Talk:Tears to Tiara: Earth's Wreath

Should this be marked PlayStation 3-only?
I was under the impression that remakes should be considered separate games, and this is clearly a remake when you look at the jump from the original's remedial 2D ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYkW892s-wQ ) to this version's next-gen 3D ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Tears_to_Tiara_%28Battle%29.jpg ) -GR 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:PlayStation_3-only_games is clear on the subject. It has a clear answer as to what belongs there.

Video games in this category have been or will be released exlusively on the PlayStation 3, and are not available for purchase or download on other video game consoles or personal computers. The only exception to this rule is when a game has been ported from the arcade directly to the PlayStation 3.

Notice how "extra bells, whistles, and ribbons" are't an exception? New graphics are nice. It doesn't make it a new game however. More to the point one of the references refers to the game as a port. You have yet to provide a credible source of any kind labeling it as a "remake."Sima Yi 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, how can you justify Ninja Gaiden Sigma, FF3DS, FF4DS, SM64DS, MGS: Twin Snakes, and tons of other remakes that are only "extra bells and whistles" on -Only lists? Hell, other sites ( For example, QJ.net http://ps3.qj.net/Tears-to-Tiara-remake-new-SRPG-hitting-the-PS3/pg/49/aid/97884 ) state it is a remake, and the very reference you keep quoting, in fact, says, that it is "more than a port." Of course, that would be evident to anyone but you. To say that Wikipedia has a "clear answer" on this issue is flatly wrong, particularly when there are articles that 100% disagree with it in the very same category. -GR 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't justify any other pages. Mostly because I have seen any of those pages, and have no interest in them. If they are in violation of the categroy's criteria, then you should remove the articles in question from them. As for ps3.qj.net, I recall them making claims like Assassin's Creed being a PS3 exclusive and then simply changing the articles saying that when they were proven to be 100% wrong. Try using a more credible site. Also being "more than a port" is still being a port. A port with extras is still a port. As far as petty comments like "evident to anyone but me", maybe you should read some articles like: Civility, No_personal_attacks. Lastly, you dodged my main point. The PlayStation 3-only category has a clear guideline on the issue. Yes, some articles may have been inappropriately added to it. That happens with almost every big category. But two wrongs don't make a right, in my opinion.Sima Yi 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)