Talk:Clock Tower (1995 video game)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved, at least the first two to Clock Tower (1995 video game) and Clock Tower (1996 video game). No case had consensus to us the dabpage. Hatnotes in the articles should be ample. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

– The game described in article Clock Tower 2 is called Clock Tower everywhere except Japan, so these changes will convey what the subject is actually called in English per WP:CRITERIA. Please see previous discussion here. Incoming links and redirects are currently confused; I intend to fix them and add hatnotes after the moves. These changes should make future links more likely to be correct. Certes (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clock Tower (video game) → Clock Tower (Japanese video game)
 * Clock Tower 2 → Clock Tower (video game)
 * User:Certes/Clock Tower 2 → Clock Tower 2
 * Oppose I understand that the current setup is not ideal but I oppose the names proposed. Disambiguators "Japanese video game" and "video game" are ambiguous. While the first one was Japanese exclusive and the second one was released globally, both are Japanese video games. I propose commonly used "YEAR video game" format and name them Clock Tower (1995 video game) and Clock Tower (1996 video game) respectively. --Kusunose 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that sounds like an improvement. I did not particularly like ...(Japanese video game) but that was the best name we could think of in previous discussions. Certes (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both Clock Tower 1 and Clock Tower 2 should be disambiguation pages. Both the first and second Clock Towers should then be disambiguated by year. Clock Tower 3 should probably hatnote to Clock Tower II. Clock Tower 4 should redirect to Clock Tower (series). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are any of the games referred to anywhere as Clock Tower 1 or Clock Tower 4? (That is a serious constructive question, not rhetoric.) Certes (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A basic google search will show that people use "Clock Tower 1" to refer to one of the clock tower games and several different things have been called "Clock Tower 4"  so redirecting to the series page would be best. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article needs to be rewritten
This article is not that well written and has several sections that reflect ones personal views on it. Most if not all of the article needs to be rewritten in order to fit Wikipiedia's standards. Also there are several sections in the article which could be expanded a bit more (the reception section is just one of them that I have in mind) and additional sources added yo unsourced information.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-published
I've tagged the book source as self-published. From the publisher title, it appears to be published by something that was his own? If not, feel free to remove, but I can not seem to find evidence otherwise. If it is, does it not fail WP:SPS? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Szczepaniak is a journalist with a history writing for at least Gamasutra, Hardcore Gaming 101, Retro Gamer, and Game Developer - his book should be perfectly fine to use.--IDVtalk 13:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Interesting! Thank you! Just to confirm, it means their previous work, correct? Not just work that has been published in the past that could be self-published in the future? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It means that the self-published source is reliable if the author's reliability has been established before. The passage in the book is an interview with Kono supported with images. Most certainly reliable. TarkusAB  14:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. Just checking. I'll remove the tags now. Thanks for confirming everyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Title:
According to famitsu the game has been called:
 * Clock Tower (SFC)
 * Clock Tower: First Fear
 * Clock Tower for Windows
 * Clock Tower for Wonderswan

So "First fear" appears to only to refer to the PS re-release. The page previously implied that the WS, PS, and Win ersions were all called "First fear". Now, I'm not sure how literal to take the Famitsu database which does indeed add the "for wonderswan" to the game's title. I'm not sure if that's a descriptive note or literally the title. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources:
I did a search, and I can't seem to find any import reviews of the game upon release. I guess it was too story and text driven to be of interest to importers, plus the upcoming PS/SS/N64 likely overshadowed it. Super GamePower reviewed the Japanese SFC version of Tactics Ogre, so I'm shocked they didn't review this. I could find instead lots of reviews for the sequel.

I did find a 1 short entry in the Super Famicom Nostalgic Guide, where it lists the game as the 2nd best horror game on the SFC. I don't know how in depth it is since I can't read it. But I do own it so ask me if you need it. I also found a strange 2002 Japanese magazine that seems to be some kind of PlayStation retrospective, and it devotes 1 solid page to the game. There's also a 4gamer and GameDrive overviews of the game.

The page now over-relies on WP:PRIMARY sources such as the Nintendo VC and sony listings, as well as the game itself. Better secondary sources should be found. The HG101 is also not reliable, as only articles by Kurt whats his name are reliable from that site. That citation should be phased out. AVClub has a nice paragraph review of the game, and that would make better sense ot put into retrospective reception than HG101.

In terms of Japanese sources, Famitsu, Dengeki SFC, and Dengeki PlayStation, would have covered this game extensively. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (passing comment) HG101 is listed as reliable at WP:VG/S and there have been a buncha discussions favoring reliability. All content on the site is reviewed by Kurt Kalata before publication, and the authors have industry experience at other publications. Removing it here is unjustified, especially considering that it's good commentary. JOE BRO  64  02:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)