Talk:Final Fantasy Legend II/GA1

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 14:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. Will try to start getting you some feedback within the next week. Feel free to ping me if I forget. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi! While I'm not directly involved in the review process, I think it would be important to note that it can be confusing to include the remake titles in the same infobox/context as the original gameboy release, given distinct differences between the two types. It might be more appropriate to create a separate infobox under the remake section with slightly expanded content here, or even a new article entirely. Thanks for helping in the GA process both of you!Spilia4 (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Take the above comment from Spilia4 under advisement. I think it's a good idea and I might even encourage it, but I don't know if this violates any standard practice, or anything in the WP:VG/MOS.
• Minor quibble with the opening sentence of the gameplay section. Sometimes it can be a lot to hit the reader with a long and complicated sentence right off the bat, and a hard break / period might be better than joining two phrases with the word "while". (This is more of a suggestion.)
• "The player navigates a character throughout the game world with a party of up to four characters" -> "The player navigates a party of four character through the game world"
• "Initially limited to the First World to explore, the party is given access to other worlds as they progress through the game" -> "The party slowly unlocks new worlds to explore, starting with the First World."
• "Players can save their game anytime and anywhere when not in combat to the selected save slot for later playing" -> this can probably be said in fewer / clearer words
• What's a "field screen"? Is it an important concept in the game or interface?
• "hints about story progress" -> not sure what this means exactly, and this could be clearer
• "travel across the world map screen and hostile areas such as dungeons is occasionally interrupted"
• "attacking enemies with equipped magic and spells, and using items such as healing potions when needed." -> "where party members take turns using abilities such as attacks, spells, and items."
• "with humans mainly gaining health upgrades and monsters focusing on magic point upgrades." -> "with different upgrades between character types".
• "they can be revived by the character Odin for another chance in exchange for needing to fight him at a in the future point"
• "perspective to an angled 3D perspective" -> find another word for perspective, to avoid using this twice
• "Unlike the Game Boy version, battles in the DS version no longer occur randomly, and were adjusted to be more like later games in the SaGa series where enemies appear on the field screen along with the player and are encountered when touched" -> there's probably a shorter and clearer way to say this
• "Also unlike the original, where a character's stat increases through gaining levels was largely randomized, characters have stat increases defined by growth tables for each playable character" -> "The remake also changes level-up bonuses from a random system to a defined growth table for each character type."
• "Other new additions are combination attacks, the ability to chain battles together, additional rewards based on preset conditions, and the new "Thread of Fate" mechanic which is manipulated through gameplay actions to trigger additional storyline events." -> almost all of this sentence is unclear. What is chaining battles together? What are preset conditions, and what kind of rewards? What types of gameplay actions trigger what types of storyline events? Come to think of it, combination attacks could mean a lot of things too.
• The synopsis is decent. But maybe start by defining who the protagonist is. Even if it's as simple as "The player takes control of a protagonist of their own design."
• "New gods have gained power using pieces of the MAGI and seek out more fragments to increase their power. The protagonist's father is revealed to have belonged to a group called the Guardians, who fear bringing together all the MAGI will bring about catastrophe." -> I think you're trying to say that these gods are messing with the MAGI in a dangerous way, but it's not quite clear by the order / phrasing of these sentences
• "When all but one of the MAGI are collected" -> avoid passive voice as it's not clear who is collecting. I'm guessing the player / party?
• "Production began"... -> Don't forget to state the obvious. "Production of Final Fantasy Legend II"
• "so when production began the focus was on refining and polishing the already-established mechanics rather than starting over from scratch" -> "so the game initially refined the mechanics of the previous title".
• "So Tanaka and other staff members could join the project, Kawazu had to wait until development wrapped on Final Fantasy III." _> "Kawazu had to wait for Tanaka to finish his work on Final Fantasy III, among other staff members who joined the project."
• "Including Kawazu and Tanaka, the game's staff was ten people strong" -> "The game was developed by a team of ten staff, including Kawazu and Tanaka."
• "The "Teacher" character who acts as an instructor and supporting character for the cast was directly based on Minwu" -> this is heavily implied by the fact that they are a teacher
• "who filled that role on the original SaGa" -> "the cover artist for the first title".
• "level design layout"
• Drop the review from "lost levels". They don't appear to be a reliable source, and it's not verifying anything that can't be verified in a more reliable source. The sources are otherwise solid, with appropriate/sparing use of primary sources.
• There are some funny square bracket things happening in a few of the citations/footnotes. Not sure what that might be about.
• Let's pause there for now. The article is in decent enough shape and with a bit more work it can probably get to WP:GA status. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: I think I've addressed everything above, including the suggested inclusion of a small infobox for the DS remake. The removal of the Lost Levels interview with Moriyama I do under a slight protest as it showed them as being involved with other Square projects. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, I didn't realize that Lost Levels was an interview, and interviews are always a special case. I think it's sort of moot since it doesn't cover anything that you need to source. But if there is something you feel strongly about, I don't mind if you bring it up with some other members from the WikiProject to get more feedback.
• "The game was released under its SaGa 2 title by Square in Japan on December 14, 1990" -> This is a mouthful. How about "Square published the game in Japan as SaGa 2, on December 14, 1990."
• "The game box and manual were larger than its peers, as the team wanted the product to stand-out."
• Is the release-bug important? Might remove that, but I wouldn't insist. Maybe there is a better place to include this.
• "their original Final Fantasy branding was retained as a subtitle to avoid undue confusion for original players" -> "they included the original Final Fantasy branding in their subtitle to avoid confusion for original players"
• "arrangeing" -> "arranging"
• "The remake was produced to add new features but still keep the core story and gameplay of the original, and is designed to retain the Game Boy version's play time of "ten-odd hours" from start to finish, which Kawazu felt as adequate for a handheld role-playing game" -> this is a mouthful and might work better as two shorter sentences. It also starts too similarly to the previous sentence ("the remake") which is a little awkward.
• Maybe change the Nintendo DS remake section to a full section, instead of a subsection. It's now bigger than the release, since it includes information about its development.
• There might be a little too much sales data -- we don't really need the October update, in my opinion. I think you brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Video_games#Sales/budget_creep;_Over-recording_of_game_sales_increments_and_totals.
• "found it to be easier" -> "found the game to be easier"
• "but noted a lack of enjoyment carried over from the previous game due to lacking traditional experience points." -> "but did not enjoy the removal of its experience point system".
• The IGN quote restates what you said outside the quote. You can summarize the comment about the art, or add the quote, but maybe not both.
• "describing it as providing "hours of role-playing excitement, whether you were waiting in a dentist's office or on the way to Grandma's house" -> I'm not sure this quote really adds any meaningful information. You could take it out or briefly summarize whatever you think the main point is.
• The sequence here is tricky because there are so many re-releases. But I might at least try to put the paragraph about the awards / special rankings in chronological order, particularly the 1992 Nintendo Power ranking.
• "noted the redone graphics and gameplay elements made the game seem fresh, with one reviewer positively noting how easy it was to play" -> "approved of the redone graphics and gameplay elements, as well as the game's ease of play"
• "RPGamer's Michael Baker praised the remake's faithfulness to the original game, lauded the changes made to its progression systems and graphics, and negatively noted its exclusivity to Japan" -> "RPGamer's Michael Baker praised the changes to the game's progression system and graphics while remaining faithful to the original game overall."
• "but that despite its quality the game had aged notably over time, making it a hard game for modern players to engage with" -> "though he also felt that the game had aged poorly for modern tastes."
• "The resultant game, Romancing SaGa, was released in 1992 under Kawazu, with Ito returning as sole composer" -> "This resulted in the 1992 release of Romancing Saga, produced by Kawazu with Ito returning as sole composer."
• "the following year" -> this is a little tricky since you just said 1992, so it sort of sounds like you mean 1993, until you say that the North American release came out in 1993.
• That covers most of the article. We may want to circle back on the lead and the bigger picture, but we're getting closer. Thanks for your work and your patience. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Did my best to sort out all your points again. And as to Lost Levels, there's a consensus at the SQEX WikiProject that interviews are a special case, and I had included it to show that the person behind the localization had a history with the company prior to working on FFL2, but it's not essential. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We are in the home stretch then. Circling back to the lead now that I've seen the whole thing.
• "The second entry in the SaGa series, it released in Japan in 1990, and in North America in 1991." -> "The second entry in the SaGa series, it was released in 1990 in Japan, and 1991 in North America."
• "A later edition released in North America" -> "A later edition was released in North America"
• "During gameplay exploring the different worlds, players explore and fight" -> "During gameplay, players explore" or "While exploring the different worlds, players fight"
• "stat increases" -> "ability increases"
• "Beginning production in 1989 after the success of The Final Fantasy Legend," -> "Production began in 1989 after the success of The Final Fantasy Legend." (period)
• "than the original" -> "than the first game in the series" (only because there are so many remakes that this becomes a little confusing)
• Maybe throw in a date for the Romancing Saga game, just to match Final Fantasy III. Does it make sense to reverse the order of these, in the lead?
• giving the rest of the article one more quick pass...
• "MAGI, magical stones found during the story, can be equipped to characters to boost their stats or grant new abilities" -> "The party will find magical stones called MAGI that can be equipped for new abilities and upgrades."
• The synopsis is a little shaky and could use another pass. If you are struggling with it, I can make a few more suggestions.
• "Other new additions are the ability to chain more than one encounter for a boost in experience and items, and the new "Thread of Fate" mechanic which allows for combining two or more party members' attacks and growing affinity with them, which triggers additional storyline events" -> this sentence is a little long and could probably stop at combining party members' attacks. If the rest is really important, maybe try restructuring the sentence into two separate sentences.
• "Dexter Sy of IGN found that the game had aged when compared to more modern role-playing titles, but cited it as the best of the series' Game Boy titles despite it being an old release" -> the old release idea is introduced twice. I'd drop either the first part of the last part, since you don't need both.
• "The resultant game, Romancing SaGa, was released in 1992 under Kawazu, with Ito returning as sole composer"
• Some of the sequence feels like it could be more clear, as the chronology becomes confusing:

  Considering the release and re-release, consider making the sections more chronological. I am not sure what the precedent is for other games of this sort, but I'm interested if you have any suggestions to make the article feel more chronological and clear.

  Consider moving the awards to its legacy, as a lot of those came well after its reception, and position the game in the overall industry.

• That should cover off most of it. Thanks again for your work. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Covered most of what you mentioned. I'd mostly based this on Final Fantasy Legend III in terms of structure, which got past GA without...as much comment for whatever reason. I'm afraid internal article chronology can get messy on Wikipedia, and it's already been sorted out as far as possible without splitting off into other articles, which is impractical as there's not enough information to merit a split. As to the Synopsis...I've trimmed it and tidied it a bit, but the story's is naturally messy and alternately barebones and convoluted. Honestly, I feel like SaGa's a cursed series for any Wikipedian to work on in any capacity. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to say this passes our GA standards. I agree with you that it's easy to make the chronology worse, instead of better, and the article is organized the best it can for such a complicated history. The synopsis reads a lot better now too. Thanks again for your work on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]