Jump to content

Talk:Dragon Quest (video game)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Pokemon

Why isn't there any mention of this game's similarity to the later Pokemon series of games? The encountering of creatures in grasses, and being able to run or fight them, the entrance into towns, two main types of buildings therein [Inns, to heal in, like pokecenters, and Marts, like pokemarts,] and even the character design were obviously strong influences on the Pokemon games for the Gameboy.

First, sign your talk posts. Second, because virtually EVERY console RPG has these features, so singling out Pokemon for mention is pretty pointless. Kouban 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I updated the plot yesterday and most of the article content today. I took a good look at other good articles and FAs and formatted this similarly. It still needs a lot of work, but it's looking better.

TODOS:

  • Update ports (include box art and more information for Gameboy color, Super Famicom, Mobile phone information (what network is it on, etc))
  • Clean up characters / story
  • Mention more about slime / metal slime and it's place in future dragon warrior / dragon quests
  • Expand on musical score
  • Misc. trivia, add to dev

--Kahnadex 07:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoimi

I have looked at many Japanese dictionaries, and have never once found one that had Hoimi in it. I believe that this is an incorrect rumor. SMimas 16:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a very incorrect rumor. Hoimi has indeed entered popular language, but nothing more. It is not an accepted word, nor does it means "heal" in Japanese. --Dez26 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
None of my japanese friends (whom I met on Canada) even knew about Dragon Quest... I was kind of disappointed when I discovered that... Icecypher 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anime?

There was an anime based on this in the 90's that doesn't have an article. It doesn't even have any mention in the "Reception and Legacy" section of this article. It at least needs a mention there if it's not going to have its own article. 66.153.236.8 (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and add it in : ] Evaunit♥666♥ 03:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nester?

I was looking through this, and did not see anything referenced about why this person was added, and later removed from the game. Any thoughts on if this should be referenced on the article? Sgetz (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There are repeated mentions in the game of someone called Nester, and eventually you run into this person. Sadly, I don't remember much beyond that despite having replayed the game recently. Kouban (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I remember it being something to do with the fact that Nintendo of America localized this game, and gave it away as a premium with Nintendo Power subscriptions. Nester himself was a character in the Nintendo Power magazines, but I do not know the true tie to this game, but thought it might be something that if someone knows more, should go into this article, and mention that he is removed from later releases. Sgetz (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Zelda?

A while back, I added a tidbit about Roto/Loto (a.k.a. Erdrick) having a cameo in the Zelda series by way of being mentioned on a tombstone in Saria, the water town.

I had a feeling it would be removed (due to not citing any sources, probably (though Kariteh said 'rm trivia')), but I just thought I'd include a screenshot of proof here:

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6772/zeldalotocameovv7.png The tombstone uses Katakana in the screenshot*; in Hiragana+Kanji, it reads, "ゆうしゃ　ロト ここに眠る", or, "Here Sleeps the Hero Loto/Roto")

If this screenshot were added to what I'd added to the article, would it be possible to add it back in? Thanks.

  • In Romanji/Romaji, it says, "Yuusha Roto KokoNiNemuRu" — that's also what the Hiragana+Kanji say. Funny, though, if you put it into Google's translator, it reads, "You go to sleep here SHA Lotto" XD

Kizul Emeraldfire (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Versions

Is this right? I had the impression that "puff-puff" is when the woman rubs her breasts on someone else's face, as explained by Kamesennin in the Dragonball series, when Bulma promised the old man puff-puff in exchange for I don't remember what, and as depicted in Dragon Quest 8, when the characters are promised blindfolded puff-puff but the offering woman rubs their faces with two slimes instead. I'll check for references later and come back here when I find them. Laserion (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, here are some images from DQ8:
The girl performs puff-puff on Jessica
Jessica performs puff-puff on a monster in battle
— Laserion (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

yeahh, you're right. i overlooked that when i was editing last night. Evaunit♥666♥ 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

image removed

What was the reason for removing the cell phone image? Evaunit♥666♥ 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Olde" English

It's safe to assume that the line "In-game dialog is worded in quasi-Olde English phrasing" is incorrect, even with the leeway granted by the prefix "quasi". Do you know what Old English reads like? "Ōhthere sǣde his hlāforde, Ælfrēde cyninge, ðæt hē ealra Norðmonna norþmest būde." No, I don't have any idea what that means.

A better description would be "quasi-Early Modern English", but that doesn't sound very exciting. --MQDuck 08:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Kouban (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The article now uses at least three different terms (maybe more, I gave up after finding the third) to describe the style of English used in the game. In the localization section, within a few sentences, it's got "dialogue was rewritten in an Early Modern English style" followed shortly thereafter as "the dialogue was written with a pseudo-Old English style". Then down in the Game Boy Color section, it's got at least one more description (to note the GBC doesn't use it). This time it's "the Elizabethan English style". Someone needs to do some cleanup of the article and choose the one best term for this flowery archaic language usage and use it consistently throughout the article. 76.226.113.24 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I am hereby signing on to review this article for GA status. This is my first GA review, but I am familiar with the procedures and am going to do my best to thoroughly review this and hopefully get it a GA label. In addition, do not take any offence to the criticisms I make as I am just trying to make this the best article it can be :) GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Also, I am noting that I have never played this game or even viewed this article before I began to review this, so no conflict of interest exists. Any edit from me on this page will be very minor and are because they are necessary for GA status but is simple enough for me to edit on my own. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Still having hardware issues with my pc. i'm posting this from school where i'm about to leave. I ordered the parts, but the pc will be ~week till its fixed.陣内Jinnai 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Back.陣内Jinnai 23:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations

  • I'm not sure what is wrong with citation number one but it is awkward and detracting. Solutions include putting it in its own note section separate from references OR rewriting it as a reference (recommended)
    • I assume you were talking about the n 1 reference? That's a notation, not a citation. I separated it, but as it's the only one i think a separate section may be superflous. I separated specifically from the cites to help distinguish notations from actual cited sources.陣内Jinnai 06:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Quite a few pieces of info rely on the published "editors of Nintendo power" citation, which isn't bad and doesn't even need to be changed, but it would be nice to supplement those with some other sources as well for easy verification.
  • The Amazon citation is the only bad cite here. Definitely change this before I can GA it because it is only there to give info on how it was compiled into other forms. This can probably be found elsewhere would would be ideal.

Other than the Amazon, citations are good, thorough, and passable by GA criteria

Images

  • All images are well used, captioned, sized, and placed. The images themselves are great for GA status

*Nearly every image has a poor free-use rationale and need to be improved for GA status. See the image for the cover for the best rationale.

Images are good, but free-use rationales need better summaries to be GA status

Writing

*The second paragraph is just one long sentence. This run-on should be split into a few sentences to form a complete thought.

  • Its effects on the console RPG genre have been compared to above and beyond the more widely recognized, in the west, title of Final Fantasy. I would rewrite this sentence for better flow and more common wording.
  • I went ahead and removed the red wikilinks in the article. I would unlink common terms like "Tomato" and "Savegame" and avoid reusing wikilinks multiple times for the same word like the character Erdrick. Also, the link for Erdrick links back to this exact article, making it null and useless. Remove linking to the same page, it only detracts.
    • Restoring redlinks per WP:REDLINK. If you think any of them have specific reason to be removed they need to be done on a case-by-case basis.
    • As for excess linkage, i removed most of them. The duplicates i kept were:
      1. Some of those in the lead
      2. Those in infoboxes
      3. Really obscure terms like linkages to Early Modern English.陣内Jinnai 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The plot feels incomplete. Does the story actually end with the bridge extending? If so, it should be put something like "the game concludes with the bridge extending to the Dragonlord's castle, leaving the hero to approach" or something like that.
  • The tiny second plot paragraph should be placed in the first sentence like: "Chronologically, Dragon Warrior takes place after DW III and before DW II."
  • Middle of Manga section: ...a child by the name of is born with the name... name of what? typo?
  • The soundtrack section is very short. This isn't a problem, but if more knowledge on it exists, it should be expanded.
  • The reception section calls the game Dragon Quest, but the article is for the english version (since it is on the english wiki) so it should be called Dragon Warrior instead.

Wiki extras

Conclusion

Once the few problems I put down are fixed, this game is easily a GA article. It is well written, well cited, has good and useful images with good rationales, stable, accurate, and presents no bias without addressing opinion beforehand. Good work and let me know once these are fixed and I will proudly give this a GA label :D GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations in the lead/infobox

I've reverted the recent edit by Jinnai. The Manual of Style covers the necessity of citations in the lead section of articles and whether citations are required or not. I'm not stating the citations are required. But, just because something isn't required doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't see any harm being done in keep the citations in the lead. Any opinions?--Rockfang (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The items were non-contriversial, creator names and per WP:LEAD#Citations for non-contriversial info that is verified elsewhere there is no need.陣内Jinnai 05:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to your edit summary here, I reverted per BRD, then brought it here for discussion. I even posted a message on your talk page letting you know about this discussion. Also, as I stated above, just because there is no need for something doesn't mean something can't exist. The citations weren't hurting anything. Multiple featured articles (PlayStation 3 for example) have citations in the lead section for non-controversial statements. I could be wrong, but I think one purpose of the manual of style section I linked above is so people don't think citations are required in the lead section. Also keep in mind that the artist mentioned in the infobox that I gave a ref for doesn't appear to be named anywhere else in the article. I would think that if there is a citation for who the game's artist was, it should be where he is named. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. Hopefully more people will respond here with opinions, but honestly I don't see how adding 3 references to an infobox is such a bad thing.--Rockfang (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually they do hurt something, which is why WP:LEAD says to use them sparingly and only for truly contriversial statements. The creators are not contriversial. In addition, they would be removed if/when this article is brought to an FAC because of the reasons cited in LEAD, plus it makes it look like the info is actually more contriversial because it needs citations at each point.
PER WP:LEAD#Citations

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source

It does go on to say that its not an exemption, but it gives indication that this is usually for highly contentious statements or those that always require citations, like quotes. The creators of DW are not contentious.陣内Jinnai 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in that block of quoted text does it say "sparingly" or "only." Nowhere in that whole page does it say "sparingly" or "only" (when talking about citations).--Rockfang (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't have to use specific words to get to the same meaning.陣内Jinnai 23:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

source listing

For future reference: [1]陣内Jinnai 15:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo Power sources

See Talk:Dragon Quest#Nintendo Power sources, which was cross-posted there due to the current FAC of the Dragon Quest main article. Pretty much all of those sources are relevant and can possibly be used here. –MuZemike 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A-class assessment

I am requesting an A-class assessment of this article. I'd like to take it to FAC soon, before the mid April and would appreciate any comments that would help that.陣内Jinnai 18:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nczempin's feedback

I'll just note whatever occurs to me as I go through the article from top to bottom. I hope it will be in a readable format. Nczempin (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name vs. series

First of all the naming issue DW/DQ. It is a difficult one, and perhaps the current solution is the best compromise, and perhaps the issue has gone back and forth ad nauseam, but let me share my thoughts nonetheless: Dragon Quest is the first game in the Dragon Quest series, and it has an alternative name of Dragon Warrior. So I would name this article Dragon Quest (video game), the series Dragon Quest and introduce a redirect from Dragon Warrior to Dragon Quest. This way it is similar to Doom (video game) and Doom (series) (special case because doom is a generic English word), Final Fantasy (video game) and Final Fantasy, Splinter Cell (video game) and Splinter Cell. The DW peculiarity shouldn't distract from this basic fact, even though the game may perhaps be more well known under that title in the west (I wouldn't know either way). That the box art says "Dragon Warrior" would be an issue I wouldn't know how to resolve, but I wouldn't make it the prime reason to keep the title.

  • Dragon Warrior is still the only officially released title for this game, its much shorter than Dragon Quest (video game) and more likely a search term than the latter. It's also unclear whether anyone searching for Dragon Quest would be wanting this game rather than the series. Since their is an official English term that was commonly (and seems to be somewhat less commonly, but still often), its like this.
  • In fact, this title is used as the example for a general exception to the rule for series naming at Naming conventions (video games).陣内Jinnai 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
    • And do you agree with all that or are you just stating the facts (but possibly disagree)? In either case, fair enough. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Without a re-release or reviews the specifically mention its title as Dragon Quest without referring to its legacy name, I'd prefer to not have it changed. If I remember correctly, the mobile phone release my friend played from a few years back may still have used the Dragon Warrior name. I'll have to ask him, but even then I'd rather not since that English release is EXTREMELY obscure.陣内Jinnai 00:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

hat note

the only links in hat notes are supposed to be the ones that lead to the particular alternate pages. so not NES and not RPG. -- Nczempin (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RPGs

speaking of RPGs, since DQ is a RPVG, which is also an RPG, special care should be taken throughout the article(s) to differentiate between the general concept, its electronic form and its pen- and paper form. So, for example, Dragon Warriors can be distinguished from DW (even with a possible name change, where DW should still be addressed in the hat note) not by it being an RPG, but by it being a pnp one.

DQ media franchise

I have a similar problem when dealing with Splinter Cell (which I occasionally work on): Is it a series of games or a media franchise? Final Fantasy (or Pokemon) is clearly the second, but just because there are some tie-in novels it doesn't mean SC is a media franchise. I don't know how wide the range of material other than more-or-less directly game-related is in the DQ case. The article on the series says "series" so it's better to call it the DQ series here. Which brings me to the next point:

In general, wikilinks should be provided only when the referenced article will provide further information to the reader of the current article. So dictionary-like links (like currently "media franchise", "port", "remake") should be avoided. There are quite a few border line cases. But linking something like "mobile phone" is probably better not done.

Lead

The lead section should be a brief summary of the main article, so that an uninvolved outsider can see why the subject of the article is notable, and decide if he/she wants to read the more detailed sections. Details, such as enumerating specific platforms the game was ported to, are better left to the main article. There are guidelines for how many _paragraphs_ a lead section should have based on the length of the article; it surprised me that most articles would not deserve more than one paragraph according to those guidelines (I have no idea if this one falls into that category). But in general, detail should be avoided. The second paragraph repeates information from the intro sentence; the details of why the name was chosen are probably best left for the main article. All I would leave in is the fact that there are the alternate names (if you decide to make my suggested name change, some of the explanation can be nicely fitted in the hat note). The third paragraph can also be cut-down to just saying well-received in japan, less well in the West/rest (North America is not the only relevant place outside Japan) and unapologetically (without referring to FF) describing that it is credit with establishing the template (of what exactly may be open for debate, _all_ other RPGs is perhaps a little strong). Those details that would disappear (like the comparison to FF) can find a home in the main article (which they probably already do). I would actually reduce all that porting information just to "...published ... initially for the NES in 1986". Initially implies that it was not just for the NES. Of course it can be phrased more elegantly. The lead is as far as I've got for now. -- Nczempin (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I'll go with condensing it, but the last reference should remain as its important in noting that inspite its popularity, DW is credited by many sources as being THE game to set THE standard, not FF to the point its almost Tolkienish (although that last part would be OR as no one has compared DW & Horii's grip on the RPVGs so directly.陣内Jinnai 23:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Info on the renaming is removed. I added some more on later reviews and the related media. It's now 2 paragraphs instead of 3.陣内Jinnai 23:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Gameplay

  • Dragon Warrior uses console RPG mechanics are simplistic to the point of being Spartan and archaic. Aside from the grammar (I assume there is meant to be a "which" between "mechanics" and "are"), the way it is presented it sounds like a fact, when it should be presented as an opinion (anachronistically by the sources looking back; people at the time presumably didn't find it archaic or simplistic). This sentence should either be removed or moved to a section on the legacy / modern reception.
    • I think its nessasary in the gameplay section. It helps counterbalance the detailed description which may make it seem more complex to the lay person who has never played/seen someone play an RPG (believe it or not they do exist). The reason for needing to be detailed is explained below.陣内Jinnai 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why Hero needs to be capitalized.
  • The name having any effect on the statistics sounds very unusual; it is unclear as to what this actually means (it is too vague).
  • The naming effect is probably not the central gameplay element, so the sentence(s) should be placed later in the section.
  • The game consists of sounds strange; perhaps something like "the player guides his named character overland and through dungeons, fighting turn-based random battles along the way" would make a good first sentence, summarizing the main (AFAICS) gameplay elements; perhaps you can get the levelling in there as well. Then you could talk about specifics, and later the more obscure elements (like the effect of the name).
  • can take as long as they want. this is implicit (presumably; it's not like you have a chess clock) in turn-based, and thus redundant. not sure if the player ... they want is the correct form, but if the second part were removed, that problem goes away.
  • Experience points ... awarded ... allowing". Missing "are"?
  • There should be a comma after "allowing".
  • You could also rephrase that into a more active form by saying something like After each ...battle, the player receives experience points and gold, which he [or she? not sure what WP policies on these issues are] can use to increase the hero's ..
  • every command requires" sounds unnecessarily dramatic (for lack of a better term); just say something like "..., all commands, including opening doors and climbing stairs [perhaps some footnote as to why these are singled out; is it because of the remake or because an RPG gamer of the time would not have expected this---but beware of OR], are chosen via a menu system.
    • Given the phrasing of the reviews, I think being overly dramatic is warranted. As for phrasing, I'm not sure. Those two were singled out from the context as being items that one should not expect to need a menu, but even as a notation, that's probably violating WP:OR.陣内Jinnai 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  • stuff like is colloquial tone.
  • I would not mention the remake's gameplay differences here (it seems to come out of nowhere), since the remake is not the focus of this article; I would just note it at the place where the remake is discussed. Perhaps if you do that, it is no longer necessary to single out the commands just mentioned.
    • I've seen articles where the remakes or adaptations or discussed in the same section and where they are discussed elsewhere. IMO its an editorial decision. It would also not remove the need single out the commands as that has been the discussion of many reliable sources.陣内Jinnai 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Thought about it some more. Since the game has been remade so many different times with different gameplay elements in virtually every one, it could be seen as WP:UNDUE placing the changes for one of them in there and not the rest. Also placing them all would really bloat the section.陣内Jinnai 06:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Caves are ... dark, and ... -> Caves are ... dark, so .... Or just say In caves, the player needs to light...
  • Later in the game ... This is confusing (because it is not said that the previous sentence mainly applies earlier in the game), the two sentences should be tied together in some way, focusing on the _task_. E. g. In caves, the player needs to use illumination such as a torch or a magic spell [it's irrelevant when the spell is available] to display...
  • Presumably not the player needs to light a torch; it is difficult to make a correct phrase not sound contrived, though.
  • inventory feature was expanded: Unclear: was the size expanded? What was changed? Why is it mentioned?
  • More generally: Many of these gameplay elements sound very familiar to a casual observer/player of RPGs; do they really need to be described in this fair amount of detail? Wouldn't something suffice like "typical RPG gameplay elements are employed, such as ..., ... and ... " If it wasn't typical at the time, this should be mentioned (carefully avoiding OR). The gameplay section should really focus on what was different from previous games of the genre. Just imagine every RPG article repeating these at length.
  • this was changed to a save game system by talking to the king needs to be rephrased. It wasn't changed by talking to the king.
  • warp back to the castle. First mention of a castle; it should have been mentioned previously (..sets out from the base in the castle [of somethingorother?] on overland and dungeon journeys or something like that), or explained here.
  • Clear objective is POV; use something like "specific" or "overarching", or whatever fits the facts best without sounding like a comment.
  • don't switch between "player" and "players".
  • The game gives players a clear objective from the start of the game and a series of smaller scenarios to build up the player's strength in order to achieve that objective aside from the "clear", perhaps this long-winded sentence can be rephrased; perhaps turned into to (maybe linked with a semicolon?).
  • The ending could also be altered: Also? altered in addition to what?
  • The ending could also be altered: Could be altered? I think what is meant here that there are alternative endings.
  • depending on the moral dialogue choice. ambiguous; is it (moral dialogue) choice or (moral) dialogue choice? I know it's the second, but we shouldn't have to think about this.
  • whether or not the protagonist should join the antagonist sounds a little forced. I think it should be okay to name names (so they should have been mentioned before): The hero and ... . Or (because it really isn't necessary to spoiler or even mention the story---I know we don't mind spoilering, but that doesn't mean we have to do it in the gameplay section) it would be sufficient to note a moral choice near the end of the game.
  • So the whole final sentence should be brought back to the drawing board.

Synopsis, Plot

  • Shouldn't start out with peculiarities relating to some other game in the series.
  • Simplistic is POV, and even though it is in the source (I have only seen the Gamasutra one), it doesn't mean it's a fact. It is not necessary for understanding the game or the article. It would be better to simply stay with the facts, and let the reader judge for himself whether it's simplistic or not. If you really need to keep the comment, put it under something like "reception".
  • You should get to the basics of the story as quickly as possible, saving the details like who he's descended from for later: Something like "The protagonist of DW, a warrior descended from a legendary hero, is asked by King Lorik to save Princess Gwaelin the [evil] Dragonlord and retrieve the artifact called BoL." (that by itself would give enough indication of the simplistic plot). Then you can go into a little more detail, such as why the BoL is important, etc. (not sure if the names should be used or whether to say something like "asked by his king to save the princess.."
  • Perhaps you should mention the Hero if you haven't already (I haven't looked back yet on the section I've already commented on), because the capitalization is confusing: "The protagonist of DW, known as the Hero, ...".
  • their next objective -> the next objective, avoids the he/she/their issue.
  • is the destruction of the town an objective? that should be explained
  • weapons and armor is not an objective, retrieving them (or something like that) is. same for the relics
  • Once the Hero rescues -> has rescued. One thing happens after the other, they have to be different tenses. if "rescues", then "will fall in love" would be necessary. Same thing with collects the relics.
  • After "At this point" the Hero is suddenly in lower-case. why?
  • their fate is revealed... That sounds like you play someone else in DW2. Is this the case? Either way it should be clarified.


Synopsis:Characters

  • You can strike the first sentence (up to the semicolon): It is POV-endangered comment ("notable" is a typical POV word) and not really necessary. The paragraph can stand for itself without this introduction.
  • "Little is known" -> "Little is revealed"
  • Not sure whether the name details should be here, it's not really part of the story, but more part of the gameplay (IIRC the name was supposed to have an effect on the stats; you may have included that in a section I haven't re-reviewed yet).
  • What is Charlock? Some other (apparently) geographical terms should be briefly introduced (or footnoted).
  • So Dragonlord is a name? Perhaps that should be clearer in the plot section, like "rescue from the dragon called Dragonlord" or something like that.
  • What does "He rules from Charlock Castle viable from Tantegel Castle" mean? Viewable? Comma missing?
  • The Dragonlord's intention should come earlier, before the geography

Development and Release

  • sufficiently large to warrant two separate sections?
  • If you really need those two introductory sentences, give them their own paragraph. Otherwise you're jumping from initial production, to release, back to Horii's concepts. I would prefer not having these intros, though. Especially if you split the sections, just jump in chronologically.
    • Split that. I really think it should go first because the commentary came mostly from retrospective. I also moved the last paragraph up to it in order to put all release info in that section together.陣内Jinnai 17:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The whole first subsection jumps back and forth, sometimes repeats itself, then talks about nonlinear gameplay (not development); so far, it looks like it will need the most work on restructuring, too much to comment on briefly, I will hopefully get back to more detail once I've been through the whole article.

North American localization

  • so as to make it look more up-to-date: unnecessary
  • I nearly changed whereas the Japanese version used to had used, when I first realized that there is not really a one-thing-after-the-other relationship, and then I realized: Don't we (as the Wikiproject Video games talk about features of games in the present tense?

The graphics were improved is fine (albeit passive tense), but the other stuff is presumably still there in each particular release, isn't it? You may have to go through the whole article to check for this.

  • all this detail about megabits is probably less accessible to the lay reader than localization. "Twice the size" should be sufficient. And, more precisely, it is not the game but the cartridge which was twice in size (and then you need to explain it's not the physical size... oh boy, I don't have a solution. The ROM on the cartridge needs twice the capacity)
  • What's wrong with writing "September/October 1989" etc.? You use it inconsistently, as you spell out March/April. Least "controversial" would be just to spell them all out.
  • I'd like to know a little more about the text adventure; where did it come from (I don't mean geographicall; it seems to come out of nowhere)? How big/serious was it? I mean: who spent serious resources to add a (possibly) serious IF game just to promote the main game?

Super Famicom

  • Dragon Quest, along with Dragon Quest II, were remade as a one-cartridge compilation known as. That sentence sounds a little awkward, jumping back-and-forth between singular and plural.
  • For some reason I associate remake with independent (of the original creator), like a "cover version". Perhaps something like update would be better?
  • If you prefer (I don't) to keep the "overview sentence" to include enhanced graphics and sound, as well as enhancements in the game, make it flow into the detail description of the next sentence by using a colon.
  • Where these things were added is probably lost on someone who hasn't played the game. Even if you have described the locations (not sure you did or should), the lay reader would have forgotten by now. Either use more descriptive terms (non-in-universe) or just leave them out.
  • their rewards little awkward. Perhaps the rewards for defeating them.
  • BS Dragon Quest.. The way it is phrased, it sounds like this is an alternative name for what you described in the previous paragraph; only in the second sentence do you mention it was based on what you just said. I would start the second paragraph with something like "Based on this compilation, a game for the .. extension called..."
  • BS may have to be explained.
  • was added, was released, ... Please look for the passive tense and try to find the answers to "who added", "who released", ...
  • the period of a is redundant. If you don't like the sound of "over a month" (because it is associated more with something like "I have waited for this for over a month"), rephrase it differently than inserting the period..
  • needed to be completed within a certain time period is vague; I don't think it would hurt to describe more precisely how that all worked.
  • included... as a new feature -> something like introduced a ... feature
  • Just say has spawned a manga ..." Or list all those spawned media (which doesn't mean they'd each need their own section).
  • As I'm sure you know better than me, anime is not manga, so it is slightly misleading to put it in that section, even though one is based on the other. I don't have an immediately satifactory solution; call the section "Manga and anime" (also mention the anime in the introduction)?
  • It's unclear to me what the manga distribution library is.
  • CD, really? That is also a word the reader is not expected to know?
    • It's generally expected to be linked in these type articles, especially one that goes into detail about a symphonic suite on a CD; just because its common doesn't mean it shouldn't be linked (i realize its also its not a reason for it to be linked in and of itself). This is an article about media; one would expect all relevant media to be linked.陣内Jinnai 20:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If available, some info on how the manga came into being would be nice. Why did someone suddenly to decide to produce it? Only if non-obvious (the game was a success, so some guy in a suit decided to cash in SCNR); not sure if these are any more notable than the Splinter Cell novels.
    • There really isn't too much info save except for one volume of a light novel which I could add, but as it's part of a series, I think listing it here rather than together with the rest of the titles at DQ would be out-of-context.陣内Jinnai 20:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A very brief info on those manga creators would be nice, just something like a small part of an article intro sentence (assuming it will not just give obvious info such as "Japanese manga author")
  • Isn't some of this manga info more appropriate for the series article?
  • Dragon Quest Retsuden etc. appears twice
  • Not sure we need the full Japanese script titles in the middle of the article.
  • still ongoing is time-sensitive information. Either leave it implicit by removing the phrase, or add an as of template.
  • The paragraph break is unusual. You seem to continue talking about the sequel series. It would make more sense for the break to be before mentioning the sequel series.
  • Oh wait. It's [obviously?] a bit confusing. When you refer to them the second time, perhaps it would help to refer to them by their English titles (even if not official translations).
  • Story is in-universe, we don't understand it just from the knowledge gathered so far.
  • There are presumably two soundtracks: one is the actual music in the game, and the other is anything externally released. So are we talking about the music for the game here or the externally-released related media?
  • The direct quote about the foundation of his career needs a direct inline citation.
  • Lots of passive voice in this section.
    • Rephrased one of the statements to use active voice (last one). I tried another, but it seemed to change the meaning. The others I seem unable to restructure in a way that would remove the passive voice.陣内Jinnai 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand the spoken story with the music. Is it like a radio play, with DW's music in the background as a score? Wouldn't it be more notable that they released a radio play (another piece of related media)?
    • A drama CD is basically a cross between a drama (usually originally for radio) intersperced with lots of musical scores. Sometimes there is also music in the background. I don't have access to this CD, so I'd have to ask the author of the review how exactly it plays.陣内Jinnai 20:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Release details perhaps better in references?
  • You can combine the first part of the sentence "These orchestral tracks" with the last one "this album combined", saying something like "The orchestral albums for DW... were combined in the Symphonic..."
  • ..and perhaps even (if you relegate the precise release details to footnotes/references) with the sound effects album.

Reception and sales

  • wildly popular. That sounds a little unencyclopedic in tone.
  • regarded as a milestone would need a citation. It is probably an introductory sentence; you can make that clearer by using something like a colon to better link the sentences.
  • Nintendo Power critics. If you were consistent about insisting on specifying people rather than abstract entities, I would understand (like I am consistent about using italics in this review, COUGH). But you seem to have no qualms about magazines giving ratings later in the section.
  • Did they give it an average of 3/5, a result of 3/5, an average result, or...?
  • ..critics ranked..., later rating. a) Are these the same people? b) shouldn't the verbs agree?
  • I would prefer a more (roughly) chronological order; talk about the initial reviews first, then the US reception, .. and at the end the "legacy" things like top x of all time.
  • the section could use the odd additional sub-section or two.
  • DW was re-released. Aren't you repeating this information from the release section? If so, just say "the GBC remake DW1+2.." (or however many other bits of context are necessary)
  • Again with the summarizing intros. Just let the facts speak for themselves. You have probably answered this complaint several times; I will probably not agree with your justification. :-)
    • Going through reviews, for multiple articles, I have noticed more people than not would rather have a summary sentance for what can otherwise be detailed facts like who gives X a good review and why and who doesn't and why. Even the most engaging prose cannot cover the fact these items are usually dry, especially sales numbers.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • you are breaking the direct quote of Marc Nix and then using the wrong verb tense (which would have been appropriate if it had stayed a direct quote).
  • GameRankings gives it... is imprecise, because unlike individual reviews, aggregates cannot be said to give ratings, but perhaps to "report" (or a better phrase)
  • Am I confused? The Super Famicom has no reviews but sales?
    • None by RSes that I could find at the time. Although now that Magicbox is seems to be certified as a RS, it might have some sales figures and famitsu scores, but likely no reviews.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Remakes. I think I have commented on that term before.
  • in excess of. sounds bureaucratic. "more than" is fine.
  • success of this game. by this point, I'm not sure exactly which game you mean.
  • overall that paragraph, especially the last part, feels confusing.
  • Seemingly primitive by today's standards. I don't know where to start. Just scratch the phrase. If you object, I can analyse in more detail.
    • I can rephrase than, but removing that would be WP:NPOV violation because pretty much every single review, escept the NP ones (which the early ones can also be seen as biased since Nintendo published NP and DW) go out of their way to make it clear DW1 is primative, simplistic, Spartan, etc. Choose your word they are all synonyms. If you feel "primitive" is too WP:PEACOCKy, then I'm open to another word. However, this is by far the dominant view out there and we aren't in the business, especially in such overwhelming statement of the view, of covering it up, just making it clear it is a POV, not a fact.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • DW features. talking about features now instead of reception or sales.
  • "realism" lumped in with "death" sounds unintentionally funny. May be in the original source.
  • Not clear which game the Chi Kong Lui review refers to, and from what perspective (retro or contemporary?)
    • All of the games in the 3rd paragraph are the NES version. All of them appear to be retrospective. The only ones I know of from the time would be biased as they would be in NP, which as previously mentioned, published and really wanted to push the game. As such going into detail about any review by them is likely to be tainted; its enough to mention their general take on the game.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Seemingly. word to avoid. If it is the choice of words in the source, mark it. If you want to otherwise stress that it is merely his opinion, find another way.
  • I am not sure I understand what he means in the quote. Perhaps I'm missing some context. Does the rescued princess become an active member of the party?
  • past perfect error in the Gamespy quote. :-)
  • I'm not sure about this, but a lay reader will not know what all these different magazines/sites are (especially the ones that are not wikilinked), so perhaps you could add a little minimal info, adjective-style.
  • ..which is due as much ...". Is this a direct quote from the review or an OR justification?
    • Neither. It combines the 2 main points of 2 of the last paragraphs (4th and 3rd from the bottom). I did rephrase it a bit since he didn't use the term (optional) sidequest.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • the 1up explanation should be close to the NA release reception (breaking my chronology preference in this particular case is fine)
  • Sales is actually part of the reception, so you could just call the section "Reception". Receptions is composed of critical and audience reception (=sales)
  • ending the whole section on "playing it can be a chore"; don't know, it's funny. Perhaps unintentionally.
    • >_>
  • the way it is written it sounds like it's a chore because its historical significant. Presumably it's meant to be a contrast, so that should be reflected in the phrasing


As for the overall structure, I was thinking about redoing it. there are basically 2 ideas I have.

  1. Combine the middle paragraph with the NES reception
    1. Pro: It mimics the GBC/SF paragraph
    2. Con: It doesn't give the same impact on the game's historic reception.
  2. Split of the commentary from the GBC/SF paragraph and combine it with the commentary paragaph, or as a seperate sub-section.
    1. Pros: All the commentary is in one place and its all more centrally located.
    2. Cons: It can make the review scores look divorced from why they were given them.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Review by MuZemike

As I am going to be significantly harder on this review as opposed to many of the GA reviews I do, this may take a while, so please be patient with the review.

Lead issues

  • While you are OK as far as the size of the lead is concerned, you may wish to consider expanding to a third paragraph, especially if the article gets any larger than it is now. However, that is up to you right now.
  • In Dragon Warrior, the player takes charge of the Hero who is charged with defeating the DragonLord, a being who threatens Alefguard and rescues the King's daughter. → The Dragonlord rescues the King's daughter? At least, that's how I read it, unless you meant to say "captures".
    • Edited that. I'm not fond of the phrasing though, but am not sure how to do it. He isn't charged with rescuing the Princess; it just kind of happens, but when he does it is a major plot-point and is endemic to the cliche save the princess and slay the dragon story.陣内Jinnai 00:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
  • it release as Dragon Warrior in North America was initially received less favorably → I think that should be "its release". Also, the last part was initially received less favorably doesn't sound very good; I think it's the two words that end in "-ly". My suggestion is to make that active voice, such as "initially garnered less favorable reception" (I don't know if "garner" is the right word, but find a verb that best fits).
  • This goes for the rest of the article, in the context of the location on the globe such as the Western Hemisphere, "Western" and "West" should be capitalized.
  • The game later became the second part in a trilogy involving the first three games. → Change "involving" to "that encompasses"; first, that eliminates the "noun plus '-ing'" (see WP:PLUSING), and I think "encompass" fits better.
  • Later western reviews while noting its shortcomings, also note the importance to the genre. → There should be a comma after "reviews", as "while noting its shortcomings" is an appositive to "reviews".
  • The second part of that second paragraph should be in past progressive tense, as the reception of the game has been ongoing; start with:
    • Later western reviews while noting its shortcomings, have also noted ...
    • Many of those reviews also have praised (get rid of the "also" there, as there is already one in the previous sentence).
    • Even though Final Fantasy has been considered more important due to its popularity in the west, Dragon Warrior has been credited with establishing the basic template for all other RPGs.

Gameplay

  • I feel the section should use a more proper introduction, such as starting with that the game is and what the player is doing. Start with something like: Dragon Warrior is a role-playing video game in which the player controls the game's hero; he must rescue Princess Gwaelin and retrieve the Ball of Light from the Dragonlord. or something similar.
I feel, because that is basically the entiterity of the plot (every source basically hammers this point home to the point I feel not mentioning its simplistic nature in the plot would be biased; not one review (outside of the possibly somewhat biased NP) does not state it), that if we do this, we might as well just combine plot and gameplay.陣内Jinnai 18:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed to the following to hopefully meet in the middle here: Dragon Warrior is an RPG video game which uses mechanics that, years after its release, have been described as simplistic to the point of being Spartan and archaic. –MuZemike 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (as a general note) Being one of the earliest RPGs for home consoles, explain the gameplay elements slowly and clearly so that non-video game people or non-RPG people are able to easily understand.
Added some info on basic battle commands, but I'm not sure what you think is lacking (that can be sourced by secondary RSes).陣内Jinnai 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You don't mention anything about traveling into towns and gathering information from the townspeople. That is an integral part of the gameplay, in which many of the strategy guides have stressed the importance of gathering clues and writing them down.
Done.陣内Jinnai 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think it's a better idea to stick with the gameplay elements in the original Dragon Warrior game and then include the differences between later versions later in the section.
I thought I removed all of those references, but I'll recheck. I'll not in prinicple, I don't think "gameplay" sections nessasarily have to deal only with the original, but as there have been so many remakes, putting only a few here would bias it and putting them all would bloat it.陣内Jinnai 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the fact that all characters face forward in Dragon Quest is relevant in this section. Perhaps in the game's development, but not gameplay.
As it affects Japanese gamplay, it is relevant.陣内Jinnai 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've played either version, but I know in the English version, tapping the control pad in a certain direction would face the character in that direction while holding it down would eventually cause him to move. In the Japanese version, however, since all characters faced toward the screen I think tapping or holding the control pad in either direction could cause the person to move. If I remembered that correctly, that's the only difference I see in gameplay, but I'm unsure how significant this is. –MuZemike 20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Movement, yes, but actions like opening a door or talking no. Those require a seperate menu. I can clarify that.陣内Jinnai 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you're right about that. I overlooked that detail. –MuZemike 21:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you could explain a bit more in the Gameplay section; reading the section, it seems very quick and very vague. For instance, there is nothing about spells, in which I think a few sentences at the least can be devoted to that. I would rearrange the section into a more organized paragraph structure, with a paragraph for each of the following: introduction/beginning of game (i.e. choosing a name and "open-ended" nature), controls/menu/gathering information, battle system and possibly battle stats like EXP/gold, and perhaps a brief description of basic items. If I get some additional time, I can write something up myself to give you a better idea what I have in mind. –MuZemike 21:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Um...not sure what more do with spells. Too much as it looks like a gameguide or OR. I guess I could be specific on the number and how they are cast out of combat, but that's about it.
    • And yes, Do a version (pref here or on your userspace for that section) so I can have a look over it, including making certain refs match.陣内Jinnai 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I put together a working draft of my improved version of the Gameplay section in my sandbox. I expanded a bit more and incorporated both primary and secondary sources. I tried to be as detailed as I could (in order to explain simple RPG terms to those non-RPG or non-video game people out there) without running afoul of GAMEGUIDE. Let me know how it looks and/or make some changes if you like. –MuZemike 01:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and implemented the changes that I had. Hopefully, this nicely complements the rest of the article and is not too terribly overdetailed; given that this is an early console RPG and to reach to those non-video game people (especially if this makes the Main Page as an FA). I also included information on the NES/Famicom differences in the controls, which were not previously in there; in addition, the "A Slime draws near" image now fits much better layout-wise in proximity to the infobox. Feel free to make any changes if needed; I know I used my citation system with regards to referencing from the game's instruction booklet, and if you wish to change that for consistency purposes/your preferences, go ahead. –MuZemike 23:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I'm on a semi-wikibreak. I went and looked at the changes. Other than a few minor points it seems fine. I'll probably go and change the citation style as it will likely be an issue in FAC.陣内Jinnai 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot

  • Any additional information about Erdrick (Loto) in the story, such as his battles with the Dragonlord? (I know the manual and many of the guides out there as well as the game itself mention all of this.)
  • The formerly peaceful Kingdom of Alefgard was plunged into darkness when the Balls of Light,... → It's too close to the excerpt from the NES instruction manual: In the time of King Lorik XVI, the balls of light were stolen from Tantagel [sic] Castle by the evil Dragonlord, and once again the kingdom of Alefgard was plunged into darkness.
  • That last sentence in the first short paragraph in the Plot section can be reasonably referenced by the manual, as that prophet basically describes who the main protagonist is (i.e. a descendant of Erdrick).
  • Starting in the King's chambers in Tantegel Castle, players learn ... → You can cite that from the game itself, using the {{cite video game}} template and taking various quotes from some of the townspeople. It also may be in Nintendo Power's guide, as well, but I don't recall at the moment, and I don't have that guide on me right now.
  • The prose needs another good copyedit: here are a few problems grammar/structure wise with the prose:
  • Other character's task the Hero to rescue her. → There is no apostrophe in "characters".
  • In the process monsters reappeared and rumors began to spread about several towns and villages being destroyed, parts of the land were transformed into poisonous marshlands. → Commas should be placed after "process" and "reappeared". Replace that second part to rumors began to spread that several towns and villages have been destroyed and that parts of the land have been transformed into poisonous marshlands.
  • If players choose the former, the game ends and the Hero is put to sleep and the game freezes; → should be the game ends, the Hero is put to sleep, and the game freezes.
    • Ditto above with comma usage.陣内Jinnai 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Plot per WP:WAF doesn't really need referencing except when claiming analytical items, ie "The Dragonlord's evil plans to take over the world...". The only thing here that really needed that was the part about what happens to the character because there is some dispute that is what happnes in the original, ie there are some who say he simply joins the DL and they conquer the world together. However, I'm still trying to find RSes that claim that. I don't know what to do here because its a widely held belief among the fan community and not stating that would be a WP:NPOV violation because it has been (and seems to still be) widely held belief and yet no RSes mention that. We can't really ignore it because I can't find RSes; NPOV is a pillar; RS is a guideline. WP:V doesn't really say anything on the quality of the sources, except secondary are preffered in most cases.陣内Jinnai 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently also trying to rework the Plot section a little bit, and I found one loose end that needs tying up: when the game starts, we're only assuming that the player plays the role of the descendant of Erdrick; remember that many of the people of Alefgard no longer believed in the prophecy that the descendent of Erdrick would come and save the land, hence the need to prove one's identity with Erdrick's Token and why some say: "Art thou the descendant of Erdrick? Hast thou any proof?"

There is also another small loose end, but I'm not sure if it should be mentioned in this article, as it may be more appropriate in the Dragon Warrior III article, regarding how Erdrick originally saved Alefgard from perpetual darkness. Any thoughts with regards to whether or not we should expand on that would be great. –MuZemike 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote up a rework draft of the Plot section in my sandbox again (as done with the Gameplay section); here, I decided to combine the "Characters" and "Plot" sections into one, basically dedicating one entire paragraph to the Dragonlord and another half to the hero. I rewrote a good part of the section, added in a bit of new stuff from the plot information from the Explorer's Handbook, and tried to cut-and-paste the rest of the other stuff to where I felt would most logically fit. Let me know what you think. –MuZemike 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised it. Since the backstory is larger than the game's plot, I think it should be subdivided. Not sure the subsection for the game's plot is named the best, but I can't think of something. It's unusual for a game to have this level of detailed backstory. I also think separating the characters should be done. They might not need to be decided into the Hero and Dragonlord, but the info in that section doesn't fit with the rest of plot as it described the characters, not the plot. I also did some minor copyediting to remove some verbose phrasing.陣内Jinnai 20:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks good for the time being. I don't know what would happen at FAC with regards to the "Characters" section, but we can see what happens. –MuZemike 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Development and release

Where the release date is mentioned in the section seems out of place. I feel that it might be better to go right down chronologically as far as the development history is concerned. Alternatively, it could also be mentioned right from the start (as there is not much on the mobile phone version, and there's no other logical place to mention that release) and then go into the initial development in 1985. This is how I visualize the organization:

  • Release dates
  • Early influences
  • Initial development (e.g. starting with Yuji Horii and his team at Chunsoft began production of Dragon Quest in 1985.)
  • Score
  • Nonlinear gameplay (which is good where it is right now)

–MuZemike 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Some other issues:

  • The "Nintendo Power volume 221" reference (in which the citation needs cleanup, BTW), is there a better title for that?
  • alongside anime-style art by Akira Toriyama. - the first part of that sentence is missing.
  • I'm sure there is some more material out there with more information regarding Nintendo Power's giveaway, including that it was used to virtually save the franchise and Enix.
  • There's also another retrospective from 1UP.com (more focused on the series, but has good information on the game) here.

–MuZemike 20:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions

Right now, I just have the lead done. I'll note more issues as I progress with the review. –MuZemike 00:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have just obtained a copy of the Dragon Warrior Explorer's Handbook, which was shipped from Nintendo Power with every copy of the game that was given away to subscribers back in 1989 (see [2] and [3] for what I mean). I haven't been able to locate the other strategy guide Nintendo Power released, as it was bundled with one of the 1989 issues but was obviously separated :( I'll look through it and see if I can locate any more useful stuff. –MuZemike 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Quest_(video_game)/Archive_1&oldid=1092053631"