Talk:Secret of Evermore

2 player mode

Would it be OK to add a reference to the 2-player patch at http://www.romhacking.net/hacks/24/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.129.15 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

I looked at the article history and it seems there used to be boxart for the game in the infobox, and it was deleted on the basis of a copyright violation. Many other Squaresoft (and Square-Enix) games including the Final Fantasy series contain boxart. I'm just wondering why it taken out.

I'm guessing the previous box art didn't have the {{Gamecover}} tag. I uploaded a pic with the tag and placed it back in the article. --Pagrashtak 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Music

Well I added a section on the score, however their is a paragarph in the introduction about the music which says pretty much the same thing I did which makes it a little redundant now, HOWEVER its much better written then my contribution so I decided to leave it because someone might decides to merge the paragraph etc. - UnlimitedAccess 20:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Engine: Secret of Mana

True, the ring system of the game was based on that of Seiken Densetsu 2, but to say that the game runs on Seiken Densetsu 2's engine is quite discrediting to the team at Square USA. They wrote Evermore's engine "from scratch," evident through the better efficacy with which one can use the rings and the entirely new functions such as alchemy. Is Chrono Trigger's engine listed as Final Fantasy III's? No, because it's not. --67.36.24.175 23:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect, Secret of Evermore is operating on a modified version of the Seiken Densetsu 2 engine. Square USA utilised the pre existing Seiken Densetsu 2 and wisely spent all their time doing artwork, levels, story, design etc. This is also made evidence by only four programmers working on the entire project. I cant comment on whether Chrono's engine is based on the Final Fantasy one, however Kid Icarus is certainly running on the Metroid engine etc. It's quite common for a game to be made using an already existing engine, most developers do it, Square USA would of been a fool to start from scratch and waist already stretched resources coding a redundant engine when it had a pre-existing engine that does the exact same thing freely availible to them. - UnlimitedAccess 19:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing that for sure. --134.84.96.60 23:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Except from being obvious from playing it. Same gameplay, same menus, same controls, same company ... different graphics. - UnlimitedAccess 20:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I recall an old issue of Nintendo Power had a preview of the Secret of Evermore, including developer commentaries. They said in the article that there were basing it off of the Secret of Mana engine, but were sacrificing some elements (such as multiple controllable player characters) in order to free up resources for other content elements. I wish I could remember the specific issue it was in, but I am afraid that I lost track of my old copies some time ago. Maybe I could do a little research. - Fearless Son 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

More information

The lead programmer, Brian Fehdrau, appeared on GameFAQs a while ago and answered quite a few questions about the game. Check it out: http://www.inf.uni-konstanz.de/~kneer/androl/gf-archive-soe/052_1.html --134.84.96.60 23:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that is a more persuasive argument, albeit from a forum with a guy who claims he was involved in the game. I concede the point, unless I stumble across anything more persuasive. If it is true, it certainly was a foolish waste of resources! - UnlimitedAccess 21:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"limited success of Secret of Evermore"

"Because of the limited success of Secret of Evermore ....."

Soule states [1]: "Actually, Secret of Evermore, I’m proud of it, and in one of my brochures, it was fourth highest selling RPG on the Super Nintendo of all time." --84.58.226.203 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

Overall a good start, but I wouldn't say it's quite at B-standard yet. Here are some ideas to get your there:

• Needs more citations: WP:CITE. Done
• "Development" seems to cover several areas: in-jokes and film references (this looks like original research and doesn't really add much encyclopedic value, so the details should probably go); review scores (which should really belong in a Critical Reception section; have a look at some Featured VG articles to get an idea of what to do here) and some information on the actual development. Try and expand this, or at least add more citations. Done
• Half-Life 2 has a good exammple of how to deal with a soundtrack section: the album infobox here isn't really necessary. Done Johnnyfog (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• "Gameplay" goes into quite a bit of detail: try and trim down on details which are only really useful for those who play the game. Done Johnnyfog (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• The "Story" section is quite long. Usually, "Plot" and "Setting" are subsections of a "Story" section. Done Johnnyfog (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So currently I'd say it's start, low, although you could probably get a B with more references and tidying up the Gameplay, Story and Development sections, and writing a Critical Reception section. Hope this helps, Una Laguna^Talk 08:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Alchemy Numbers

The article mentioned that 8 was the max alchemy that could be carried around, but I checked the game and came up with nine. I switched the values. roc314 00:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

I will be reviewing this article in due course, looks like a healthy specimen. Someoneanother 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, after digesting the article some a host of small issues have emerged, hope you're ready to do some work on this one. The sources all but cover the bases so it should be a case of editing rather than digging up more. I'm breaking it down into sections and will keep passing over the article in the meantime. Neutrality isn't an issue, the image fair use rationales could do with a tweek, pretty much all the info is there. There are a couple of gaps though.

Images

Fair use rationales in the images are all well and good, but these two lines bother me: "The only purpose for the inclusion of this image is to convey to the reader what the game looks like." and "The purpose of this image is to aid in the description of the fictional world of Secret of Evermore and no other." Both of these are saying the same thing and are stating that the images are just decoration, which is the polar opposite of what should be there to assert fair use. Replacing these lines with an actual reason for the images being there, IE "this image shows the boy encountering his transformed dog for the first time, an important and ongoing aspect of the game" would be better. Done

Lead

• "the game was not a financial success" I don't see any reference to this in the article proper, number of units sold etc. Done

Comment: There is no (reliable) sales information about the game that I could find. I've simply removed this aspect from the lead.

• "It is also the subject of much controversy concerning.." rather than describe this as a controversy, could it instead state exactly what the situation was, IE "it was believed that the release of SoE's release prevented an English-language version of SD3 being released, though this was not the case because..", something along those lines. Done
• This section could use a little more detail on what exactly the reviewers did and didn't like. Done
• "moderately good" Positive? When qualified with the details stipulated above it would be more accurate. Done

Gameplay

• The Currency and trading subheading is surplus, there's not enough text within to warrant a break in the flow. Done
• "his dog will be controlled by the CPU (and vice-versa)" > "his dog will be controlled by the game's artificial intelligence, and vice-versa". Done
• "where they can regain their hit points (HP)" The contraction isn't even used in the article, and it's best to avoid them if at all possible. Done
• "unlocking a new charged attack move with each level." What are charged attack moves? If the following sentence describes them then it needs to be made more clear that charge attacks are being discussed as opposed to standard attacks. Done
• "With the exception of the Bone Crusher, Almost all swords, axes, and spears..."  Done
• "The dog can level up his attack as well." > "The dog's attack level can also be increased by.." How is it increased? Done
• "In Gothica and Omnitopia, however, the ingredients become more advanced (ethanol, dry ice, etc). Only the boy can use Alchemy." In the previous sentence, the first two realms are described as 'primitive' and the potential alchemy ingredients are without a bracket, could this sentence be consistent? IE 'advanced realms' and unbracketed ingredients. That the boy is the only one who can use alchemy is a safe assumption. Done
• "..any formula that has already been learned can be shelved" "stored for later use" would work better. Done
• This section has some referencing holes, for instance at the end of the first paragraph, try to reign the unreferenced material in. Done

Plot

• References, the entire setting subsection has none, there are considerable gaps within the story section. Done
• "B movies" is given a hyphen in the development section - needs to consistently be one or the other. Done

Development

• "George Sinfield, figured" 'Decided'. Done
• "these factors were designed from scratch and were merely copied from the latter because they had been proven to work." "From scratch" is too casual, "merely" is a judgement, "proven to work" could do with a little clarification - does this mean proved easy to navigate, effective? Done
• "Particularly of note" if it wasn't of note it wouldn't be in the article, please just state what's trying to be conveyed to the reader. Done
• "Secret of Evermore. It remains an extremely rare disc to collect." Doesn't make much sense - if the number of manufactured discs hasn't been increased then how can it do anything but 'remain'? Is this supposed to mean that the disc is collectible? Done
• The album tracklist features a massive yawning gap between track name and track length, could another template be used or could it be fixed so that it isn't like an eye exam? Done

Release and Reception

• Could this be renamed to just 'reception'?  Done The release dates feature for the third time in the article, they're surplus. The PAL version wasn't released with a guide, or at least some PAL versions wasn't - I distinctly remember the UK version which just features the US box art with a purple/mauve border. Unless you can find a source clarifying exactly what was released where, the info doesn't seem particularly relevant. The statement "not released in Japan" seems redundant.
• The reception is very 'so and so said this, Tom said that, Dick said the other, Harry said blah', rather than finding common statements from multiple sources. Could this be tweaked? Done
• Also, very little info is being mined from these sources, apparently all EGM have to say is "the game's difficulty an improvement over Square's RPG Chrono Trigger." Is there nothing more of use from that source? Done
• "There is no evidence to support that Secret of Evermore's release had any effect on any translations of Square's Japanese titles." In which case it doesn't need saying. Done
• "the team that developed Secret of Evermore was assembled from the ground up" Could use clarification, according to the interview the team was built from newly-hired staff. Done
• "Secret of Evermore received fairly good" I'd say 'positive' is a more concise way of putting it - the review scores hardly correlate with negativity. Done
• "Super Play calls the game only mildly entertaining and claims that being developed by Square" Switch to past-tense, IE 'called' and 'claimed'. Done
• This is the section where that missing info on the sales needs to be. Done

Right, that's it so far, there's more than I'd first expected to be honest, and some of the sourcing issues are of concern. Any questions or comments please respond here (I'm watching) please contact me via my talkpage. Thanks to all editors who've brought the article this far. Someoneanother 16:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so now we're left some sourcing issues. I'm assuming you have access to the manual, this should help all but the plot section.

Gameplay

• "By repeatedly defeating enemies, the dog can level up his attack as well." Much better, but it isn't cited, do none of your sources cover this? Done

Comment: Removed the statement because I couldn't find an adequate reference.

Alchemy subheading

• The last sentence of the first paragraph could be cited to the list of recipes in the manual, which lists each region along with which ingredients are located there. Done
• The second paragraph "A secondary function.." could be tagged to the end of the third, leaving two paragraphs in the section. Done
• What is currently the third paragraph could be cited from the manual, if the version of the manual I was reading at Gamers Graveyard is the same, all the info is there. Done

Plot

• This needs citing with quotes from the in-game text wherever there are gaps, either dialogue or on-screen messages. See the plot section of Golden Sun: The Lost Age as an example. This will typically involve playing the game through and taking notes. Alongside locating sources this is the major sticking point with videogame articles.

re. this question; I don't consider absolute references to be an absolute necessity. The section just has to be clear of POV and clearly a neutral interpretation of the game's events (which a reviewer can usually verify by looking at a walkthrough/storyline summary). I know a few people consider specific sources a necessity, but most (I believe) don't; I for one have no issue with the plot section as it is. —Giggy 11:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time Giggy. Someoneanother 12:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're happy to deal with the above issues then there's nobody stood behind you with a stopwatch, but I can't pass the article until the plot section is dealt with. Just keep me in the loop. If you don't feel you have the time or the inclination to cite the plot and deal with the other points above, let me know and I'll fail the article for now and you can work on it at your leisure. Someoneanother 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Secret of Evermore is now a Good Article, thank you for your work Hibana. Someoneanother 13:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Secret of Evermore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219141336/http://www.chudahs-corner.com/reviews/index.php?catalog=none_073 to http://www.chudahs-corner.com/reviews/index.php?catalog=none_073
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=2599&tab=review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviews added:

Added several game mag reviews, most of them European mags. Since this game was released in Euro+America, it's no shock that those should compromize the majority of the reviews. Game reviews that exist and I didn't add:

• Computer and Video Games (CVG) (Jan, 1996)
• Total! (Germany) (Jan, 1996)

Game reviews that may exist:

• Hobby Consolas
• Superjuegos
• Consoles +

Harizotoh9 (talk)

If you think there's too many now, out of the reviews to remove, the first to go should be the Electric Playground review. It's just a website review that's a companion site for the show, now the show proper. The other are all proper gaming mags with far larger readership. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead programmer here

So yes, I know it's not recommended to edit stuff you're personally involved with, but I just felt like I could clear up a couple of minor misconceptions about referenced articles, in ways other editors could at least verify externally, and also to switch the video link for the commercial over to the original YouTube upload I made in 2007, copied from the demo tape we got from the McFarland Richards & Graf ad agency, which was then ripped by various gaming sites, one of which was being referenced here, but alas is now defunct.

I do feel inappropriate editing something I worked on, so I won't make any other, more meaningful changes, but if there's something I can clear up or give you a lead on, here on the talk page, let me know. I don't always check my public-facing accounts, but I'll see it eventually, I hope. ItsBillsFault (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)