Talk:Snatcher (video game)

Character descriptions
Removed the spoilers and sorted the characters by time of appearance in the game. Please correct this if necessary. 84.182.81.72 23:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You think we should add more details to the character's profile. Ominae 03:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Snatcher CD-ROMantic
"Snatcher CD-ROMantic" - what format was this on? It doesn't actually say in the description. Was it the PC-Engine Super CD-ROM? Or was it released on other platforms too?

Also, there are unofficial English (unfinished) and Portuguese (finished) translations of the MSX2 version of Snatcher floating around, if anyone cares. --Zilog Jones 03:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Snatcher CD-Romantic was just another title for the PC Engine version.


 * The English version of MSX2+ Snatcher has been finished for a few months, now. 87th 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

plot hole?
The picture of Jamie at the Moscow Olympics is not a plot hole. Examine it a few times and you will know what i mean. Manmonk 06:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean how they say it must be a composite? In the Sega CD version, it must be. In the Japanese versions, it's probably a real photo. Theswillman 08:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. You get the same result in the Japanese versions of the game. It's part of the story. --Radicalfaith360(12/8/2008)

KONAMI CODE
It should be noted that the KONAMI code has not been confirmed to alter the game in any way. It was reported in a magazine that it uncensored the game, but the problem is that the game was released uncensored (at least as far as we know, anc compared to the version that was supposed to be released).

The differences that we know were censored from the PC-Engine version are mainly the twitching of Alice's intestines and the partial nudity of Lisa's Snatched body after Junking it. But, the Sega CD version was apparently going to have more parts censored, Alice's scene was very different in the preview the magazines received (just view the GameFan shots of Alice http://junkerhq.net/Snatcher/Alice/index.html), and these are the ones that were supposed to be uncensored to the version we all know.

Possible Sequel
Should Project 'S' be mentioned in the article? I'm sure the average Snatcher fan would be interested in the possibility of a sequel. Richard Cane 08:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been said about Project S, the only basis is the letter S and the fact that suda is a fan. I don't think its very encyclopedic, its on the project s page, which i guess is alright for now... hopefully some word comes out soon but i say wait --JakeParker 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We wait. That's it. Rumors are not encyclopedic.Cernex 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Project 'S' is SDatcher, a bi-weekly radio play aired on hideo kojima's podcast hideradio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.229.124.77 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Neo Kobe Pizza
Can we add a small section for this?
 * Do you have some soups in mind? -- 84.182.78.243 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

--No, this does not belong in the article. It is an insignificant side quest which has no effect on the plot. --Radicalfaith360 4/28/2008

Failed "good article" nomination
Upon its review on October 26, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

"contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced, etc, or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, huh, or similar tags"

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. Expansion tag has been there since January 2007. Also, article completely lacks in-line citations and an official reference section. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SNATCHER 004.JPG
Image:SNATCHER 004.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 04:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal for SD Snatcher into this article
I was the one who proposed the merger. Right now, the article is just a stub and even if it ends up being expanded with a gameplay and plot section, the game is so closely tied to Snatcher, I don't see the point of having a separate article with mostly redundant information. Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. These are two distincly different games based on roughly the same story. As the name implies, SD Snatcher's graphic style is different, as is the game genre. -- Bakabaka (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if they're different games, they're still closely tied. Its an obscure spinoff of a semi-obscure cult game. I don't see how the gameplay of SD Snatcher and story differences with the original and CD-ROM versions couldn't be summarized in a single paragraph or two. I'm gonna expand the SD Snatcher once I've cleaned-up the main article, but if it ends up too short, expect a merge.Jonny2x4 (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your points, and they're valid. I'd like to add, though, that within the MSX2 game community, it was SD Snatcher that made a huge impression that lasted for years after its release. Admittedly, the MSX2 game community is an obscure part of game culture, buth within this community, it had effects most profound. Turn to any MSX(2)-related community and ask what the system's most impressive game was, and SD Snatcher is bound to be mentioned frequently. Especially in the Dutch MSX scene, many games and other software referenced or were inspired by SD Snatcher. Could this notability warrant a separate article? Of course, I'm willing to add this data to the article, but sadly I have few hard references. -- Bakabaka (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong opppose. SD Snatcher is a distinct game and it is notable in its own right, both for its importance within the MSX community as mentioned above and for its gameplay innovations, such as its innovative battle system, which I've recently elaborated on in the article using a reliable source I've found. Since there hasn't been anymore dicussion on this for some two and a half years, I don't see any reason to keep the tag for that long, so I'm removing it for now, but feel free to add it again if someone wishes to resume this discussion. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

MGS4
Does the inclusion of Gillian's leather trenchcoat in Metal Gear 4 merit mention in this article? Kouban (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of recognition for voice acting
I noticed that on the Policenauts (released in 1994) page, the game is praised for being an early example of a game with extensive use voice acting, yet nothing is mentioned about the PC Engine version of Snatcher (released in 1992) having voice acting. Is this worth adding? Or is the voice acting in this game not quite extensive? Thomasbradleyh (talk) 07:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot Summary
Come on guys, would someone complete the plot section by writing out the whole story? The game has been out for years, yet no one has bothered to finish this article. The same should go for the Policenauts] article. I would do it myself, but I don't really have the time. --71.60.243.144 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Interview with Snatcher's Yoshinori Sasaki
Just an alert that the citation for the interview with Snatcher's Yoshinori Sasaki which was added to this article way back on June 8, 2008 is incorrect. I'm looking at Electronic Gaming Monthly number 65 right now and there is no such interview in there. Given that the game is reviewed in that same issue, it stands to reason that the interview must appear in either issue 63 or 64. (Assuming, that is, that the interview really exists and that the online transcript is not a simple fraud. Unlikely, but still a possibility we should be wary of.) I've been looking for those two issues but don't have them yet. If anyone out there has them, please check to see if you can find the interview, and let us all know what you find.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Snatcher (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.allgame.com/game.php?id=1439
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for //hg101.classicgaming.gamespy.com/segacd/snatcher.htm

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

What's in your palette?  Paine  22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 June 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved both. Everyone wants a move and the majority of participants are in favour of moving both (i.e. having the dab page at the base location rather than a redirect to snatch theft). The argument in favour of redirecting, that the video game is meets the usage criterion while the crime meets the long-term significance criterion, is generally at RM an argument in favour of having the dab at the base location (essentially what they are arguing against) because when the criteria are split it generally makes sense to have neither as primary. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

– This article was disambiguated without discussion. Fortunately, I was able to remove the parenthetical phrase. Therefore, I can have the proposed title discussed properly, so readers don't get confused. George Ho (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Snatcher → Snatcher (video game)
 * Snatcher (disambiguation) → Snatcher
 * Support as nominated.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   08:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is only one article of the exact title, Anarchyte. But that won't matter, will it? George Ho (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because there's one article on the subject doesn't mean it's the primary topic. See WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB. This should be fine.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support first, oppose second. Of the two topics with articles, I think Snatch theft is the long-term significant primary topic here. Snatcher should be redirected to Snatch theft, with a hatnote to this article and the disambiguation page. SST  flyer  11:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both moves. I agree there is no primary topic, but I don't think it should redirect to snatch theft. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * '''Background investigation:
 * 14:06, 1 February 2016 moved page Snatcher to Snatcher (video game)
 * 21:43, 1 February 2016‎ (seven hours later, in response to this discussion) created Snatcher (disambiguation), but left Snatcher as a redirect to Snatcher (video game)
 * IIO also added the term "the snatcher" to the snatch theft article
 * ...but inexplicably fails to add a hatnote to Snatcher (disambiguation) to the top of the primary topic Snatcher (video game)
 * Making the base title for the primary topic a redirect to a parenthetical is unusual, but not unheard of. What was the rationale for that?
 * 07:38, 15 June 2016 moved page Snatcher (video game) to Snatcher over redirect (IIO, why moving it without discussion; I'll clean up your mess by creating the RM right now)
 * Just after this move, an understandably confused George finds a the dab and adds the necessary hatnote.
 * I don't follow the logic of reverting a bold move that one agrees with, in the absence of any evidence of potential controversy. I see there is some animosity between you two.
 * A little more attention to detail here would avoid the kind of confusion that leads to stirring up unnecessary drama. Try to just fix the oversights of others without making too much fuss. I find that I keep so busy clearing up these sorts of issues, that don't require admin tools to fix, that it detracts from the time I have to do tasks that actually do require the tools. wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support first. There seems to be strong agreement that the video game is not the primary topic. Snatching, Purse snatching, and Bag snatcher all redirect to Snatch theft, so why not Snatcher? Snatch theft is a crime committed by snatchers. I suppose bags are the items most commonly snatched, but snatchers could also snatch non-bagged items other than purses as well? Snatch theft averages 27 page views, while the video game averages over 100. So we have a situation where the two main criteria for primary topic are split. The video game leads in current usage, while the crime would be the PT based on long-term significance. I suspect that the game won't remain popular forever. wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support both. While the crime appears to be the topic with the most long-term significance here, the video game is currently the more popular subject at this point in time, per the stats from Wbm1058. If, in a few years, the popularity of the video game has gone down and snatch theft is now obviously the primary topic, then I think we can reconsider this then. However, for now, there is no primary topic, and Snatcher should be a disambiguation.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 07:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

VideoGames Review
One of the undone edits cites the fact that the "Japanese cuteness" it references in the review is in regards to the writing and tone, which I am calling into question. The review specifically contrasts the "Japanese cuteness" of other RPG's with the "heavy subject matter" of the game (IE, the art style contrasting with the content of the story). It is a well known aspect of Japanese style animation that the "cuteness" of the subjects is prominently displayed (Also known as Kawaii), and the review directly mentions Japanese animation. It does also mention the juvenile humor of the writing, but that appears to be separate since it describes the humor as crude and immature, not "cute".Belregard (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you are coming to that conclusion. He is clearly talking about how instances of humerous and lighthearted writing conflict with the dark tone of the story. That's the whole theme of the review. The only thing he says about the art is that it's generic. TarkusAB talk / contrib 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I already stated how I came to that conclusion, but if I'm not getting any agreement on it, then I will drop it, as it is not a high-order issue. Belregard (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)