Talk:Demon's Souls

Soundtrack section
Is this section even needed? Does it serve a purpose, at least in it's current format? We're not talking about a list of well-known songs, but original titles all composed by the same person. As none of the tracks are notable in their own right, what does it add to the article to list the names of all the tracks. A few sentences describing the composer and if anything notable exists about the soundtrack (like reception) should be all that's in the section. There is no reason to list the tracks.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It should have a tracklist, just in a collapsible table instead.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen a number of reviews commenting on how the soundtrack does a good job at increasing the immersiveness of the title. So should probably be included, but concur on the collapsible table. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit; just checked my soundtrack CD, and none of those times match up. My CD (North American edition) has:


 * 10 - 2.09
 * 11 - 1.54
 * 12 - 2.47
 * 13 - 3.01
 * 16 - 3.55
 * 17 - 2.34
 * 18 - 2.53
 * 19 - 2.23
 * 20 - 3.14
 * 21 - 2.28


 * The track names are in the right order, they haven't been re-arranged, so it's not that. The times of the other tracks match though. http://vgmdb.net/album/15024 appears to confirm my CD's track lengths, give or take a second or two.  Geoff B (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Game Of The Year Awards
Guys: DS has receieved SIX GOTY awards in the rpg category and two overall GOTY. IGN: http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2009/ps3/best-role-playing-game.html GT: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/best-role-playing-gt-goty/60211 Gamespot: http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/demonssoul/video/6244197/gamespots-best-of-2009--game-of-the-year-winner?hd=1 PC WORLD CONSOLE GOTY: http://www.pcworld.com/article/183827/roleplaying_game_of_the_year_demons_souls.html VGCHARTS GOTY: http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=6326 JushPushStart GOTY: http://www.justpushstart.com/2009/12/12/2009-game-of-the-year-awards/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 13:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
Even though there's plenty of room for expansion and improvement, I think this article is by now above Start-class. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And now it's got to be beyond C class to! Stabby Joe (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick question regarding Ham Pastrami's recent edit. There are four mentions of Namco Bandai Games in the article and 3 of them are wikilinked, doesn't that violate WP:OVERLINK? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

GamePro Review
I have the issue of the GamePro review, but I'm not sure how to include it. I can tell you it got a 4 out of 5 stars. The Reviewer's name was Will Herring, and it was the November 2009 issue. His review is very weird to me though. Oh and it was on page 76. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the GamePro review awhile back when editing... didn't really include it since it didn't really make any new points that weren't already said. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's alright, I'll try to put it into the review template (with the source). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, could I try to put this into the prose by saying, Game Pro echoes The Official PlayStation Magazine by saying, "Your inner diehard will thank you, but casual gamers should stay far, far away." Putting that sentence after the PSM sentence. Also, shouldn't the VG Reviews be alphabetized in the template? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're good for comments since the difficulty is already a heavily mentioned aspect of the game generally, no problem with it being in the table. As for it being alphabetical, that may be the case but I just expanded an already present table before my large scale edits... if it's the general rule then by all means re-order them. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the formatting is weird but I tried my best. Also, I noticed you didn't have a citation for the Famitsu score, here you go: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172516 BTW, it also has the Dengeki score. Also, in this article by GamePro, they note Demon's Souls as the spiritual successor to the King's field series. http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/211853/13-best-unofficial-video-game-sequels-page-4/ Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank for the Famitsu link, he once had one but it was deemed dubious. I should point however that the relation to King's Field has been mentioned a few times in the article already. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

SCE Japan Studio as a co-developer
If you check the game's credits, Sony Computer Entertainment (Japan Studio) is given promotion, supervising, and supporting roles only, such as doing the game's packaging and manual design. The game's design and programming was handle solely by From Software, so unless somebody else can find another source stating Japan Studio also did that, they should not be listed a co-developer. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Demon's Souls. 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/20100806182634/http://uk.gamespot.com:80/news/6258747.html to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6258747.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105034921/http://uk.gamespot.com:80/ps3/rpg/demonssoul/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/demonssoul/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127130529/http://ps3.gamezone.com:80/gzreviews/r38220.htm to http://ps3.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r38220.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111201162519/http://www.screwattack.com:80/shows/originals/screwattack-top-10s/top-10-ps3-exclusives-2009-edition to http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/screwattack-top-10s/top-10-ps3-exclusives-2009-edition
 * Added tag to http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/review-demons-souls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713024622/http://www.index-hd.com/up_images_m/files/20100412.pdf to http://www.index-hd.com/up_images_m/files/20100412.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310195758/http://www.gamespot.com:80/best-of/platform-awards/index.html?page=4 to http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/platform-awards/index.html?page=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308184302/http://www.gamespot.com:80/best-of/genre-awards/index.html?page=8 to http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/genre-awards/index.html?page=8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223205826/http://au.gamespot.com:80/best-of/special-achievement/index.html?page=18 to http://au.gamespot.com/best-of/special-achievement/index.html?page=18
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091218190328/http://uk.bestof.ign.com:80/2009/ps3/best-role-playing-game.html to http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2009/ps3/best-role-playing-game.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Demon's Souls. 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://www.webcitation.org/679led3sU?url=http://www.1up.com/news/sony-reveals-demon-souls to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170272
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6258747.html
 * Added tag to http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3172516
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/demonssoul/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary%3Bread-review
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ps3.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r38220.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.screwattack.com/shows/originals/screwattack-top-10s/top-10-ps3-exclusives-2009-edition
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/platform-awards/index.html?page=4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/best-of/genre-awards/index.html?page=8
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://au.gamespot.com/best-of/special-achievement/index.html?page=18
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.bestof.ign.com/2009/ps3/best-role-playing-game.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

What sentence is clearer
Let's just go straight to the point. Which sentence is clearer?


 * Its acclaim led to a successor series, starting with Dark Souls in 2011.
 * Its success began a series of related games, starting with Dark Souls in 2011.

Vote now. --Osh33m (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nether, Demon's is considered to be a part of the series according to that very article and not related/successor. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The 2nd is fine, but I'm not opposed to being clearer. It "began" a series of related games. It's included. The 1st is absolutely not valid as it did not lead to a "successor series", but began and is part of said series. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: to move the remake's article, but not the original game's article. (non-admin closure) Enjoyer of World💬 03:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

– This is not like Final Fantasy 7 Remake. The official title is simply "Demon's Souls" which is what it is called by WP:RS, stores, and the game's own logo. The pages should be moved to conform with that. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Demon's Souls → Demon's Souls (2009 video game)
 * Demon's Souls Remake → Demon's Souls (2020 video game)
 * They don't both need to be moved. Leave the original Demon's Souls article as is and change the remake to Demon's Souls 2020 to coincide with how it's done with Shadow of the Colossus 2018. --Osh33m (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving Demon's Souls Remake to Demon's Souls (2020 video game). Unsure about the former. redsparta  talk 05:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The Shadow of the Colossus remake doesn't have the word "remake" on its page, so the same should apply here. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Just a random guy, but I agree. (2020 remake) would also be fine by me. 2600:6C56:7108:589:F405:F247:B51A:422F (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving remake to 2020 video game but oppose moving the original game to 2009 video game: WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles like Resident Evil 2 and Shadow of the Colossus, but the 2009 game is the primary topic. OceanHok (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with OceanHok. (But I'll double down and say also: Just merge the remake back in). -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the move on the remake page to keep consistency with other titles such as Shadow of the Colossus and Resident Evil 2. The original should remain, again, for consistency.--JoaumBoladaum (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This consistency makes the most sense, especially considering Shadow of the Colossus in that they are both mainly graphical updates by the same company.--Ramenwik (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would you say to merge the remake back into the original article? That would be totally counterproductive here. --Osh33m (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving remake, but leave original where it is per Oceanhok's argument--AlexandraIDV 13:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Oceanhok's argument. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per norm as well... Roberth Martinez (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I don't believe in having unnecessary spin outs with little additional information to highlight. You created it 3 separate times. It probably still shouldn't exist. I've decided not to press the issue. -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But it's not an "unnecessary spin out," whatever that is supposed to mean...--Osh33m (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 100% is at this time, especially unreleased. You're welcome to your obviously different opinion. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Literally all Ps5 games at this time are unreleased, and Demon's Souls is one of them. It just happens to be a remake. But it has been developed from scratch as a next gen title. As far as I can tell there is usually never an article created for a video game after it has been released in stores. Furthermore, there is an article for the remake of Shadow of the Colossus. --Osh33m (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for me to simply agree with you that it "deserves" an article, you're not going to get far. What are you looking for? My views on notability vastly differ from yours (and other areas, as past discussions have shown) and aren't going to change here. -- ferret (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just can't wrap my head around why you don't want an article for it. If it's because Demon's Souls is unreleased, then by your logic, all the other articles made for Ps5 games shouldn't exist yet either. If it is because it is a remake, then by your logic, the Shadow of the Colossus article - let alone every video game remake article out there - shouldn't exist either. Not to mention there is already a fair amount of information about the remake and the original article would feel incredibly bloated if it were merged now. It is independent from the original and your argument just doesn't make sense to me. Also for the record, we may have had a lot disagreements in the past, but we've had agreements too. --Osh33m (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll have to continue to be confused then. There's a lot of articles I'd merge or delete if I thought consensus and community views on notability would agree with me. -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's just a you thing then. Got it. --Osh33m (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've also opposed this in the past, as you are aware. I think that while this remake article meets the bare minimum for a stub article as of right now, it would still be better off until the game has been released and its corresponding reception section is filled out. This applies for any other upcoming game where we only know the title, its general gameplay style, and when it was announced and its release date while knowing nothing else. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You stated to me on your talk page that you agree there is substantial information for there to be an independent article. And the vast majority of editors in this discussion (including yourself) have supported moving the article, but not merging it. However, if you are doubling down again and saying it should be merged, then a lot of what I would say to you is the same I would say to ferret, who apparently believes that the norm should be that remakes don't have their own articles. Setting that aside, there is also the problem of all the other Ps5 game articles that exist now. None of them should, if they require reception sections first. --Osh33m (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I never said there was "substantial" information, but rather just enough to make a stub. I certainly wouldn't oppose any efforts to redirect it back to the main article until reviews for it start coming out, but seeing as that will be pretty soon it might just be a waste of time to go back and forth like that in such a short period of time. I'm also aware that other PS5 game articles were created too early, but trying to merge/redirect them elsewhere so close to their releases just seems like effort that could be spent elsewhere. ~ Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I stated on your talk page that there is substantial information for there to be an independent article and you replied, "yes." I interpreted that as you agreeing with me on what I said but if you actually weren't, then that's my bad. Anyway, I suppose what's most important right now is that the consensus is the article is kept, and only moved. --Osh33m (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as per OceanHok. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as per nom. Cheetah255 (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support OceanHok's argument and per WP:NCVGDAB. LightKeyDarkBlade (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving remake but oppose moving the original game, per Oceanhok. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving remake but oppose moving original, per Oceanhok. - Kettleonwater (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support moving remake but oppose moving original, per Oceanhok. 190.89.165.1 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.