# Talk:Panzer Dragoon

I think that the Panzer Dragoon (R-Zone) article should be redirected here. I don't think that it will ever rise above stub level. Anyone agree? --Mika1h 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Panzer Dragoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120716105110/http://www.1up.com/features/panzer-dragoon-zwei-retrospective?pager.offset=1 to http://www.1up.com/features/panzer-dragoon-zwei-retrospective?pager.offset=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.usgamer.net/amp/panzer-dragoon-interview-sega-yukio-futatsugi-kentaro-yoshida Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

New remakes are not exclusives
The first one is already confirmed for steam and Forever Entertainment has never said they were exclusives. Someone should remove that.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panzer Dragoon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 14:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC) — probably going to get to next week, later than planned. 17:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs did you forget about this review? (t · c) buidhe 06:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
It's still in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Friendly bystander question, you still looking at this one? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Overall, the article is in solid shape. Some comments as follows:

General:
Uncited: There is no story; the display features a dragon with rider and static enemies and obstacles that intermittently appear around them and can be dodged or shot. All images that can be displayed are built into the game's LCD display, showing as black silhouettes against either a blank background (on the R-Zone) or a single static background image taken from the first level of the original Panzer Dragoon (on the Pocket Arcade).
Next to nothing has been written about this throw-away spin-off outside of fan sites and forums. I can attach a YouTube video of the game being played, if that would help? I could also just completely cut it from the article; it may not meet the notability guidelines. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I think my main issue is the reception section, which gives a lot of pull quotes rather than summarizing the pros and cons of each one quickly. (The Orta section seems generally better than the others.) Also, is there any more legacy information about the series as a whole?
Surely it does both? Each paragraph begins with a sentence or two "summarizing the pros and cons" of the critical reception for the game. The PD section has ~70 words of critical summary, with ~30 words of quotation; The Zwei section has ~80 words of critical summary, with ~30 words of quotation; The Saga section has ~110 words of critical summary, with ~20 words of quotation; the Orta section has ~70 words of critical summary, with ~20 words of quotation.
I think you're right, that this article could use more of a summary of the reception and retrospective view of the series. I've added a paragraph to the "Reception" section with a new source examining the series as a whole. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Are the topic sentences for each paragraph (e.g. Zwei was critically acclaimed upon release, with praise focusing on the cutting-edge graphics, gameplay refinements relative to the first game, and the continued strength of the art design, music, and atmosphere, though the low difficulty again received criticism.) supposed to be supported by the sources after them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but I could also put a stack of citations to various reviews right after each of the summary sentences, if that seems warranted for verifiability? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Since it's otherwise unclear what is being cited where, I think more precise citing would be helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Media:
No issues.
References:
What makes PCInvasion, Wavemaster, and RocketBaby reliable sources?
PCInvasion has as much editorial oversight and accountability as most internet news sites (which isn't much). Wave-Master is a branch of Sega, so we can probably trust their statements about which soundtracks their own staff have worked on. RocketBaby is a tough one; I don't think that interview actually adds anything over the other interview at the end of the sentence, so I've cut it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Given it's not been discussed at RSN or VG/S I'd say cut PCInvasion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
In that case, I'll just cut the R-Zone game, which hasn't had enough published about it to satisfy the notability guidelines. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
You've got some inconsistent formatting (italicizing or not Eurogamer) and some CS1 errors in the references.
Fixed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel like given the amount of plot given for each game, it should probably be cited.
I'm counting ~250 words of plot summary total, hardly over the top for four games. WP:VG/PLOT says "Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Did a spot-check to statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 12, 18, 22, 31, 45, 49, 57, 63, 66, 72, and 74.
The instruction manual refers to the "Ancient Time", not the "Ancient Age", and doesn't adequately cover some of the content (genetic engineering the weapons, etc.)
The translators shifted to "Ancient Age" starting with Saga. The Orta manual e.g. uses "Ancient Age" and specifically describes the monsters as "bio-engineered creatures". I've added a citation to the Orta manual to that first paragraph. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Ref 2 and others has page numbers through the {{rp}} but other refs have it in the citation template. Any reason for this?
{{rp}} is for citing the same source repeatedly, but drawing attention to different pages each time. When a source is cited only once, the page numbers can be incorporated into the citation template. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I feel like the use of primary sources for large chunks of the games section (for example, the Orta section) is inappropriate, in that we should be demonstrating through secondary sources what's so important about these entries.
I've added a citation to the Orta section. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Ref 3 doesn't really cover the ending boss levels stuff.
From the source: "In boss battles or showdowns with large enemies, you use the lock-on to target weak spots with multiple shots." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
The prose is still going beyond what the source explicitly says (for example, it mentions the lock-on ability but it doesn't mention switching between a laser and machine gun, and it doesn't mention levels at all, nor the placement of the bosses at the end of them.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
That source specifically describes switching between the two firing modes (e.g. "The trade-off is that firing a burst of shots is much slower than tapping the attack button for single attacks."). I've added a source mentioning the level structure. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
But where does the citation mention a laser and machine gun? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Ref 31 doesn't seem to source the content attributed to it (Zwei's story bit.)
From the source (Futatsugi speaking): "Yamada-san was concentrating on Zwei while I was concentrating on Azel. In the beginning I was looking over both, but towards crunch time at the end of Saga development, Yamada-san was focusing on Zwei." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
That's likewise going beyond what's the source. It doesn't mention the story becoming Yamada's sole responsibility, and it doesn't say Futatsugi was in charge of both game's narratives. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but, that's exactly what the sentence I quoted above says. It specifically does says that Futatsugi initially oversaw both games ("In the beginning I was looking over both...") and that Yamada became the leader on Zwei as the project progressed ("towards crunch time at the end of Saga development, Yamada-san was focusing on Zwei"). Earlier in the same paragraph, Futatsugi says, "he [Yamada] was the main guy on Zwei." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Hey, just checking to make sure you saw this. Looking forward to your further feedback. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I've gone through another pass on the sourcing and I've found what I would consider similar issues with imprecision leading to verification issues. I'm still concerned by the use of primary sources, comprehensiveness, and the writing on the reception section. It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this so I'm failing and will let another reviewer do their own job evaluating. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Panzer Dragoon (R-Zone) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 28 § Panzer Dragoon (R-Zone) until a consensus is reached.  QuicoleJR (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Panzer Dragoon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
Reception

One observation I noted is that most of, say, the first PD's reception is random reviewers. I'm not certain that individual reviews, unless they're uniquely notable reviews themselves, should be mentioned. Is it possible to find more examples of how Panzer Dragoon fared in, say, prestigious top lists? Overall, I'd say this applies to all four entries in this section.
Er, I guess I'm a bit confused as to what you're recommending. I'm not sure how to say what sort of critical reception the game got without referring to reviews that it received from critics. If I suppress mention of the specific publications the reviews came from, aren't I failing to attribute the comments and replacing them with my own original synthesis? Each of the four games' reception paragraphs already mentions multiple "top lists" that it appeared in; are you saying that you want more lists, or that you feel the lists currently mentioned aren't sufficiently prestigious? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I think what may be good is to center the reception around more significant reception rather than picking out top critics. Point to the aggregate score and refer to especially notable reception, like awards, top games rankings (ideally covering multiple things, such as by year, platform, for Sega, and overall), etc. I might ask for a second opinion from someone who works on series articles to get a better idea of how to do a Reception section more effectively. I guess my concern is, why are these critics being quoted instead of others? Are they particularly notable reviews? That kind of thing. [1] This might be a good example to follow. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Those critics are being quoted because they speak for notable publications, such as Next Generation, EGM, GamePro, IGN, GameInformer, and so on, and because their comments reflect notable aspects of the critical consensus about the titles in question, which is why similar quotations are present in the "Reception" section of that article on the Chrono series. But, if I'm understanding you correctly, you'd like less detail about what aspects of the games were or weren't well received, so that the focus is more on overall commercial performance and top lists? These games simply didn't achieve the commercial success or cultural prominence of a Chrono Trigger, and there's not going to be much to say about them from those angles. It'll make the reception section much shorter; if that's what you want, then I'll do it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The Panzer Dragoon reception should include a tidbit about how the remake was received. Also, is there any reception for Mini?
Good point: I've added a paragraph on the critical reception of the remake. I haven't been able to find any critical notice of the Game Gear title. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, someone has just taken live a formerly draft article on Panzer Dragoon Mini with some more sources, and I've used some of those to add a short paragraph on Mini's critical reception. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The spiritual sequels bit feels oddly placed.
I've broken it out into a "Legacy" subsection to make the organization more clear. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
By the way, are there Famitsu scores to put in the table? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:VGAGG is that MetaCritic is to be used when possible, falling back to GameRankings when a title is too old (like all of the Saturn titles) or Famitsu when a game was only or mainly released in Japan (like Mini). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, Famitsu is usually cited, as, rather than an aggregate, it's just multiple reviewers for a publication (like Electronic Gaming Monthly), so maybe just drop it from the table. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you're right that it doesn't quite serve the same purpose as MC and GR (as an aggregator), but the documentation on Template:Video game series reviews specifically says to use Famitsu for Japan-only titles that don't show up in those preferred sources; it also feels a little wrong to leave Mini out of the table when it has a paragraph in the section? I'll cut it if you feel strongly that it should go. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Images

I feel like the lack of a screenshot of any one game is fairly limiting and doesn't help the reader understand what the series tends to look like.
I was a bit intimidated by the need to get the non-free fair-use stuff right! Do you have a thought about which title a screenshot should come from? (Probably not Saga, since it isn't a shooter) -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the first game should be used. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I've added a screenshot from the first game to the section that describes the core gameplay elements visible in the screenshot, and (I hope) I've updated the fair-use notices on the image's page. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I'll continue the review in a day or so. I've not been well, and I don't like to review an article in that state. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that, resuming now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: Okay, I reckon I'll let my review issues slide, they're not failing. However, I will say that I'd like to see the quotes in the Reception paraphrased before I pass the article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Er, okay, thank you. So, you won't allow any quotations in the article? Considering that these quotations express the opinions of critics about works of art, I don't think I can paraphrase them in wikivoice without violating NPOV. I can cut some quotation from the section on the first game, if that one is particularly bothering you? These quotations are all taken from the reception sections of the respective games' articles, which are all rated GA or FA. As an example, the Reception section of Saga (a Featured Article) contains twenty-seven sentences, of which seventeen (almost 63%) contain a quotation from a review (four sentences are entirely quotation). By comparison, in this article, the Reception section contains twenty-one sentences, of which eight (just over 38%) include a review quotation of some length. If you could explain what policy or standard leads you to judge that too much quotation is being included, then maybe I'd know what goal we're aiming for? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe that's the main idea Cukie is suggesting, paraphrase the quotes for the receptions of each entry. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to quotations, but for example, the first Next Generation review is just a full on quote, while I find the quotations used in the EW text better. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I've shortened or removed some of the longer quotations; is this the direction you want it to go? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, more what I meant was turning "A reviewer for Next Generation wrote that the game "orchestrates incredible story animation with brilliant, 3D flight graphics"," into prose - for example, I don't even really understand what this sentence says. Is it saying that "in junction with brilliant flight graphics" or "using brilliant, 3D flight graphics"? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
(I really appreciate you engaging with me and having a conversation!) My Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., defines "orchestrate" as "arrange or combine so as to achieve a desired or maximum effect." The reviewer is saying that the game combines "incredible story animation"s, like the lengthy ones that begin and end the game, with "brilliant, 3D flight graphics" during gameplay to achieve the desired effect of an enjoyable experience for the player. So, that quotation is there to provide a specific supporting example of the earlier summary sentence's assertion that critics favorably received the game's art design, visual effects, and cinematic cutscenes, whereas the EW one is there to support the assertion that critics praised the atmospheric setting. I've replaced the word "orchestrates", in case that was an obstacle to clarity. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm gonna ask @Alexandra IDV: for a second opinion on the degree of quotations used. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: Pinging since this GA review appears to have been stalled for quite a while. My personal opinion is that the amount of quoting could still stand to be reduced ("a massive sensory overload machine", for example, could simply be paraphrased as overloaded the senses), but technically fine, since Panzer Dragoon Saga passed FAC in 2018 with similar amounts of quoting.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I've made the change suggested, as well as removing some other quotation. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
A few other things I missed:

You should cite some stuff in the Games section. Release dates, developer/publisher, and platform. No need to source the story ofc, that's all verifiable from the game.
Clarify that Team Andromeda worked on the first three main Panzer Dragoons, as that's not immediately clear from the first section.
I've noted the developer in each case and added citations supporting the assertion of the developer, platform and date. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Would you consider altering the table to replace the three columns with "Aggregate score"? Since only one aggregate is used for each, no need to have so much blank space. I'd also suggest removing Panzer Dragoon Mini from it, it doesn't need to be in the table just because it's in the reception.
Okay, I've suppressed the attribution for the aggregate review scores. Is it necessary that Mini be left out? I don't quite see why... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Basically, Famitsu isn't actually an aggregate site like Metacritic, Opencritic, and Game Rankings are. That said, I'm not going to belabor that issue, as it's not a failing issue, just one that I disagree with a fair bit. The issues seem to be addressed to a reasonable degree. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)