Talk:Star Ocean (video game)

Untitled
Both Star Ocean and Tales of Phantasia are stored on a 48 Mbit cartridge not on a 64 Mbit one therefore I have changed the value in the article

Never heard it with Fantastic Space Odyssey
I have never seen this addition "Fantastic Space Odyssey" made to the cartridge, box, or instruction manual. Could you tell me where to find it?

I believe that the little blurb of Japanese text beneath the title [as seen on the box and/or cartridge] translates roughly to that, but I'm not exactly sure. That's just what I've heard, and I unfortunately cannot recall where. Please tell me if I messed up this response in any way, I'm still rather new to this.

-- Duayne Kiuda


 * My Japanese is pretty limited, but I'm pretty sure that the text beneath the English language logo is katakana, which is generally used to translate non-Japanese words into Japanese. Given the context, I think it's far more likely that it is simply a repeat of the title above ("Star Ocean") in Japanese. – Seancdaug 02:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. My Japanese is nonexistent [unless you count being able to say "Konnichiwa" and "Yatta"], so...yeah, you have the one-up on me there. Also, some research I've done recently has brought to my attention that "Fantastic Space Odyssey" is more than likely an unofficial subtitle added by someone, somewhere after the release of "The Second Story". Unfortunately, I'm having no luck finding out where exactly it came from. -- Duayne Kiuda 18 September 2005


 * I know nothing about the game or the series, but the Japanese on the box is katakana (スターオーシャン) as best as I can make it out. This is just a phoneticization (if I may make up a word) of "Star

Ocean" (lit. "sutaa ooshan"). --Kyle Davis 07:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yet, the unofficial title "Fantasic Space Odyssey" remains... I'm going to go ahead and lose that until someone can offer legitimate proof for its implementation.


 * It probably comes from Track 1, Disk 2 of the Perfect Sound Collection; it's the first thing said. Whether or not it's on the box or spoken in gameplay...?

Spoilers in characters descriptions
The descriptions of the main characters contain spoilers and speculation. It even describes Ronixis destiny in Star Ocean: The Second Story! This should be either edited, removing the speculations on the characters outcome and their future, or a spoiler warning should be present. --Lashiec 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As it seems that no one is up to the task, for now I put a spoiler warning in there, now we have two. Do what you have to do with them, but if you remove the new one I created, do it before you edited the descriptions to get rid of the spoilers. But please do not simply remove the warnings. I'll probably do it myself in a few days --Lashiec 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moby Games
I think we should take out the moby games link, for it has been taken down.
 * Fixed. The guys at Moby Games renamed the entry. Thanks for the tip --Lashiec 02:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

First Departure Merger
Star Ocean : the First departure is an enhanced remake of Star Ocean (snes). As it is unreleased in Japan, not much information is known about the title (unlike Final Fantasy IV DS). Normally, it would make sense to combine the two articles EXCEPT for the fact that The First Departure is being released in 7 days. Upon that time more information should become known, including but not limited too overall development information, US release, Japanese reception, and first week sales. Overall, I recommend a STRONG DO NOT MERGE. If in 1 months time, The first departure has not been expanded upon they should be combined (like the Tales of Eternia PSP port). 64.129.86.8 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DeJap Fan Translation
The ROM of the original Super Famicon release was partially translated into English and made available for play via emulators by the online fan translation group, DeJap, long before the remake was ported to the PSP. Should the article reference this fact?

CWD 65.38.113.232 (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge
As is, Star Ocean: First Departure does not warrant a standalone article, as it can easily be integrated into the primary article. Jonathan Hardin&#39; (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Star Ocean: First Departure -> Star Ocean (video game)

Cover image discussion at Files for discussion/2016 May 17
As info. -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that the FFD nom is over, what shall I do with the PSP cover? Shall I leave the image alone or re-remove it? What about you, ferret and Serge? Eh, well... I got kinda mellow and bored with image disputes. Nevertheless, I wonder whether the PSP cover helps readers a lot and whether the image meets NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm fine with the current arrangement. However I am not super familiar with the ins and outs of NFCC and whether there's a violation. I believe it's probably safe. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My stance was also the current arrangement as well, so I too would like to stick with that. Sergecross73   msg me  14:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Source
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/star-ocean/

Pretty comprehensive source done recently by veteran journalist Kurt Kalata. Sergecross73  msg me  15:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Making "Star Ocean: First Departure" its own page
Per advice, I decided to make a discussion about this. I accidentally went ahead and made a separate page for the Star Ocean remake, Star Ocean: First Departure, thinking it would be okay since almost all remakes of games have their own page rather than just being part of the page of the original game. As I stated before, some remakes like Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon, and Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia all have their own page rather than just being a section of the original game. Considering that the remake is significantly different from the original and is the version that has been re-released, I think that it should have its own page for being significant enough. Star Ocean: Second Evolution isn't a remake like this game but a port/remaster only adding some new things and features whereas First Departure is a straight up new game built from the ground up. Let me know if you are okay with making it its own page. If the consensus is that it shouldn't get a separate page, then please go ahead and redirect the link. Suriwashi (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Note: This user has been banned for abusing multiple accounts in this discussion, confirmed by CheckUser. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * people involved in the GAN for this article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not even that I'm opposed to a split, it just felt like a pretty heavy-handed deconstruction of this article, which has had a lot of work put into it. Sergecross73   msg me  13:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Oppose the way it was split before, open to it being done in an alternate, more nuanced way. Sergecross73   msg me  01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that if other remakes get to have their own separate page, then so too should the Star Ocean remake. Since it isn't a remaster of the original game, it should be moved. I think this is especially true considering how different it is from the original. JAMendoza (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The remake is different enough that it should absolutely have its own page. The split was clumsily done since there is some repeating info on both pages and there really should be none. Also, post split the original game will undoubtedly no longer be a Good Article. While I think it must be done, it's best to show some politeness by notifying the people in question.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Remake vs remaster is not the distinction we draw on Wikipedia for what gets an article. The primary question is "how do we present this information well?" Splitting information across multiple pages always entails some degree of redundancy and harms the reader's understanding of the topic (cf. WP:SIF). For two intimately related topics, such as a game and its remake, it is much more legible to read about them in the context of each other on the same page so you can naturally see the parallels. Forking off content to another page just because other remakes do it is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The desire to split articles into least publishable units has to be tempered by an understanding of what's best for the reader (and obey guidelines at WP:SPLIT). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SIF is an essay, however WP:NOTPAPER is part of Wikipedia's policy: "Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content." As long as this game is notable and is different enough to the main game (it obviously is for both), I see no issues having this with a standalone article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that SIF is an essay; editors need not be reminded every single time they are even obliquely referenced (nor was it even the main thrust of my opposition, I merely mentioned it because it encapsulates my point well). The readable prose of the article is currently at 24kb, which is far below the recommendations at WP:SIZESPLIT. My contention is that one article that covers both is a better way to convey the information to readers. It avoids redundancy and places relevant details near each other in context. Remember the reader. That's who we're making this encyclopedia for. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact is that incorporating the remake into the article of the original results in a poor presentation for the original game. The original's reception is hardly mentioned; nobody did any digging on older publications to find it because it was easier to talk about the remake. So I think that contrary to your argument, the best presentation is when both pages are split because reception for the remake has nothing to do with the original title. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reception for a 25 year old game will not magically appear after a split. That is a sourcing issue, not a presentation issue, and it exists regardless and independent of the split. And OF COURSE the reception of the remake has "something to do" with the reception of the original title. They're obviously in conversation with the other so differences in overall reception are worth noting and worth highlighting by their juxtaposition (e.g. "the remake fixed all the problems of the original and it was better received" or "the remake was insufficient and did worse than the original"). Axem Titanium (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support ZXCVBNM summed it up best by stating that the majority of the information on the page deals with the remake and not the original game. If other pages for original games and their remakes have separate pages, then so should this game. There's no logical reason to do otherwise. FlyingChancla (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not against splitting, but this whole "other remakes get articles there's so should this one" is a complete logical fallacy. It directly violates WP:OSE. There is zero requirement for 100% parity between how we handle all games and their remakes. You guys have to stop citing that, it's not considered a valid argument on Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  15:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid for this one, I've got to say Oppose. There doesn't seem to be enough added gameplay/graphical content in First Departure to justify its own article, plus this was a version released in English when the original was exclusive to Japan, so there should've be any real issues splitting reception into two sections. For me, it's not about how many references it has, but how notable it is in isolation. The 2020 Trials of Mana and the three portable Fire Emblem remakes are notable because of the number of changes, but the recent expanded remaster of Nier Replicant and those for the second and third SaGa series aren't. And if the article were to stay split, First Departure would need a top-down redo. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been reviewing the First Departure spin out article, and my stance is the same - there's all sorts of unsourced or poorly sourced content, and poorly written prose. It reinforces my stance that my objection is more about the shoddy quality of the spin out article. (The other part being how poorly this article was chopped up.) Sergecross73   msg me  01:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support First Departure is a completely different game from the original. It shouldn't be part of the original game's page considering how it's technically a brand, new game with a ton of new additions and different gameplay. If First Departure isn't noteworthy of getting it's own page then why do remakes like The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening get their own when the only major difference between this and the original are new graphics. The gameplay from the original has not changed at all. Even the remasters of Wind Waker and Twilgiht Princess have separate pages. There's no logical reason for First Departure, a remake, to not get a proper page if even remasters get their own. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ignoring all your WP:OSE violations, I've played both versions of the games. They are extremely similar. That aside, I'm a bit concerned about all these relatively inactive accounts coming out of the woodwork to come and make the same OSE-violating argument. I'm starting to wonder if we've got an off-wiki WP:CANVASSing problem or something. Sergecross73   msg me  02:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I find it strange too. Every person in support of the split, except for ZX, has been inactive for months or years (and promptly returned to inactivity after parachuting their !vote in here). Axem Titanium (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, situations like this are almost always either thinly-veiled WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Sergecross73   msg me  19:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Moving information from this page to the First Departure page won't ruin the quality of this page since there is enough information about the original SNES version to keep this page up. There is also enough sources to go ahead with the split too. DinosaurPlaneteer (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet vote. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you check out the first attempt at a split? It destroyed this article. And I've had to weed out a ton of garbage from the First Departure article. It was clearly carried out by someone with little experience with editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73   msg me  19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are you people coming from? Did someone ask you to post here? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Cover Issue
Per the copyright image-claim on the image, there is currently nothing that states why it's being used in the article. It's being used for identification, but we already have the original SNES image. Now, I know the per the infobox template, it states the following. "The ideal image is an English-language cover or, in the case of an arcade game, a promotional flier. Secondarily, use a logo or foreign-language cover. When cover designs differ between regions, use the cover from the region associated with the game's first English language release." In this case, perhaps to follow this standard, we should use the English-language box art for this game in the infobox over the SNES one. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking that, for English reader recognizability, the PSP cover would probably be better for the infobox. I'd rather make that switch, and then wait and see if/when someone can craft an NFCC rationale for the SNES cover. Sergecross73   msg me  17:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it follows our rules more, but now if I looked at this, I'd assume it was a PSP game originally, not a Super Famicom one. I know the prose would suggest otherwise, and I am probably projecting for viewers. I'm not entirely familiar with this game or it's remake/master/whatever, so I don't know how different it is. (game upgrade? more areas? There is very little information in the article about this PSP bit as well, just that "wanted the remakes to feel as though they're completely new games", so is that really a good representative image? I know we have standards set, but this seems to be a unique situation.Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've played both. They're more or less the same game, its just that the SNES one looks like a high end SNES game while the PSP one looks more like a mid-grade PS1 game. There's since been Switch and PS4 releases too, but they're largely just hi-res versions of the PSP version. Outside of the graphics, I believe the content of the games are like 95% the same. Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An additional thought - looks like the Switch and PS4 versions have separate cover art/game icon art, and were released in English. Considering both the Switch and PS4 separately are far more popular than the PSP ever was in English regions, maybe that version trumps either of these? Sergecross73   msg me  17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha on the differences between them. It's maybe twisting the rules around, but it says "When cover designs differ between regions, use the cover from the region associated with the game's first English language release", so that would be the PSP one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Totally fine with going with the PSP one then. Sergecross73   msg me  20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna chime in and say that having the original Super Famicom cover art doesn't hurt the article at all. After all, the name in the cover is in English and it's the original release of the first Star Ocean. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not that I actively want it gone, it's just that, if our image policy can't rationalize 2 covers, I don't think a JP-only cover should be the only one used. Sergecross73   msg me  21:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if it were up to me i'd just have earliest cover of any game up here, but I'd also like to stick to policy generally. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, then let's settle this down: if the SFC is going to be used, then the PSP cover art must be removed from the article. If the PSP cover art is going to be used, then the SFC must be removed instead. It's all up to you guys. IMO, i prefer the SFC cover art but opinions may vary :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really see any win-win here as I think i'd be disappointed for one small reason or another using PSP over SNES (namely, it still says Star Ocean, is recognizable, shows to the audience this was originally a SNES game) while the other does follow the rules of it being an English-language debut which is where most English-language readers would have played it (I assume). Hard to gauge, but I'd say we just have one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we can't decide on our own, we can always ask for more input from WP:VG too. Sergecross73   msg me  16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The way I see it the policy is "favor the first English release unless the cover for that is significantly creatively inferior in some way". An example is the Ico and Panzer Dragoon (video game) cover art in which the Japanese art is used. Both their Western boxarts are considered aesthetically bankrupt in every way.
 * Star Ocean doesn't quite pass the Ico test because the boxart for First Departure is roughly creatively equivalent to the original. Therefore the PSP artwork seems to be the one that should be used. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That works for me. I suppose just noting underneath it that this is the PSP art in the caption and the opening lead will clarify enough what is going to the average reader assuming they can read. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Although it would be according to the rules (which are unique since Film, Album and Novel projects prefer original covers), it would be pretty weird to use the PSP one since it's from a different era: it's a remaster/remake released 12 years later, has a different title, and the character art style is completely changed. --Mika1h (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This article is covering all versions of the game though, not just the original. I just can't believe that a Japan-only cover from the 90s is the best choice for the English Wikipedia in 2024 as far as image recognizability goes... Sergecross73   msg me  16:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's also pretty weird for anyone unfamiliar with how Japanese Super Nintendo box art is for people familiar with Super Nintendo games as it doesn't look like any common Super Nintendo box art that English-speaking audiences would be familiar with. I feel like either way there is going to be something weird about it. But these are both relatively older titles and by reading the basic opening paragraph (or even a well decided heading under the image in the infobox), nobody will be so confused that they think they are on the wrong article page, which I think would be the only real serious issue here.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have doubts that the English PSP cover is particularly recognizable, given sales figures, meaning both covers are basically equally unrecognizable to the readership. And since the SFC cover includes the name of the game in English in huge letters, I don't think there's any compelling reason to disqualify it. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with Axem. Nobody would think they are on the wrong article reading "Star Ocean" in big letters on the box art of the Japanese box and honestly, no offence to this game, but as I'm coming in relatively blind to this, this is one of many Japanese Role-playing games with a cover surrounded by anime characters that probably only connect with people if they've already played the game. Most of the article involves the making-of the original game and little about the re-release version, so if there is no major arguments otherwise, I'll remove the PSP box art in a few days. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how that argument isn't equally strong when applied to the PSP cover though. Sergecross73   msg me  16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like, I'm really just picking one because the general vibe i'm getting Serge is that we need one, we can't have both, and I don't think anyone would be any more confused by the SNES one over PSP one for the reasons stated above. The only thing I see the PSP thing going is that it makes it look like that the game was first released on PSP, which isn't the case and the article mostly discusses the development of a super nintendo game with very little about the PSP version. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Any other comments ? Don't want to let this sit and it's basically established we can't have both in the article. so let's move forward to using one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Errr what exactly is your read on a "consensus" here...? Sergecross73   msg me  23:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean..Last few folks have seemed like their is no issue in recognizing the game from the Japanese cover. Your response was very specific other than it could apply to the PSP one. I mean sure, but we can't have both and it's not a measure of counts, but I think we should really just choose one for the Infobix. At this point I don't really think either offers any great benefit over the other Reith maybe mild preference for the original cover. So what do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , I see you have been regularly editing through the week and have not heard from you on this. I'd like to move past and if you have no further suggestions, I'll just pick one to keep and move forward as there has not been anything convincing that one is predominantly superior to the other. Both have their issues. But we can't have both. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My stance hasn't changed from where I started in all this, and if you ask me, I don't really see a consensus for change here. If you make a change, I won't revert you...but I don't particularly believe this discussion is much to point to for future article maintenance either. Sergecross73   msg me  18:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are implying, but if others want to come back to discuss it later or if there is any users confused at what happened with the change of image in the article, we can probably bring more discussion by changing it and seeing if anyone is truly confused at what the image represents. There may be no real straight consensus, but nobody seems to want to discuss either so might as well change it and see what happens. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying you'd be hard pressed for anyone maintaining the article in the future to enforce what you're proposing based off of this discussion. No one is going to revert with a "per talk page consensus" alluding to this discussion. Because there isn't any. Sergecross73   msg me  19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but my bigger issues wasn't so much having one over the other. It was we shouldn't have two articles of game covers in the article. It just ballooned into this conversation which we found neither satisfied one over the others. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm confused by the combination of stances here: You're motivated enough to hold a discussion, but unbothered that no consensus was found. You're motivated enough to make the change, but unbothered that anyone could rightfully undo it at any point because there's no real consensus supporting the change. It's...a weird combination of stances for an experienced editor to take. I guess I'm just not sure what the point was, besides me relenting... Sergecross73   msg me  00:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, undoing it would be foolish. Article clearly states that there is a the re-release of the game. My initial issue was that it doesn't validate its claim of fair use. I've leaned mildly into preferring the original box art for various reasons, (clearly says the title in English, showcases it was a SNES/super Famicom release initially, bulk of article is about the making of a SNES game, not a psp one) vs. (someone may be confused in not seeing the initial packing that was used in English territories). The latter part is possible, but neither version is commercially available outside after market material currently. This is why I've leaned on the former. Others have seemed to lean towards this to outside your one sentence rebuttal and weeks of silence on the topic until now. I'm not sure what's weird about what I did after you suggested me for me remove an image. What did you expect? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)