Talk:Shining Force

Weasel Words Galore
I went through this article and cleaned up some of the English. Additionally, 'Fairly simple' is weasel words. You are not suppose to state opinions such as that in Wikipedia. The grammar in the Narsha paragraph was horrid. While it's not perfect now, it is much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.127.152 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, explain to me what the point was of removing that huge "novelization" of pretty much the entire game, and replacing them with "THIS BATTLE HAPPENS AND THIS IS WHO YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DEFEAT".

-H Hog

While it wasn't me who did the edit, after thinking it over, its arguable whether the story of the entire game should be there. Similar to how you might not give an overview of an entire book on the encyclopedia page of a book. That's my 2 cents.

By the way, to get your name and time stamp at the end of a talk just type in 4 "~"s in a row. Dross82 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Game info
I realize that this article should not contain an overdetailed analysis of the game's plot/battles/gameplay, but I would suggest that it still be a little more detailed, perhaps including at least a short description of the main characters, similar to the Plot, Characters, and Story section of the Final Fantasy IX article, for example. Would anyone disagree? AJ Letson (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to really expand on what's already there because there's very, VERY little to say about any of the characters. I did rewrite the plot section to mention Darksol, Kane, and King Ramladu, though. But all the protagonists have two speaking lines, max, except for Nova who has all the personality of a pitcher of iced tea. Nifboy (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers
This article seems a big spoiler of the game

What is the point telling all the things (including secret characters) a game has?

--Diego 16:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, to be honest... there's not much spoiling to be done about a game that first appeared over a decade ago. As for what the point is... well, you might as well start asking what the point is to maintain an online encyclopedia in the first place. (Spoiler: the answer is "to inform people".) ;) H Hog 18:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is pretty weird, what is going on here? Aardark 09:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An entirely-too-detailed character list, I think. Nifboy 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken's description (and other characters, for that matter)
The extra entry at the end of Ken's character description seems unnecessary and superfluous to Wikipedia--not to mention biased (I changed it from "horrible" to "weaker" to reduce this). Anyone think the entire addition should just be removed? It's the following:

"In the Megadrive/Genesis version, he is extremely useful because of his incredible HP, and still quite good later on, even though his other stats are only useless; however, his stat growths have been significantly changed in the GBA version, making him a weaker character."

I feel most other character descriptions may need some touch-up as well.


 * Since Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, I would venture to say that covers character stats as well. Nifboy 19:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Especially because stats in this game are very random to be able to make definite statements. Depending on the leveling, characters can end up quite differently on each playthrough. This is overall just a biased article and will have to have some major reworking. Stallyn 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The character section is horribly POV and needs a lot of work. I'm not sure we need the animated portraits either.  Any objections to getting rid of them? NighTrekr 00:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the above- I did some editing a few months back, but it's still pretty bad. Some time needs to be spent fixing up the page; if you look near the bottom, there's some really terrible descriptions and grammatical errors. AJ Letson 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Original Game
There is alot of information that deviates widely from the Genesis/Megadrive version of the game that is included due to a remake. I think the remake should have a different page and this should be devoted purely to "The Legacy of Great Intention."

No money loss after defeat?
Currently the article states: "Since you always carry the EXP. and money gained, regardless of the battle outcome, the game is considerably easier than most strategy RPGs."

Unfortunately I don't know for certain what it is like in Shining Force, but I do know that in Shining Force II, you lose 50 % of your money if you lose a battle! Somebody please check if this also applies to Shining Force, and if so, change the article accordingly.


 * You do lose 50% of your gold when Max is killed. It is the way of the universe. -- 12.175.230.58 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Extensive edits needed
This article is a mess. It's crawling with weasley, POV statements and judgements about the game, the plot and character sections are unnecessarily lengthy and there's far too much gameplay information. I think at the very least we should trim the plot section down to a few paragraphs per chapter (none of this battle-by-battle stuff) and cut down the character info to a general description (removing the stats and spells). It's going to take a lot of editing. Thoughts? NighTrekr 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this article needs some reworking. And, some of the writing feels a bit weak. An example would be the end of the first paragraph: "As the people have forgotten about him, they are unprepared for the invasion. Hordes of evil monsters were cast into the land. Max and his "Shining Force" are going to become the last hope of good and fight fiercely against Dark Dragon and his followers" I don't know if it's just me, but the sentences sound rather fragmented. Some minor punctuation errors, too (such as a lack of a period at the end, and a comma after "Shining Force: Resurrection of the Dark Dragon"). There also have been some recent comments about the character section, and the battle-by-battle explanation of the story. So yes, this needs a lot of editing.

Wii
According to GoNintendo, Shining Force is being released on Wii's Virtual Console, but I won't add it to the article until it's properly announced. Kelvingreen 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Character descriptions?
The descriptions about the characters aren't very accurate, but especially one thing caught my eye. The article say this about Zylo "As a warwolf, Zylo fights unarmed, yet he is the most powerful member of the force given plenty of training.", yet as far as I know, Max is the character with the best potential. If you train him enough he will be the most powerful member of them all. I didn't dare to change it, though, since I am not sure and I lack the motivation to replay the game only to test it, so hopefully someone of you can back me up on this. /S

I think Zylo is the most powerful man/wolf in the whole game he is so amazing and he could kick the main mans butt any day that is what i believeMurlocman 21:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)murlocman

To /S: First of all, thank you for noticing. I would agree with you, though there are several characters with high potential to be the strongest, and thus, none should be given that title in the article. To Murlocman: We appreciate your opinion, but Wikipedia's not the place for yours or anyone else's. CatMan 22:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanzou & Mushami
Should we add the location of were Hanzou and Mushami are in in the remake? Also teh possibility of a conflict between them (ie when you first meet Hanzou he asks if you are Mushami; remake only)

At the end...
At the end, is the robot character actually Adam? He didn't seem enthusiastic about finding Max alive again. Could it just be another robot (the Ancients wouldn't have just made Adam and Chaos.). CatMan 22:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Split LoGI and RotDD
I think that the original Camelot game, Shining Force: the Legacy of Great Intention should not be in the same article as the remake, Shining Force: the Resurrection of the Dark Dragon. Please post your input here. PSMax8956 22:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. At the very least, it should get its own section and be expanded, including a screenshot. ChaosMaster 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Plot Summary
I noticed that this article has been tagged as having a plot summary that is too long. I would like to help rectify this problem. I will begin immediately. Larrythefunkyferret 08:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Finished. I've never actually played this game, so if there is something I ommited that should have been included, sorry, but I either didn't know about it, or it seemed trivial at the time. If someone wiser than I thinks that the issues in the tag have been addressed, could you remove the tag please? I don't feel right about doing it myself. Larrythefunkyferret 18:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GBA Release date
There is no date on the right-hand side for the release date of the GBA port. --82.194.207.80 14:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shiningforce1box.jpg
Image:Shiningforce1box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Narrators
From frame story:
 * For instance, the Shining Force series of RPGs use narrators within frame stories to implement things like starting, saving and exiting the game without breaking the fourth wall entirely, or rather by constructing a second fourth wall to shield the player from having to suspend his/her disbelief as much.

Could you explain something about these narrators? --Error (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. The three Genesis games (and probably others in the series) open with a narrator who asks you about mundane things like restoring the game, etcetera. Their interaction is limited to what is effectively the opening menu, and they'll say a few words when you save and quit, or when you beat the game (see, for instance, the last few shots of the ending to SF2). It's almost exclusively there for flavor and has basically nothing to do with the main plot. Nifboy (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

people still play this game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.101.156 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Max, the Silent Protagonist
Max has a few spoken lines both near and at the end of the game, so while he doesn't speak for the majority of the game, does he still qualify as silent? Just wondering, since recent edits seem to be disputing his non-speaking qualities... -- H Hog (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The protagonist isnt called, Max, i dont know where you get that from. You name him yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.129.156 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * He probably got that from the game itself. So long as you don't overwrite the protagonist's default name when you start a new game, you'll see his name is indeed Max.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

North American Release Date
I have made an edit to the NA release date in the info box saying "exact release disputed" in order to explain that many disagree on its exact release. It is confirmed it was released in 1993, but other than that, there is no concrete evidence of the day or month it was released. ZAMDultra (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)ZAMDultra


 * Good idea. It's a shame that with these pre-internet-era games, it's often hard to find an accurate release date. With Total Eclipse for the 3DO, sources can't even agree on whether the game came out in 1993 or 1995!--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Finnicky opinions on which releases do or don't "count"?
There appears to be some dispute on whether or not the Dreamcast, PS3 and Xbox360 should be included in the sidebar, under platforms to which this game was released, with the rationale behind it that the inclusion wasn't stand-alone, but rather as part of a collection pack. One could argue that for the sake of people wanting to easily see if this game is playable on their system of choice, those systems should be included. On the other hand, the majorly reworked GBA remake is included on the list. For the sake of consistency, if we decide that the "combo-pack" inclusions don't count because it's not the actual game on its own, should we exclude the GBA remake as well since that too is not actually the original game as it appeared on the 16-bit Sega?

For a related comparison, the Phantasy Star II article doesn't include its Playstation 2 remake in its sidebar, either. Yet, the sidebar on the original Phantasy Star article appears to include both collection and remake versions. There should be a clear, consistent decision on what does and does not constitute a game's proper appearance on a console. --H Hog (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)