Talk:Folklore (video game)

Changed credit

Changed the Created by Credit to Cozy Okada from Kouji Okada as Cozy is how he is usually credited. Zippedpinhead 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Information

Does anyone have any real information on this game? The trailer seems to give off the impression that the game is being developed by Game Republic, the developers who did Genji, not GAIA, the developers who did Monster Kingdom: Jewel Summoner. Neither the official GAIA website, or the official Game Republic website mention anything about this game. So, I've doubts whether Okada is actually involved with this game or not, especially since the "Monster Kingdom" part of the title has been removed entirely. --Serph 11:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken with Atlus USA, the people who localized Jewel Summoner, and I was told that, Gaia (Okada's company) is not involved with the development, but Cozy Okada does have some creative input. --Serph 21:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New information and new title?

http://ps3.qj.net/index.php?pg=49&aid=87269

"Folks Soul" appears to be the new title, as if switching to Unknown Realms after Monster Kingdom wasn't enough. And there are new screens and information there, too.

So, the article needs to be renamed and rewritten? I certainly have no desire to do so, so, hopefully someone else will. --Serph 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of this article actually be Folklore to reflect it's North American name, with a notice that it's know in Japan as Folksoul? Deathawk 23:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did the announcement of a localized English version come along with any projected release dates? Or specific regions for release? --GargoyleMT 16:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's just "TBA" in America. Personally, I'd expect to see it in late 07/early 08, since they've clearly made quite a bit of progress on it for America. But, eh. --GR 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

You guys might want to have Folk Soul redirect to this article. I read about the game called Folk Soul on the PS3, and had to go through a zillion different pages before I found out the article was under the western name.

Hirohiko Araki

Is it true that he's working on this?--209.243.31.233 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Article updates

Added new screenshot (the original one was weird, it wasn't very clear at all) and a fair bit information. Also some corrections. - Admeister200x - 4th October 2007. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening song

I heard that Folklore's opening song was Nephilim by abingdon boys school in the Japanese release. Was this carried over the international versions? Antisora 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Major problem with criticism section

Anonymous editors keep deleting information in the criticism section. This has to stop, what can we do? Black-Velvet 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I can see why. Most of the article is full of information that isn't appropriate. Wikipedia isn't the place to compile lists of reviews or criticisms. It would be more appropriate to just note that the game has recieved criticism for a few things and leave it at that rather than listing each and every one of them. Antisora 09:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't list each and every one of them, only the criticisms that were remarked upon by a number of reviewers. It's a little too vague to just say that a game was simply 'criticised'. Either way, I'd appreciate it if the matter were discussed on the talk page before the criticism section were blanked out entirely (by someone who clearly wasn't doing it in the interest of Wikipedia remaining encyclopedic). Black-Velvet 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Black-Velvet, various editors (Antisora, myself, and another anon, 194.46.101.244) have removed your criticisms from this entry. My reasons, similar to Antisora's, are that they are out of place on the page. Furthermore, adding a disproportionate amount of criticisms under reception gives the article an undue weight and bias towards the game and gives the reader the mistaken impression that it was poorly received by the various critics. A shorter, balanced paragraph, along with the review scores currently linked, gives a much more balanced and objective reception summary. Coincidentally, this is exactly how the article was before you made your edits. That being said, I will continue to edit the article, in good faith, to keep the balance that you seem intent on upsetting. May I also point out, that you should assume good faith, and not, as you seem to regularly do, state that changes made opposed to yours are either the work of vandalism or of "viral marketing", especially when MULTIPLE people make the same edits to the article.97.82.27.149 (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've checked your contributions. You've only edited one other article under that IP - once. Your sole purpose of being here seems to be this game. Forgive me for being skeptical. Check out WP:VG/GL: "A staple of any video game article is its reception section. It makes a case for the game's notability and provides important out-of-universe information, such as critical review." There is nothing saying I can't provide common criticisms from different professional game reviewers. Couple that with be bold, and you'll find that the article as a whole essentially benefits from the extended criticism section. Black-Velvet 13:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're certainly welcome to be skeptical, even though that may fly in the face of assuming good faith. I would point out though, that the amount of contributions does not make a person's position incorrect, nor does having a long history, such as you do, make an editor infallible. I would also note that nearly every editor who has reverted (with the exception of Antisora) your changes has been accused of either vandalism or of being engaged in "viral marketing", and you apparently are making a snide comment above that you suspect me of the same. I would argue that a viral marketer would be flooding the reception section with all of the positive aspects of the game, and if an editor was, I would be reverting those changes as well. And while you are correct, a reception section is a welcome addition to an article, I would recommend you check Wikipedia's guidelines on bias, particularly the parts that deal with undue weight. The fact of the matter is, Folklore has received mostly positive reviews. Creating a reception area that is filled almost entirely with negative points gives undue weight to negative aspects, that themselves are typically not even the focus of the reviews you are pulling them from. Again, I would point out that I am not the only person making this call on your edit. Multiple editors have made the same changes as I have, and at least one (AntiSora) has been vocal regarding his reasons for it. I maintain my position, that the earlier balanced paragraph summary under reception, combined with the reviews, provides a much more balanced (i.e. absent undue weight) perspective than what you are trying to do here.97.82.27.149 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you claim to justify that? I noticed that whoever did the scores table left out several major gaming publishers that happened to give the game less than an 8 out of ten. If you were going to give this game an average rating rated from all of the major gaming publishers, you'd get something like 7 or 6.7. I'm merely adding in important critical information. If you feel that tips the POV scales, then contribute some important positive critical evaluations. Don't just delete information like that, that's unencyclopedic. Black-Velvet 14:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, those people were accused of vandalism because they blanked out part of the criticism section of an article, didn't leave an edit summary and didn't mention why on the talk page. Black-Velvet 14:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite easy to justify these changes, as it would make the article unwieldy (admittedly, in my opinion), to list out and site every single aspect of the game, good and bad. Take a look at other PS3 articles for some of the higher profile games, like Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Lair, etc. You'll find a reception section, and you'll find it's a paragraph (or two) that lists some of the good and bad points of the game. Not a bullet point list, and especially not a list that is ONLY negative points. In that respect, I will continue to remove undue weight from the article, specifically in the interest of keeping it encyclopedic, with a balanced viewpoint.97.82.27.149 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this, this is an electronic encyclopedia, we don't have issues with space. There's nothing inherently inherently unencyclopedic about listing a video game's commonly cited criticisms (this isn't an exhaustive list, it only lists criticisms that have appeared in two or more reviews), and it doesn't in the least make the article 'unwieldy' or unbalanced - not at all as much as the act of removing this information, for reasons that are at best vague and poorly defined. Comparisons to other video game articles do not justify deletion of referenced material. Black-Velvet 09:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we have been through this before, and we seem to be continuing to go through it, for some reason. I noticed you changed it again, citing, essentially, WP:Other stuff exists. Good information, to be sure, but it's an essay, not policy. Your changes, per my interpretation, consistently go against WP: NPOV (which I'm sure you're aware, is policy). Specifically, the section "Undue Weight" states that:

• Depth of detail
• Quantity of text
• Prominence of placement

Can all introduce bias via undue weight into an article. By creating a detailed list (under reception, mind you) of only criticisms, then placing them (and only them) into a bullet-point list, you have introduced undue negative weight into the article on several counts. If the game itself was more heavily criticized, or the points you bring up more notable (they hardly seem to rate more than a sentence or two in the references you've linked), then maybe this would be an accurate representation of the games reception. As it stands though, it is not.97.82.27.149 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, whether or not bullet points in the criticism section constitute undue weight is a matter of perspective. I've asked for a Third Opinion, so maybe we can get this all sorted out. Black-Velvet 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Undue weight requires us to present the balance of information in comparable proportion to how it appears in the body of reliable sources. Considering that the article makes it clear that the reviews were "mixed", it would be undue weight to include so much critical information. Using a bullet point list further highlights the criticisms (bullet lists are a visual draw). The balance of reviews is also more positive than negative. If there should be any "tilt" towards one perspective or another, there should be a bit more presentation of the positive reviews. Vassyana (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070831190347/http://au.playstation.com/games_media/release_schedule.jhtml to http://au.playstation.com/games_media/release_schedule.jhtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716125923/http://thegamingliberty.com:80/index.php/2011/07/07/game-republic-were-planning-folklore-2-with-move-support/ to http://thegamingliberty.com/index.php/2011/07/07/game-republic-were-planning-folklore-2-with-move-support

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Death category

I'm not sure why it's debatable to add the death project to a video game that's categorized in the "Video games about death". But, I don't have strong opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)