will be much more recognizable than the EU version.Lucia Black (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Buh6173, you misunderstand. The release date isn't the factor that matters, that is not what I or IDV are saying. The factor that matters is that which English language image was uploaded and put into use first. The European boxart was undeniably uploaded and used first, and per WP:VGBOX, that's the one to be used. (Also, you used the rationale of "superior" here.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What does it matter if the EU art was uploaded first? It's suggested that you don't need to bother uploading a new image if an old one is there, but if someone goes through the trouble of doing it, then there's no reason not to keep the newer image if it fits the article better (which it does, since it's closer to the Japanese cover). Buh6173 (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To eliminate time wasting arguments and reverting like which is happening right now. It's to stop these very arguments from happening. If they're both fine, just stick with the original. (Its much in line with WP:NOCONSENSUS, as in, if there's no agreement on what to do with something, you just stick with the original version.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Except one's more accurate to the Japanese version than the other, so they're not "both fine". Recognizably is important. Buh6173 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Europe is a massive region, so "not recognizable" is a poor and subjective reason. None of what you say aligns with any policy or guideline, just your personal opinion, unlike my argument, WP:VGBOX. Beyond your reasons being entirely subjective, I just don't buy into most of your reasons considering you started off with your initial ludicrous comment of "Use the US one because this is the US Wiki". Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

And I have since then rectified my reasoning.

Plus, nothing on that page says "if someone changes the picture to one you don't like, demand that it be changed it back". It just says not to go through the trouble of doing something. And since I went through the trouble without knowing about that, there was no hassle, so you shouldn't feel the need to go through the trouble of changing it back. Buh6173 (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets just keep the image we have now. the North American version does help out a bit more considering its the same box art as the original Japanese. So, i dont think even EU residents can complain about the choice. anyways....lets just gie this one up. its a sensible thing to do.Lucia Black (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't make decisions based off of "well it's already done", especially when it can be undone with a click of a button. Right now, we're split 2 to 2 on this, which is he definition of WP:NOCONSENSUS, which means, he changed doesn't happen. Since it was originally the EUR one, hat means he change to NA version doesn't happen. Again, that's actually following protocol. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly, since the NA version looks just like the Japanese version, it should be ok to have even if it wasn't first cover art we uploaded. There are exceptions to the rule. for example: when a cover art looks so drastically different from the original that it ends up NOT being in the infobox. Examples such as Mega Man (video game) and ICO. Now i understand it doesn't fit right in because that has actual coverage of the cover history but the idea is that exceptions can happen. And i've seen in the past where people would switch cover art image to NA version under the rug, and no one said anything. maybe because their not popular articles.

Its not a big deal to keep this version if it has more perks to it.Lucia Black (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In "Template:Infobox video game/doc/syntax guide" there's a guideline that reads "If the game is not developed in an English-language region use the cover from the region in which the game receives its first English language release, unless another English language version has been uploaded first, in which case you should not change it." This already gives two points in favor of keeping the European cover art.

An argument summarized as "I already uploaded this new cover, so we should keep it as it more closely resembles the Japanese cover of the original game" is hilarious to me. By that logic, about 80% of the Final Fantasy cover arts on Wikipedia should be changed without question, as the European cover arts almost always resemble the Japanese version. Calamity-Ace (talk)

In this case it doesn't. so why point it out?Lucia Black (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

To point out that this kind of logic is flawed.Calamity-Ace (talk)

Didn't exactly work if it didn't even apply in this circumstance.Lucia Black (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Acutally it does since the fact that we don't use European Final Fantasy boxarts simply because they are similar to the Japanese boxarts proves that Wikipedia does not use similarly to Japanese boxarts as a rational for selection. Since that was being used as a rational for thus proposed change it's entirely relevant.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Standard WP:STOPCHANGINGIT applies. Unless there's a compelling reason to, and I don't think there is here, don't bother. - hahnchen 16:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to note, the European cover uses the art from the Japanese "For the Sequel" cover: [1] --Mika1h (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia relies on US English and American versions of releases when tied to non-Anglophone countries. I mean, look at... well, basically any Japanese game cover on Wikipedia. I'm fine with this trend, as the U.S. is by far the most populous English country in the world (if India doesn't count), and U.S. English by far the most spoken dialect. Tezero (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that wouldn't be a reason to ignore policy though. What you're saying could be for a multitude of factors. For instance, english localized games are commonly released in NA first, and as such, have their cover art available first, leading to their cover art being uploaded first, and as a result, being retained. There is no "Use NA art" guideline or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I recently reverted a readdition for the NA boxart. The reason given was that the NA boxart should stay until there was a consensus for the European one. The problem I have there, is that the European boxart was up first for months so I believe that it should be up to the person proposing the change to get a consensus to change the status quo, not the other way around.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Now they are claiming that since thr NA boxart was up when the discussion started it can'r be removed until there is a consensus to use tge European boxart. Considering that they were the one to change it in the first place that does not sound right to me.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

A status quo can be upended if a better one can be found.

To put it brief, nowhere in any of the rules does it say that if an image is changed, it must be reverted. If anything, the English box art that best represents the game should be used. And because the US art is the most familiar due to it being nearly identical to the Japanese art, it would seem to be the most sufficient, no? Buh6173 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about that. Wikipedia is aimed for a general readership not just gamers. Gamers may be aware thst the NA boxart is based on the original Japanese one but the average reader is another story. That would likely be lost to many people looking at the page.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

How would the average reader discern between the two covers? Why would the average reader think one is superior to the other? Buh6173 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's the point, if the average reader can't discern between the two covers that would indicate that the claim that the NA cover is more reconsiable since it is similar to the Japanese cover simply wrong. Also, since the people who are arguing for the European cover have not claimed "superiority" as the reason the last question is illrelvent--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An average user would not claim one is better because they can't tell the difference. To a gamer, the US cover is more fitting because it resembles the Japanese cover more. What else is there to say? Buh6173 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is I would assume that most people who are aware that the US cover is the same as the Japanese cover would already know of the European cover as well as what it looked likes. Unless you can provided evidence that most people looking at this article would know of the similarities between the US and Japaneses cover but would not know the European cover I don't see that as likely. Also, I don't think Wikipedia should be focused on gamers who dislike the European cover especially since no evidence has been provided to support this. --174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "disliking" the European cover. And no, not everyone knows of the European cover, even if they know the Japanese cover (i.e. those who live in Japan and haven't played For the Sequel, or those in America). Buh6173 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My two cents is that we specifically call out using the first English-released cover art in an article if there's dispute, unless there's some good reason not to (Ico is a good example: the EU/JP cover is much more appropriate for the game, while the NA version - while out first, is definitely inferior.) The Ico case doesn't appear to apply here. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the ICO art was terrible and the European Braverly Default cover is not even remotely in the same league as that.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Buh6173 - "nowhere in any of the rules does it say that if an image is changed, it must be reverted" - yes, it does. There's a reason the acronym is WP:STOPCHANGINGIT: Because the first one wins, full stop, stop arguing. Image country disputes always, always result in an absurd amount of discussion and noise, for a minor change that doesn't really matter. So we made a rule, to try to stop it altogether- it doesn't matter which one is "better", it doesn't matter the relative English-speaking populations, just set it to the first English cover to be uploaded and stop changing it. Gameplay is still one paragraph, Reception is practically non-existent, there are actual real issues with the articles that we could be fixing rather than wasting a lot of time arguing about which one of two slightly different images to use. --PresN 05:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That guideline says nothing about reverting images. It says you don't need to change an image, but if an image happens to be changed, it says nothing about it needing to be reverted back. Buh6173 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is reaching hair splitting at this time. If what you attest is true then the rule would be completely unenforcable and usless since it would do nothing to stop people from breaking that rule and would in fact reward the people breaking it. I would put the ods at zero percent that this was the intent, nor would I see much if any support for that interpretation.---174.93.163.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, instead of saying "the first image came first, screw everything else", you then look at the two images, and see which one fits the article better.

One is unique to the European release and the Japanese rerelease, while the other is shared with the original Japanese release. I'd say the latter is more suitable for the article, regardless of "who came first". Buh6173 (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That still ingnores the obvious issue that its unlikely that the average reader would know that the NA cover is based on the Japanese cover of the original version of the game meaning that most readers would likely not find the NA cover "fitting" for that reason. It should be noted that no evidence has been provided to the contrary or has the proposed change gain much support either.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

We've already gotten out of the way that the "average" reader does not need to be regarded in this decision, since neither version will have any impact on their opinion. This is for gamers who would recognize the original Japanese cover, or conversely, the American cover, vs. the much rarer cover that the PAL version uses. Buh6173 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How has this been such a huge debate? It doesn't matter which box 'best represents' the game; we're not a marketing department. The PAL box came first in English, so WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. The English Wikipedia covers all English-speaking countries; it is irrelevant that there are more people in the US than UK/ANZ. So just keep the PAL boxart, and move on to something else. Wikipedia policy is very clear in this issue. DarkToonLink

We've been over this: that article just says that you don't need to make a new photo if there already is one. It says nothing about reverting to an old one if a new one is uploaded. Buh6173 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we haven't "been over this", you just insist on rules-lawyering- badly. The first image wins. That does not mean that if you happen to make a second image, that it then wins, it means that the first image wins. Violating the guideline does not suddenly make the second image alright, it means that the first image wins. That you tried to change the image and got reverted does not change which image was first. The cover art is currently the PAL version, that was the first uploaded, that means it wins. I'll be sure to get the wording of the guideline changed, though, to block this kind of absurd pedantry. --PresN 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So what, if I uploaded mine first, it would've been used regardless of people preferring the PAL version? Shouldn't you actually debate the merits of one image over the other, instead of just going "nope it's first"? Because that's a terrible policy, and a lazy one to boot. Buh6173 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes it would have. If you need to see why we had to institute such a policy, see this entire gigantic discussion- there is no way to "debate the merits of one image over the other" because neither side, in any of these disputes, will listen to the other side's arguments or change their mind. So we made up an objective measure, and stick with it. It doesn't matter whether the policy is "terrible" or "lazy" - any argument about which region of video game cover art to use is, by definition, a massive waste of everyone's time, so we try to just cut off the discussion before it begins. The article is still bad, with obvious, massive flaws, and every second we spend debating a pointless image swap is being wasted. --PresN 23:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty much what I was going to write earlier. Normally, when people don't like policy, I'd invite them to formulate their own approach and see if they could get consensus to make it the new standard, but I have no idea how Buh6173 formulate a proposal based on what he's trying to operate on. His approach is based entirely on opinion, and would constantly bring up edit warring and arguments any time someone has a different personal opinion, which would all the time because we're on internet. It would be a constant source of wasted time, over something where either option would technically be viable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We could, you know, just have multiple people voice their opinion instead of one person. Democracy and all that.

Some people prefer the old image, some prefer the new. Voice your reasons, and whichever wins out stays. Buh6173 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As Serge pointed out above, that isn't how this policy is meant to work. Rather than wasting time debating aesthetics, just stick to the very clear policy around this. DarkToonLink

Also, if your argument is that the changed boxart shouldn't be reverted because there's no policy that says that, I don't think there's a policy that says you should revert being reverted for breaching policy. DarkToonLink 01:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The policy should be that if a better image exists, use it.Buh6173 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Then take it up on the policy page. But, as has been mentioned multiple times before, 'better' is very subjective, and it is much better to have an objective policy to avoid contention. For the record, I much prefer the PAL boxart anyway. If you go to Wind Waker HD the picture there is the North American cover, not the PAL or ORIGINAL JAPANESE cover, because that was the first English one uploaded. I don't argue against that, even though I dislike the American Wind Waker HD box, because that's how the policy works. So I suggest you stop trying to change the boxart here, and just stick with the current PAL one. DarkToonLink 01:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see that such a stance is extremely vague, undefined and unenforceable? Sure, it would help you get your way here, but it wouldn't be applicable as a general practice. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But...isn't the Wind Waker HD art identical across the board? That's a kind of bad example. And seeing how most other places I've gone to work with a general consensus or actually replace things with better things instead of being adamant not to change something just because the other thing came first, I'd say consensus works better than "this came first". Just being faster on the keyboard to upload an image is a bad means of action.Buh6173 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No. In Japan, Europe, and Australia, the boxart is not covered in gold. It retains the blue colour scheme of the original artwork. DarkToonLink 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the file history, I just noticed something.

The file name for the cover image has remained the same since at least July of 2012, yet the image information states that the image was uploaded in December of 2013. Was the old image deleted somehow? Why is there no image history? For that matter, how do we know that there wasn't a US cover image on there at some point, but it somehow miraculously vanished in the same way the Japanese cover did?

This just raises so many questions. Buh6173 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Old versions of fair use images get deleted, to avoid copyright violations. I believe this article had the PAL boxart before the US one was even revealed. DarkToonLink 02:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you be certain?Buh6173 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This shows the PAL boxart was there in the beginning of November last year. When was the US box revealed? DarkToonLink 03:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The same time.Buh6173 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Source? DarkToonLink 04:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well now I'm confused because all sources I'm looking into are saying that both covers were revealed on the 13th, which begs the question where it came from there. Perhaps they were leaked elsewhere earlier? I have no clue.

But that's aside the point. If this is the case, then one could easily just swap out the versions, and none would be the wiser. So having an image be there "first" is a moot point.Buh6173 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That PAL boxart was the first English-Language cover to be uploaded for this article, so we should stick with it. DarkToonLink 04:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But do you get what I'm saying? If you're correct, if the past versions are completely zapped, not only is it possible that there was an English version beforehand, I could just as easily replace it, and nobody would be the wiser, since it would be the one image file. Buh6173 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, if there was the US box first (which there wasn't), then the admin who had to delete the old file for copyright would have noticied the policy breach and done something then. DarkToonLink 05:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The only reason this was brought to attention was due to the massive edit warring between two different files.Buh6173 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well now that the appropriate policy has been pointed out, the edit war can stop. DarkToonLink 06:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe administrators can view the older comments/summaries in each upload, which will show the EUR box as the first piece of English boxart. Judging by the name, that file used to be a logo. Also, this file should be deleted as a copyvio, as no article links to it. DarkToonLink 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I say we just give it up, the fact that "for the sequel" cover is the same as EU version, it shouldn't be an issue as thats the version the NA one will get too, just the cover of the original.Lucia Black (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Except it's not what the US version is getting.Buh6173 (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the US version is getting (already got 3 days ago) the expanded "for the sequel" version shown here. So its no big deal since there are two versions of the game, and we get the same version just different box art, so EU version should be enough and more accurate to portray which version we're getting.Lucia Black (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to them getting the same cover. Buh6173 (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bravely Default/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 09:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• You don't need to mention Korean release dates.

  Sorted.

• Is For the Sequel the name of the expanded edition? If it is, you can put it in the lead as well.

  Done.

• Nintendo handled publishing duties overseas - Then the infobox should list Nintendo in the publisher field instead.

  I did. Someone "altered" it after I'd made the initial edit which listed Nintendo as the game's international publisher.

• The gameplay uses a turn-based battle system and job system, in addition to incorporating options to combine job abilities and adjust battle speed and random encounter rates. - wikilink turn-based.

  Done

• this event triggers the opening of a chasm, which destroys the village of Norende. Tiz Arrior, the sole survivor from the village, meets Agnès and defends her from attack by soldiers of Eternia, a land hostile to the Orthodoxy. - This is too detailed for the lead. You can simply removed this sentence and modified the sentence following into "Allying with amnesiac Ringabel, Tiz, the sole survivor of Norende, and Eternian defector Edea Lee, Agnès set out to awaken the crystals and confront a greater evil responsible for the chasm." Eternia does not sound important at all.

  I've adjusted it.

• and was heavily involved in its development and direction - don't really need to mention this, given that you had already mentioned that he is the producer of the game.

  Done.

• aspects of the Dragon Quest series and - wikilink Dragon Quest

  Done.

• was intended to evoke the feelings of classic RPG series - What is the classic series?

  Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and SaGa. I've used the latter two.

• After the original version's release, the For the Sequel expanded version was developed, and it was the version chosen for overseas release. - You have mentioned this in the first paragraph already. I don't think you need to repeat it again. Perhaps you can merge them together.

  Done.

• Navigation in down, dungeons - Towns instead of down?

  Done (silly mistake to make).

• and after a certain point in the story and airship can be used to speed up travel and access previously inaccessible areas. - don't need "and" in "story and airship"

  It was meant to be "an", not "and". Fixed.

• There is a magic shop as well. You can mention it in the source. The manual also add that when players are not moving, it will automatically zoom out. You can include that as well.

  Done.

• You can level up buildings and change the rewards as well according to the source. You can mention it as well.

  Done.

• The summons are themed after classical elements, modern machinery and multiple world mythologies - Should be moved to the development section instead.

  Done.

• You can replenish SP with SP Drink as well.

  I did say that you could purchase regenerative drinks.... I've made it clearer in the text.

• The music changes during the Special Moves, and during the period that the music plays, the entire party is granted buffs. - Is that really the music that made the entire party to grant buffs?

  I've adjusted it, but didn't want to remove the music cue. It stands as a feature of gameplay as well as an aesthetic element.

• The main challenge for the team was making Bravely Default a traditional RPG without overloading it with nostalgic elements. Many of the team were fans of both Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, and the features that were included were chosen so they would both evoke nostalgia for series veterans and be appreciated by newcomers. - A bit contradicting. You don't want to overload it with nostalgic elements, then the next sentence talks about they add a lot of nostalgic elements.

  Fixed.

• The concept of the Notebook of D - The gameplay section never mentions what this is.

  Fixed.

• During the latest stages of the game's development - "last" instead of "latest"

  Done.

• "Abilink" option which allowed players to borrow each other's job levels - Not mention in the gameplay section in that section as well.

  Fixed.

• So the music would fit onto the 3DS' limited storage space without losing too much of its quality, Revo's recording sessions were closely linked with the creation of the game's sound source. - Rephrase it to " Revo's recording sessions were closely linked with the creation of the game's sound source, so the music would fit onto the 3DS' limited storage space without losing too much of its quality"

  Done.

• The subtitle was one of many proposed by the team, and Asano decided upon after it provided the official name for Airy - Needs to be rephrased. A bit confusing.

  Fixed, I think.

• Downloadable content in the form of additional character costumes were made available both through promotional codes and post-release content - wikilink downloadable content.

  Done.

• At the 2013 Game Developers Conference, gaming site Siliconera stated that "multiple trusted sources" had confirmed that a localization was in progress - Don't think reports like these are needed. They do not add any actual information.

  Done.

• The release section is very neat. Well done.

  Thanks.

• Would be great if you can add a topic sentence for each paragraph in the reception section.

  Done. And on a small note, it's interesting how some reviews asked me to add a topic sentence, while others asked me to remove it. To each their own.

• Would be great if the sentence pattern in the reception section has more variations. This pattern: "_(Reviewer)_ found the _(Aspect)_ _(adjective)_" was used seven times in the first paragraph.

  I did my best, but it's difficult to create variety for something like a reception second.

• He also positively noted the social features, particularly the reconstruction of Norende. - did he mention why?

  Did my best.

• It later won GameSpot's Game of the Year 2014 award - 3DS Game of the Year 2014, not simply GOTY

  Done.

• It was ranked by both GameSpot and IGN as one of the best games on the 3DS in 2014 and 2013 respectively - Rephrase it to "It was ranked by both IGN and GameSpot as one of the best games on the 3DS in 2013 and 2014 respectively"

  Done.

Overall

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Sorry for the long delay. I am not feeling well last week when I picked up the review. Nevertheless, it is an extremely well-written and comprehensive article. When the minor issues I raised above are fixed, the article is good to go! AdrianGamer (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@AdrianGamer: Done my best with all the points you raised. And you don't need to tell me about being ill. We've all had it here on an off for around two months. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

With all the issues fixed, the article is good to go! Bravely Default is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)