Talk:The Guardian Legend/Archive 2

Genres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The clear consensus is that the two genres of The Guardian Legend are action-adventure and shoot 'em up (the latter can also be considered a scrolling shooter). MuZemike (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Per the recent edit history, what are the genres of this game? MuZemike (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RPG — I'm not sure if I'd be good at classifying this game. To me, TGL (without the "TGL" password) is an action-adventure with scrolling shooter stages and console RPG elements. Tokuma calls it an RPG, but I'm not sure if it's that much like one.

I agree with the anonymous editor(s), when they say that TGL has RPG elements. In addition to the "experience points"-style score that the editor mentions--"level ups" add a point of max health and refill the health bar once--the game has a large dungeon with an overview map, like some console RPGs. It does not have turn-based battles like many other console RPGs--it's more like an "action RPG", if that.

The Japanese guidebook specifically calls the game "The supreme RPG & shooter masterpiece!" on the front cover, per the scans I received through the email address I posted. (A Yahoo Japan auction shows the cover and a few other parts, which effectively match the scans, and the cover specifically says "RPG".)

The article itself states that it's been liked to a combination of Legend of Zelda and other games, and GameSpot (though back when it was called videogames.com and less reliable, apparently) said "Zelda opened a generation of gamers' eyes to the joys of action RPGs". Link and The Guardian "level up" in different ways: Link with items like the heart pieces, and The Guardian with high scores. Both get upgraded weapons and shields in somewhat different fashions.

Does calling TGL an "RPG" and a few console RPG elements make TGL an RPG? I'll let others decide that. Some elements of console RPGs are certainly there, though.

(If you need the scans that were sent to me, I can forward them to you. They have Japanese elements obscured with the English translations, but the "RPG" part on the front cover is partly visible, for example.) --an odd name 03:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, The Legend of Zelda also has that, but is considered an action-adventure and not a straight RPG. I basically consider The Guardian Legend a space-shooter version of The Legend of Zelda, complete with the action-adventure element, but not necessarily the RPG element, as the extend life portion is the only "level-up" factor in the game; the player has to collect everything else. However, I do understand why it can be called as such.

If I find a better clarification, I will explain as so. MuZemike (talk) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Action-adventure — If we are strictly going by the relevant Wikipedia article, then I don't think the classification should be changed. As the article states, while games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas incorporate RPG elements, they may not be strictly classified as RPGs. Classification here should be determined by which descriptors best fit the game, and I don't think The Guardian Legend is best described as an RPG. Rg998 (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Action-adventure — We go with what references say. According to this, it starts out as a shooter, but then becomes a Zelda style adventure.[1] This one says it's a shoot em up.[2] This one says it's an action adventure.[3] This one says it's an action game.[4] Usually when the research conflicts like that, you try to draw the "line of best fit", meaning that you try to incorporate all of them, and leave out the ones that don't make sense. I think the line of best fit is probably action-adventure. Randomran (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Action-adventure — Given the comments here and the minimal set of RPG elements in TGL, it should not be classified as an RPG. If any of the print sources (besides Tokuma) call it an RPG, or say it has RPG elements and calls them such, they could probably be mentioned in a single sentence in, say, Development and nowhere else:

A Guardic Gaiden game guide called it "the supreme RPG & shooter masterpiece",^[cite] and [some print source] has said the game's score system and [other elements] are elements of console RPGs,^[cite] but other sources have called it an "action-adventure" game,^[cite] an arcade-style shooter [was the term "shoot-em-up" used in the late 80s?],^[cite] or a hybrid of both.^[cite]

If not, the only real mention of TGL as an RPG I've seen is that gameguide, and we can safely forget about even saying "RPG" in the article. Either way, I think now that it can definitely be classified as "action-adventure" and "scrolling shooter", and that other sections should not mention "RPG"; those can be sourced, of course, if we think that can stabilize the article. --an odd name 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Action-adventure — Basically, there are more sources that affirm that this is an action-adventure than an RPG (as Randomran pointed out above), combined with the close resemblance to The Legend of Zelda (which I have mentioned above) as well as Golvellius — both being considered action-adventure games. Hence, due to the majority of sources stating The Guardian Legend as an action-adventure game and common sense, I have to incline that it is an action-adventure game. MuZemike (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note — I have brought this to the attention to the WikiProject's talk page here. If the anon keeps persisting, I will request for editor assistance. MuZemike (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Question — I am assuming that everyone agrees that The Guardian Legend is also considered a shoot 'em up, is that correct? MuZemike (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, shoot 'em up — it has scrolling shooter stages with and without the password, starts out as one, is a sequel to Guardic, and has enemies and elements from scrolling shooter Zanac and vertical shooter Guardic. It's very much one. --an odd name 21:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - if there were such a thing as a "shoot 'em up adventure" or a "shooter adventure", this would be it. But since action adventure kind of abstracts shooting/slashing/punching/jumping/climbing all together, it's not surprise that term gets thrown around to describe the game. Calling it a "shoot 'em up action adventure" would be accurate, and supported by reliable research. Randomran (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japanese Webpage with Instruction Manual

After some searching on Japanese sites and I found this one with some pages of the instruction manual. I put a translation up on this subpage . There are interesting bits and pieces of new info here and there that might be useful. Towards the end in the totally unsourced "various" section there's a bit about the aishou miria (pet name miria) thing. The actual manual will still be needed for sourcing, but I guess those parts won't have to be translated later at least. If anyone finds anything that needs to be translated that could be helpful in improving this article, please let me know. 地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that page and its Miria bit before, and left it out for the same reasons. I hope the game manual says something on that (the game guide wasn't as clear on that as I hoped). --an odd name 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Guardic Gaiden manual

Today, I finally got my hands on a (previously unopened) copy of Guardic Gaiden. I scanned the manual as well as an index card that came with the game, which are en route to 地炎風水闇陽 as I speak. It also came with a poster of Naju, but unfortunately that was just a larger version of an image from the manual. Additionally, I was able to acquire a compilation of Famicom Tsūshin reviews from 1988, and I scanned the two page review of Guardic Gaiden. It looks like the review correlates with the previously reported Famitsū score (7.50) so we may have a citable source for that data.

Exciting times indeed! Rg998 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The manual and index card are complete. The famitsuu almanac two page spread, some of which is written in a bright aqua color against a white background, looks like it would be a massive pain to edit, especially considering I'm using MSPaint at the moment. I'm going to have to skip the total translation of it and just pull the relevant lines out of it. The main reason for this is that while it does mention the 7.50 cross review score in the left most "information" section, these two pages are actually a game guide with very little editorial writing present. Only the tiny purple section in the middle of the first page could be called a review.

One strange thing about the list of information at the left (the black box which is probably listed on every other game's page) is that it ranks the game in some unknown "sales" list as appearing twice at a maximum rank of 19th. What exactly this sales ranking/list is might be mentioned elsewhere in the magazine. 地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 01:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I cited the character-name stuff from the manual, and will add the Famitsu notes at some point. --an odd name 10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Famitsu score has been added. I'm not (yet) sure how it should be added to the mostly-American Reception prose, but the score's in the review box for further fun. --an odd name 18:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be tough to append it to the article prose because the magazine didn't mention any of the specifics of their cross review or who wrote it, only that it happened and that averaged the score was 7.50. Some of the fansites indicated the score as 30/40 so that is at least factually correct.地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I have added a link to the article of the same name at Wikiquote under External Links. If anyone has any other quotes besides that from the game which could be useful, either add it down here (then I'll add it) or create an account over there and add it yourself. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alien Species

The Guardic Gaiden manual explicitly states that five different species of alien creatures are vying for control of Naju. It seems to me that this is a relevant piece of storyline information that could be added to the article (if only as a note). What do you think? Perhaps someone more familiar with the original Japanese text could add it.

Of course, we would also have to specify that this information is not found in the NA/EU versions. Rg998 (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. If someone decides to add it, the line to cite is this one on page 13 of the manual: この惑星では５つの種族がなわばり争いをしているのだ。 literally, on this planet it is that 5 species/tribes are doing turf war. Or in English, "5 species are warring over territory on this planet". Then it displays a list of the species, their name, and the territory they rule. That part would probably be seen as minutiae.

By the way, I'm clueless as to where the Tokuma game guide found the name of the Naju entry opening boss. It wasn't indicated anywhere in the manual. Maybe there's another resource out there somewhere?地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 12:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward tribes, actually, as the bosses look awfully different to be part of the same species. I'll defer that change to others, though.

(The pertinent part seems to be shuzoku (種族). Per JWPce's "Get Info" feature the two characters mean "species/kind/class/variety/seed" and "tribe/family", respectively. J-Talk's converter reads the pair as "race; tribe; family; species;". Google Translate reads the quote as "The planet is five tribal territory of the dispute", which while utter nonsense does lean toward "tribes"; it reads the pair alone as "Race". Yahoo! Babel Fish reads it as "With this planet five races dispute over territorial claims." Finally, the Japanese nifty and OCN tools say "By this planet, five races are carrying out the territorial fight" and "5 races are doing a personal distance quarrel at this planet", respectively. So perhaps five tribes or races of aliens. Species looks weird when used for groups of wildly-different creatures, to me.) --an odd name 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking back, the word species does have that unwanted scientific classification connotation to it. There's no evidence that the lifeforms are all of the same biological kingdom. I use this site http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E7%A8%AE%E6%97%8F/UTF-8/ when analyzing all the ways a word may be used, and it is easy enough for english speakers to search for words or phrases on. Since clearly there's no one ultimate translation of the word, we need to figure it out through context, and context here suggests a less specific word than species.地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points - I'm glad you brought this up. To me, "tribes" makes more sense than "groups" or "races" in this context, and "families" or "species" could both imply an unproven genetic connection. I have made the change; however, if there is a consensus for another term here we can change it again. Rg998 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Resolved

 – IP activity has stopped. MuZemike (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am starting the dispute resolution process by requesting editor assistance over the genre(s) of the game. MuZemike (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Working towards A-Class

While major activity on this article has slowed recently, I think that the new information added since the GA review makes a good case for eventual elevation of the article to A-Class on the assessment scale. What do you think? Are there any other key changes or additions that should be made before the article is reassessed? The goal certainly seems within reach. Rg998 (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've already nominated the article for A-Class over a week ago at WP:CVG/A (that shortcut really should be changed). They seem to be backlogged right now with nominations, not to mention there is no formal process for A-Class within WPVG. Id does require that two assessors approve the article's promotion. Regarding the rather small problems this article had at GA, I think it stands a good chance of A-Class. MuZemike (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Some real development info for this article would be nice, but there's hardly anything to be done about the fact that (probably) none exists anywhere, in any language. The other sections could be called comprehensive. AMHR285 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that's what may keep it from reaching FA. MuZemike (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Article is now A-Class! Great job! Only one more step from here. MuZemike (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Planet Naju

[5] — is it an actual living planet or a space station? The English manual is not clear on this; what about the non-English sources? What do they say? MuZemike (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AMHR285's translation of the Japanese manual variously calls it "a giant capsule of unknown purpose sent off by an alien existence long ago" (p. 3) and a "planet" (pp. 6, 13). I think referring to it as a "large space object" (maybe not "large celestial body", if it's not known to be natural) or somesuch, with a Note on the various names ("star" in the English dialogue, "planet", "capsule", etc.), would be the way to go. There is a "living" part of Naju, of course (said translation mentions the "biological world" as one part of five), but that's only one of many. --an odd name 22:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Japanese sources anymore but from what I can remember it wasn't consistent, and the words I chose were chosen to reflect that. During the story section, which used more fanciful language, it was called a large 物体 of unknown use. 物体 (buttai) is a rather distal technical term referring to physical or theoretical masses in a scientific context. Specifically, JP wikipedia suggests the article on Physical body, and goes on to explain that it is one of the main subjects of physical science. Anyway, in the rest of the book, which was much less distal, it was referred to as 惑星 Naju (You must activate the 10 devices inside Planet Naju!). 惑星 (wakusei) is the word for Planet, and JP wikipedia elaborates that it refers to celestial bodies orbiting a star that are of a mass lesser than that of the theoretical lower limit of Brown Dwarfs. Now, I don't think naju is orbiting the sun, so my opinion is - they're just words. I'd personally just go with whatever the english manual says. AMHR285 (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Page 3 of the US manual simply calls Naju "a huge world", and no other words (besides "globe") are assigned to it in that manual. --an odd name 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)