Talk:Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.caproduction.co.jp/works94_98.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days.

If editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. - Article is already B class
• It contains copyright infringements. - From a quick scan, there are no copywright infringements.
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - No official tags on the article.
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. Good history. Seems like a lot of work from one editor, but no edit warring.

Links

• No issues regarding errant links. However, there is only a few references for an GA nominee.

Prose

Lede

• "Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire (Japanese: 銀河婦警伝説サファイア),[a] commonly abbreviated to Sapphire in English, is a shoot 'em up video game developed by CAProduction for the PC Engine CD-ROM² System." - Is the game abbreviated to simply Sapphire'? There's no other parts to this name?
  • I don't understand the question. The game's full title is "Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire". In English sources, they often refer to it colloquially as "Sapphire" because it's the only English word and the largest word on the cover.
    • So, is it known simply as Sapphire in texts reciting the game, or is it simply a shortened version of the title to refer to the game?
      • A shortened version. The title is always first and foremost called "Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire", then later in the same review, they will call it just "Sapphire" for easier reading.
        • That makes sense. I don't know why I didn't understand before.

• "The story follows an all-women police force in 2092 traveling through time to stop terrorists threatening their world." - Which world is this? Is it clear that it isn't earth?
  • It's Earth. I remove "their world" and reworded the sentence.

• "In retrospective coverage," - Does this mean the game was critically panned at the time, or was it simply ignored?
  • It means I could not locate any contemporary reviews :\
    • No worries. Bit of a shame, but very likely only exists in paper sources.

• In 2008, the game was re-released on a compilation for the PlayStation Portable released exclusively in Japan. - why isn't this release mentioned in the infobox for the game?
  • Because it's emulation
    • But it was still a released copy (For sale)? Regardless of the type of port or emulation, all releases should be specified in the infobox. If it's important, it should be also written in prose.
      • Emulated released do not go in the infobox per Template:Infobox video game
        • Really? I had no idea. Good catch!

Gameplay

• "Sapphire is a vertically scrolling shoot 'em up." - Should this mention that the game is 2D. I realise that with the game being released in 1995 this might be obvious, but might be worth adding.
  • Added

• "Terrorists have taken to stashing weapons and other contraband in the past, which leads to the formation of an all-woman police force to counter the threat." - Is there any explanation why this is? Why does it have to be an all-women police force?
  • Like most things that come out of Japan, it's fan service. No source says this though so I can't say it
    • This is ok. I'm not a big fan of the sentence, as it suggests that if terrorists took over, the natural course of events would be to hire an all-woman police force. Maybe this should go in parentheses, but it's ok for now.
      • I like that suggestion. I've implemented it.

• "The game is split across five levels, each taking place in a different times and locations: A futuristic city, the Middle Ages, ancient Japan, ancient Egypt, and finally outer space" - "Ancient" is used twice. Could easily be merged into "both Ancient Egypt and Japan", or similar.
  • Done

• "The levels are remarkably short with longer boss battles." - according to whom? and, in comparison to what?
  • I rewrote this sentence to show he was comparing the level length to the boss battle length.
    • Thanks, I assumed this was in comparrison to other similar games.

• "The player can pick to play as one of four women. Each has their own ship with a unique movement speed and three unique weapons" - Would like a citation. Shouldn't be too difficult to find.
  • All that information is source in the HG101 source towards the end of the paragraph.

• "One of the weapons is a straight shot, another is a wide angle shot, and the third shoots from the rear. The player can pick up colored gems to power up these weapons. When powered up, two pods fly next to the ship which can absorb enemy fire and unleash powerful shots. The player also has limited bombs at their disposal which deal high damage. The difficulty in Sapphire is adjustable" - Feels a bit like cruft. Rewording would make this feel better. Adjustable, how? Consider condensing these paragraphs.
  • Most shooters have very similar mechanics, so here I'm explaining the unique gameplay elements of Sapphire. How do you suggest I reword and what about it is crufty? I've already left out a lot of minutiae.
    • I doubt my wording will be perfect, considering I don't know the game's intracies. However, "Weapons include a straight shot, wide angle shot, and a rear-facing shot, which can be repowered (Powered-up) by coloured gems the player can pick-up. When powered up, two pods fly next to the ship which can absorb enemy fire and unleash powerful shots. A limited supply of bombs are also available that deal high damage."
      • I swapped that phrasing in, changed a couple minor things.

Background

• Would this not be better as a "Development" Section?
  • Not really because the section doesn't discuss development at all, but the "background" of everything that led to the game's development. I could not find any info on the dev history.

• The extra 2.25MB of memory was large and allowed for some high quality ports of fighting games. - Swap to higher. Surely they could have still ported the game, and high quality is a conceptual term.
  • Done

• CAProduction were working on a third entry in the "Thunder" trilogy following Gate of Thunder (1992) and Lords of Thunder (1993) when they were approached by Hudson. - Presumably before the release of the game?
  • I don't understand your question. This was before Sapphire was released. A third "Thunder" game was never finished because they made Sapphire instead.
    • That was the clarification I needed. I assumed they were in talks before the third game was released. But it's moot if the game was never made.

Release

• If the other subsection does get changed to "Development", perhaps this could become a subsection of that.
  • Other section not changed to Development

• "The release came late in the PC Engine's lifespan and subsequently was printed in low numbers." - How low? - Edit, it says this later. Perhaps remove the line regarding calling it the holy grail until after the price amounts are noted.
  • No source on exactly how low. Moved the holy grail phrase to the end of the paragraph

• As a result, Sapphire became a rare collector's item, selling for "incredibly high" prices in the video game collecting market - Who is quoted as saying it was incredibly high?
  • Kurt Kalata. I removed the quote and replaced with just "high"

• Due to its rarity, few gamers have had the opportunity to play Sapphire - Opportunity is a weird word for this. Surely lots of people have the opportunity to buy the game, but it was simply ridiculously overpriced?
  • What would be a better word? "Opportunity" is in reference to the game being so rare, that even stumbling upon it at someone's house and playing it is extremely unlikely. It's the opportunity to play not to own.
    • Maybe it is the correct word, I'm unsure. The idea that someone doesn't have the opportunity to play the game might be erroneous, considering anyone could purchase the game, even at a ridiculous price.
      • OK I reworded this sentence, removed "opportunity", and added in some info earlier about the hardware requirements.

• On 31 July 2008, Hudson Soft released a compilation of the first two Galaxy Fräulein Yuna games and Sapphire on the PlayStation Portable in Japan. - With this being a port, is there any information on this release, or difference in gameplay, etc?
  • It is not a dedicated port, it is emulation. Only difference is the aspect ratio options which is a function of the emulator.
    • I'm not familiar with the PSP's emulator. Was this a digital download, retail release, etc?
      • Physical release on UMD, but emulated, not a dedicated port

• The compilation is titled Ginga Ojousama Densetsu Collection[b] and was released as part of the PC Engine Best Collection series - Was this the name of the series? If so, it should be italicized.
  • It's already italicized isn't it?

• PC Engine Best Collection exists as an article, and should be wikilinked.
  • Done

• This release adds in options to change the aspect ratios for all three games and features an art gallery with Akitaka's concept art for the games and some original art. - This should mention what the aspect ratio change is from. - When you mention Original art, is this artwork from the original game, or unreleased art? Was there a graphical change between versions?
  • I added the aspect ratios. By original art, I mean original artwork by the artist unrelated to the games. I changed "art" to "artwork" to maybe help with this meaning. No graphical change because, again, emulation.

Reception and Legacy

• In retrospective coverage, both Kurt Kalata of Hardcore Gaming 101 and E. Kozo of Hardcore Gamer lauded Sapphire as one of the greatest PC Engine shoot 'em ups. - Was there no coverage of the game when it came out?
  • Not that I can find. Since the PC Engine was nearly dead and it was such a limited release, the only chance they exist is within old print Japanese media, if that.

• "In his review Kalata found the gameplay mediocre" - Wording. Replace with "Kalata review of the game found the gameplay "mediocre"" (Provided that is a quote).
  • Mediocre is not a quote. And sorry I disagree I don't think that's better at all. Kalata's review of the game didn't find the gameplay mediocre, Kalata did. I did put a comma in though.

• He goes on to explain how Sapphire's developers were able to create high-quality pre-rendered 2D sprites and animate them so well that they nearly convinced players the game was rendering 3D polygons. - Should this be mentioned in the development section as well/in place of?
  • I don't think so, because there's a nuance. Here, a critic is commenting on the quality of the 2D sprites and how they looked to him and other players. It doesn't say that the developers purposely wanted to create high-quality pre-rendered 2D sprites to emulate 3D polygons.
    • Ok, seems odd to have a reviewer mention something particularly in the review of the game that isn't covered in the article about the game to me.
      • I reworded the sentence in consideration of this. I couldn't find a good place earlier in the article to mention the game uses pre-rendered sprites. How does that look?

• Reviewing the re-release, Kozo thought the compilation had a great value since original Sapphire copies were worth ten times its price. He also praised the bonus art content but criticized the poorly implemented aspect ratio options. He concluded that the re-release of Sapphire was a "top notch example of a quality game withstanding the test of time." - Once again, what was the aspect ratios, and why were they bad?
  • Added

Notes & References

• referencing style is good. Well Archived and paper copies.

• Were there zero publications reviewing the game at the time?
  • See my comment above

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

    Done - See above. There were a few wording issues which have been rectified.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article is well researched, despite few references, is verifiable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Still not sure about the lack of information about the PSP release, above. If it isn't a retail release, this is ok, if it is, it needs mentioning.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Very fair.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No evidence of edit warring

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are fine. All are protected by US law

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• @Lee Vilenski: Replies above. Thank you very much for the review. TarkusAB^talk 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi @TarkusAB:, I have replied to a few of these answers, and struck out ones that no longer need discussion. Thank you for your speedy response. I'll take another look of the article and conduct the final part of the review soon. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Having done one final sweep, and with considerations towards the above edits, I will pass this GA. However, I would still like a little clarification on if a video game with a physical release could be considered an emulation in this way. I will start a topic on the Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Video games for clarification regarding this. However, congratulation, Ginga Fukei Densetsu Sapphire has passed it's GA review. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Source search

Did some cursory searching for sources. I could not immediately find any import reviews. Consoles + would be the thing to check, as they had a great preview/review section for JP only titles.

PC Engine Fan did a special series in their December issue to Hudson games, and they devote a whopping 5 pages to the game. This is the most indepth source I've found, but it's all in Japanese. They have a % number in front of each Hudson game they cover, and I believe that's the review score the magazine gave them, but I'm not entirely sure. The previous November issue likely was the review of the game. Both Famitsu and PC Engine Fan make a big deal about the "polygons", with Famitsu calling it the first PC Engine game to use polygons. This should probably be mentioned in the development section.

Superjuegos's Japanmania supplement previewed the game in their Mangazone section (devoted to anime themed games). The preview is 1 page, and not super in depth but it covers some basics. Also, I found Game Go! interview with the composer. The interview unfortunately does not go into depth about the specific development of this game, but it gives background on the composer, and does say they worked on this game. Also the rights to the soundtrack are owned by Hudsonsoft. I also found some Retro Gamer (UK) brief citations discussing how rare and expensive the game is. Also, I found a German Euro-gamer page that covers the rarity of the game.

I own Shooting Gameside, and it's possible they covered the game. I will have to go and check. Overall PC Engine Fan is the most in-depth source by far. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

T's music talks like the soundtrack had never been released for the game as of 2001. The music is very notable, and any soundtrack release should be discussed.

There's a French mag called "Hardcore Gamers" (which appears unrelated to the English mag as far as I can tell), and the last issue I've read was 2005. If the mag lasted until 2008 they would have reviewed the PSP collection. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Read through the Japanmania preview, and I don't think it says anything terribly new. All it says is that Mika Akitada is working on the game, and he'd previously worked on Zeta and 083, and the Arcade card creates a lot of "morphing routines and renderings". Thing is, I'm not sure what "morphing" is in reference to. The animations? Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)