Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
September 22, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
March 31, 2010Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Peer reviewed

New Game announced by Nintendo at GDC '09[edit]

Graphically similar to Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass. Has a train with a canon on it, a good chance it will be like your boat in Phantom Hourglass, upgradable, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.110 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 25 March 2009

bombs and beedle official[edit]

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ds/bkij/page.html#/touch if you click on the last little box there is a pic of link holding a bomb and there is also a a sall pic of beedle's head saying some thing in japanese could someone please translate--Fyudt (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC) it also talks about bombs in the nintendo power article--Fyudt (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding cel-shading in IGN source[edit]

Where exactly in this source us there information regarding the game's cel-shading? The only sentence regarding the game's art style is "the game is styled a bit like GameCube's Zelda title", which is highly vague and omits the phrase "cel-shading" altogether. Furthermore, such third-party sources aren't even relevant to the game's cel-shading (or, for that matter, any detail of the game excluding its reception); this is information that only Nintendo can define. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking at the wrong source; it's definitely in the other one. Also, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's GameSpot or IGN is irrelevant. The point is that Nintendo are developing the game and therefore are far more reliable to source for such a detail than what's essentially an off-hand comment in an "impressions" article by a GS editor. As far as I know, GameSpot only hire people on the basis of capabilities at writing content and not for their skills at distinguishing one art form from another. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 04:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image source?[edit]

Concerning the image added by Alex20112011, which I have since reverted, how was this image obtained? Nowhere in the source provided (the video on Zelda.com) in its rationale did the Triforce logo appear, especially not above the logo as is so in the image concerned. We shouldn't modify fair-use images for our own interests. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

Hello everyone. An IP user brought something very interesting to my attention: IGN reports that Spirit Tracks will see a simultaneous Japan/US/UK/Australia release on December 31, 2009 (see here). I find this suspect for four reasons:

  1. Why in the world would Nintendo release a major DS game immediately after the big holiday shopping season?
  2. No previous Zelda game has seen a simultaneous worldwide release (Twilight Princess did have a quasi-simultaneous worldwide release, but that's only because it was a Wii launch title and the Wii had a quasi-simultaneous worldwide release).
  3. December 31, 2009 is a Thursday. Here in the US anyway, video games are almost always released on Tuesdays.
  4. At the top of Spirit Tracks' page at IGN under "Release Date", it says "TBA 2009". Only when you scroll down do you see the contradictory December 31, 2009 claim.

So, should we use this release date in the article? If it is authentic, it's just about the goofiest date Nintendo could've picked. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 14:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, does sound dubious. I'd say wait until IGN makes it clearer and/or another source comes up with the same dates. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ign is saying that is when it will be released by and it is not the actual date.Kevin5593 Talk 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's right; IGN has, on many past occasions (Final Fantasy IV-VI for GBA come to mind), put December 31 down for the release date when all they knew was the year. This isn't really a definitive date. Arrowned (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Is this going to be an RPG like Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass? 169.233.58.204 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not anything until a reliable source can be cited to say what genre it is. To make up such a detail would be original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda is not an RPG.

Yes it is. You are just too young to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.53.188 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zelda is an action adventure game, not an rpg. 82.41.109.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Didn't you guys read what Haipa Doragon said? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 15:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely it will be an action/adventure game. Zelda II is the only one that is an RPG.166.205.5.138 (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Zelda is an RPG, so is Metroid. It's basically the same thing. 74.94.21.101 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Zelda nor Metroid are RPG games. They lack the most basic RPG genre characteristics such as experience points, quests, stats, skills, the ability to play the role of the character, that is, make desicions which would steer the alignment of the character to good or evil, and the game doesn't calculate the battles based mathematical formulas. Both in Zelda and in Metroid the character (Samus, Link) is alerady fully established there not being any character growth beyond the acquisition of new armor, weapons, and abilities. They can't even be considered Action RPGs for the same aforementioned reason, no stats or experience points. They would most aptly be categorized as Action-adventure games. Veritiel (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Phantom Control"[edit]

I believe books, magazines and videos are valid sources, albeit less convenient as they aren't instantly available to an editor. The promotional content was clearly made to show gameplay, and the armored friend seems to attack automatically while following a drawn path. This is EXACTLY like Phantom play, and is good enough to mention as his control style. I cannot stress the validity enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.224.252 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reliable source that definitively identifies the "armored sidekick" as a Phantom? Where? -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 13:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really have any reason to assume it's not? What you're doing is unreasonable doubt.--72.147.17.123 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find a reliable source explicitly stating it is, it'd be original research, which is not allowed in any capacity on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding the question about have a reliable source saying it is not a phanotm it should be noted that the article does not state that the creature is not a phantom but simply does not identify it as such due to lack of evidence. Secondly, in case like this it is up to the person making the claim needs to provide the proof.--76.69.166.51 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that it is or isn't a Phantom? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it not be a phantom? In any game within the series with the exact same art style, there has never been two things that look the exact same but are completely different. If we take an agnostic approach on this, how do we know that in this it is actually Link? How do we know that the character they've showed us the player character? We know because it's ridiculous to assume otherwise.--72.147.17.159 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it's been in an IGN article now, so even though it still hasn't officially been confirmed, it's not not original research to assume it's a Phantom now.86.171.208.83 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom is Zeldas ghost ,that controls the armor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.181.84 (talk) 08:25, November 7, 2009

We're aware; the article has already been edited to note this. Arrowned (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name Translation[edit]

I added a proper translation of the name using the nihongo template, but got a little less certain after the fact that my translation (with help from Ryulong) was truly spot on, so we began checking all possible translations of those characters. Kaichi, with that kanji, can translate to ground, earth, solid earth, or 'the vast land'. We both figure Earth is fine enough a translation. Kiteki, on the other hand, can translate to steam whistle, klaxon, or 'choochoo'. That last one sounds rather ridiculous on the one hand, but on the other, it's technically the more accurate, as we believe the JP title is trying to get across "*train sound* of the Earth", and not the name of what makes the sound. On the other other hand, they usually use 'kisha poppo' for choochoo train, not kiteki. So for the time being, I set it as "Steam Whistle of the Earth". Any opinions on whether it should be changed? Arrowned (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this post is really old, but a recent "Iwata Asks" interview says that the title is "Train Whistle of the Wide World." I have no idea if that's correct or not, just throwing that out there. http://nintendodsi.com/iwataasks/vol10_page4.html --.:Alex:. 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved: I know this post is really, really old, but I thought I should mention I took care of the issue in this diff. :) —zziccardi (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rating?[edit]

The Legend of Zelda video game series is one of the most pristegous game series of all time. How does this page get a "low" on the importance scale? I think it deserves better. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the scale explanation, it looks like it oughta be at least High. Arrowned (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the Zelda series, it's a Zelda game, and, judging from the sources, not such a significant one at that. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, sorry; I thought we were talking about (series) for some crazy reason, despite the title of this page looking me dead in the face. Arrowned (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; looking at the Mid-importance criteria, Spirit Tracks doesn't really fit in that category, never mind High. I'd assume the same goes for most future games. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New boxart?[edit]

New boxart pic here if anyone thinks it's okay to add it: http://gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=96861Gaunt (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it, thanks for the heads up. -sesuPRIME 16:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian release[edit]

this website is http://www.gameswarehouse.com.au/NDSsoon.asp show of the spirit tracks coming 1 december 2009 in Australia. thx Booker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.170.11 (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That will be a placeholder date. 1 December is a Tuesday. Nintendo always releases their games on Thursdays, with the rare exceptions being either Wednesday or Friday, and those are so rare that I can't recall a single instance of either one. Aielyn (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to australian game spot it comes out the 10thof december http://www.gamespot.com/ds/adventure/thelegendofzeldaspirittracks/video/6241387/crosshairs-november-26-2009-battlefield-bad-company-2-the-legend-of-zelda-spirit-tracks-playtv at about 11:30 into the video sry for the long adress —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyudt (talk • contribs) 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC) the other site says its $62 is it just my american mind or is that expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyudt (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian dollars are worth less than American ones, so it isn't that expensive after all. 80.101.212.102 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Localisation Issues[edit]

Should localisation issues be mentioned? As shown at http://www.thesacredrealm.net/main.php?page=news/20091213b.html, many people, places, and items are named differently in the English US and English European versions. For instance, the Spirit Flute is the Spirit Pipes, Byrne is Staven, and Aboda Village is Outset Village. Because of this, the Plot section just doesn't make sense to people with the European version. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Story[edit]

The story seems more like a walk-through than a synopsis of the game, i suppose that a story doesn't need to be that long. 210.250.2.96 (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Story section does need to be re-written. It doesn't need to be half that size. Nobody really has the time right now to do it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to greatly shorten it. But it still seems to long.Sleegi[✆Talk] 11:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception cleanup[edit]

The reception section needs to be greatly reduced, and {{VG Reviews}} would be nice too. I might do it, but don't count on it. --Shovan Luessi (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I do not understand why less reception is good. The problem is not how many reviews are present, but organization. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"More" does not equal "good". Reception sections focus on the most important positive and negative aspects of a game and use critical reviews to back the information up. The current reception section here focuses more on review comments then on the game itself and wastes a large portion on nondescript (and repetitive) labels that do not tell readers anything about the actual game. And it's at almost 2000 words, which is about twice as much as what we normally have for the most expansive reception sections for featured articles – way too long to expect readers to even wade through. Prime Blue (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while most articles have reception sections written like this, it is because they are somewhat small. If they have as much as this, it needs to be written about the actual content, citing the reviews as an example. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your points on both size and what the reviews say are true, making the reviews more detailed would increase the size as well. Honestly, the only legitimate way to reduce content would be to take out the sources that are less than absolutely the most reliable sources (ie, no Nintendo World Report). However, looking at much of the sources, their actual content proves to be much stronger than the content used to represent the sources. None of it is trivial mention. It is only large because most articles, even featured ones, do not venture outside of the main area that we generally look for sources for video game articles on Wikipedia. Nothing here is unreliable, merely needs rewriting and organization. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I used {{tldr}} instead of {{Very long}}. Also, I went through the history of the article, and managed to find the {{VG Reviews}}. It should help with the reception reduction. Veni Vidi Vici 05:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Video game reviews template. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Parish, Jeremy (2009-12-04). "Legend of Zelda Spirit Tracks Review for the Nintendo DS from 1UP.com". 1UP.com. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  2. ^ Jackson, Mike (2009-12-02). "Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks Review". Computer and Video Games. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  3. ^ Welsh, Oli (2009-12-08). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks Review". Eurogamer. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  4. ^ Reiner, Andrew (2009-12-07). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks". Game Informer. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  5. ^ Koehn, Aaron (2009-12-07). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks". GamePro. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  6. ^ Morse, Blake (2009-12-07). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks - DS". Game Revolution. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  7. ^ Ramsay, Randolph (2009-12-08). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks Review". GameSpot. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  8. ^ Altano, Brian (2009-12-08). "The Consensus: The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks Review". GameSpy. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  9. ^ "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks". GameTrailers. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  10. ^ Bozon, Mark (2009-12-07). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks Review". IGN. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  11. ^ Jastrzab, Jeremy (2010-02-04). "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks Review". PALGN. Retrieved 2010-09-20.
  12. ^ "The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks". GameRankings. Retrieved 2010-06-05.
  13. ^ "Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks, The". Metacritic. Retrieved 2010-06-05.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the word "continent" or "supercontinent" mentioned here?[edit]

Doesn't Spirit Tracks take place on a supercontinent far away from where the events of Windwaker and Phantom Hourglass take place? I think I read somewhere that the synopsis of Spirit Tracks was that Link and Zelda (or Tetra) traveled to a distant supercontinent on the Great Sea where they (and the other people in the area where Windwaker and Phantom Hourglass took place) settled and formed New Hyrule. - WorldQuestioneer (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Spirit_Tracks&oldid=1217572392"