Talk:Shadow of the Colossus/Archive 2

message: Could someone with more knowledge of wikipedia layout fix the top of the article?  It looks lame with all that white space up there after the introduction.  I tried splicing the synopsis into the intro, but it didn't help.  :P  It's probably something to do with the table on the right. —ZorkFox 09:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I put it to how you guys want it but does the layout really look better? Atirage 07:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks better... except on low-resolution screens.  Luckily, I only have to endure that at work.  But if enough people think it should go back, I'm all right with it.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 20:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I don't think it is very helpful to the understanding of the game to add links in the story synopsis to every single noun that is mentioned. I would propose that these be reduced to a few which actually provide valuable context for the game itself. Ben Kidwell 09:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold.  Feel free.  It's just that it's a huge block of otherwise unrelieved text.  It might be nice to have some screen shots in there, so if you can provide some small images to help break up the narrative instead, that would be great.  I tried to pick items that were in context, which is why I didn't just pick things like sword and crossbow but also dead and spiritual possession and so on. It's easy to look those things up on Wikipedia, sure, but it's even easier still to just click them.  :) —ZorkFox 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  I thought better of your suggestion and removed some of the links. —ZorkFox 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I dumped some more of these the other night because you're right: it looks like crap with so many in there.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 08:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: remove extraneous textlinks 

message: I agree with Psi edit that Nico deserves mention, but I don't think it belongs at the top of the article, so I moved it down near the viral marketing blurb.  It's more of the sort of thing you'd find on a DVD's "bonus features" rather than as part of the feature presentation. —ZorkFox 05:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A case could be made.  After all, if Shadow of the Colossus (or Nico) had actually become the sequel to Ico, it would definitely be connected.  But we'll leave it alone unless some huge outcry is raised or some concrete evidence comes to light (which seems unlikely). :)  —ZorkFox 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early development

message: I think some rearrangement still needs to be done overall.  I feel like the article meanders between gameplay information, story information, and analysis.  It should be more structured.  I will try to come up with a new scheme in the next few days.
Also, I am seeing warnings when I make changes that the page "may" be too long currently.  I am inclined to agree.  I think there are sections that could be shortened significantly without losing any real content.  The story summary in particular seems much longer than it needs to be.  Still, we might want to consider splitting into a subpage.
This talk page is also becoming sort of long.  A lot of the text here could probably stand to go as it's no longer relevant / being discussed.
It would be nice to have a reference for the statement about Shadow being a "spiritual successor" to Ico.  I see that the phrase is used widely in coverage of the game on gaming sites, so I trust that Ueda really said it, but it seems odd to specifically state that Ueda said this in an interview without mentioning WHAT interview is being referred to.
I linked to the review on InsertCredit by Tim Rogers.  In reading his posts to the SotC thread on the IC boards, one learns that he works at Sony and can seemingly wander to Ueda's office to ask him questions whenever he wants to.  Because Rogers' review paraphrases Ueda instead of quoting him directly, I felt like I needed to state (in the "sources" at the bottom) that Rogers knows Ueda to justify using his statement about Ueda's intentions.  However, this still feels shaky to me, as "he said on a message board that he works at Sony" isn't exactly rigorous.  Any advice?
I wasn't sure what the proper way to present a long quote was, so I just indented that text and put quotation marks around it.  Is there a style guideline for long quotes?
Oh, in my last edit, I removed references to the subtitles being "English or Japanese".  This seemed extraneous, and possibly inaccurate, if the game has been localized into other languages (as I would guess it has, but I don't know).  Also, I changed "fictional language" to "constructed language" and wikilinked the first instance of the term.
-Steve-o 04:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The language in the game is definitely not Japanese.  I've seen it suggested that it's just Japanese backwards, but that doesn't seem to be the case.  Plus the sounds in the language seem to be quite different from Japanese.  I'm having trouble finding any information about it though, beyond the fact that it's the same language as in ICO. LeeWilson 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent some time studying the language in the game and comparing it to the English and Japanese subtitles.  I'm fairly certain that they did create a specific system of sounds for their language, but then simply made nonsensical words.  It seems like they put some thought into it though, making it sound more like a real language by using proper intonation and so on to fit what would be expected from the corresponding subtitles.  It's quite rare however to find words repeated at all, even in places where you might expect them to be, and when you do hear repeated words, they seem to appear randomly and with no relation to what is being said in the subtitles.
LeeWilson 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Various

message: I think it would be great if people who are adding speculative stuff would link to the discussions they reference, especially if the forums on which the discussions take place have permanent links to old topics.  It's all very well to say that people think A or people think B, and some people argue C, but it would be ideal if these bulletin board topics were referenced so others could check. —ZorkFox (ষTalk) 07:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i went ahead and removed some of the abovementioned stuff Tani unit 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since we're removing speculative connections, I've removed the commentary in "Connections" that states the shadows in SotC are Dormin's power, and removed the 2-3-line commentary about how the "last 2 points more than any other lend themselves to [the prequel theory]." TakeTwo 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a good idea.  Thanks for taking the initiative.  I thought the connection between the shadows and Dormin's power was fairly routine because of the group of shadows that rushes to join Dormin when it possesses Wander.  But it's fine to cut it out, as I don't like that entire section anyway.  :)—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 04:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation references

message: i vote this section of the artcile to be removed.
it seems to be entirely pov and speculation.
Tani unit 23:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah its also redundant. -- Psi edit 01:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Wikipedia is not the place for original writing, it is a place for reporting what others have already discovered.  The contents of the philosophy section have no bearing on the game and are the rampant speculations of an unregistered user.  If 151.188.16.17 wants to discuss his ideas about allegory and philosophy, he can use the talk page or any of a dozen on-line forums. I have removed the section.  —ZorkFox (ষTalk) 01:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy section  

message: I removed large chunks of the unlockables section as unecessary and overly verbose.  In places where I thought the topic had merit, I tried to rewrite for clarity and brevity.  I have not yet touched the story speculation section.  I feel the article has reached a more appropriate length with the deletion of much of the gameplay section, but I still feel strongly that speculation should be edited out.  This may be difficult in the story speculation section, as I believe some of it does have merit (particularly the somewhat obvious stuff about Nimrod and his getting cut up).  If someone would like to rewrite that portion of the section into a coherent paragraph or two (instead of a bulleted list), that would be wonderful!  Have at it, everyone, and if you think I removed something that really deserves mention, see if you can't work it into another section, rather than adding a new one.  The table of contents on this article is quite huge.
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 08:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the unlockables section could be shortened a lot (perhaps removed completely). Wikipedia is not a walktrough/cheatdoc, sections about unlockables and cheats could better be moved to wikibooks:Shadow of the Colossus. Felsir 09:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I agree, though it might be fine to leave some mention of them in the article.  I don't have an account at Wikibooks and don't know the procedures or policies there.  It seems there is no Shadow of the Colossus book at present.  Feel free to transfer the information if you like, but do try to leave a small paragraph about them and link to the new home. —ZorkFox (ষTalk) 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I condensed the connections to Nimrod section considerably, and will have a go at the rest later if noone beats me to it. Tani unit 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on that.  It looks much better.  I had a go at cleaning it up (copy editing) and removed a little more body fat. —ZorkFox (ষTalk) 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tani unit—could you cite a source for the stuff you wrote in the Dormin's character section?  We need more sources on the article, especially about things that are slightly unrelated to the game.  I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia article on Nimrod about the sun (or about a bull: a reference made by an anonymous user that I reverted a few minutes ago).—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excess verbiage 

message: I have been thinking more and more about Felsir's suggestion above: about shortening or removing the gameplay section.  I think this is a good idea.  We could whittle it down to a summary, say no more than a couple of paragraphs mentioning that the game has unlockable modes and that completing these modes adds new items to the game and involves unconventional methods of solving the how-to-kill-a-colossus problem.  What do you all think?—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agreed, some part of me is disagreeing with removing it. But I thinkw we should. -- Psi edit 00:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Same, i doubt it's nessesasry here. although i do foresee legions of anonemous users trying to put them back in. Tani unit 03:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A part of me wanted to keep it, too, but I did not let that part win.  I have removed the entire section, despite it being very pretty, and replaced it with a somewhat ugly bulleted list of extras.  I tried for a long time to come up with a paragraph that would describe all the elements without sounding like an extra-boring book report, but couldn't manage it.  If someone sees a way to improve it, please do so and we can take it from there.   I think, once we get this nailed down, we should try submitting the article for featured status.  It's not perfect yet, but it's getting there.  Do we want to shorten the Story section, or maybe avoid revealing every detail?  I confess, I am not so eager to gut that section, as I like it, even though it is long and plagued with spoilers.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 08:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ive added a few manuevers. Praying is just saving the game at the shrines (right?). -- Psi edit 20:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's how you save, but praying is also used for entering reminiscence mode and for starting a time attack challenge.  The manual does not describe this, nor does the game.  The first time I played through, I didn't save anywhere but at the Shrine of Worship between battles because I didn't know how to pray.  (Actually, the game doesn't even tell you that praying at the temples will let you save, it just says it will heal your wounds.  For the longest time, I thought it meant to just approach the stone and crouch.  Heh!)—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 06:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bit to the "Undocumented controls" section, namely about how when you pet agro your Hp and stamina regenerate quite fast for a second. I'm playing a Pal version - does anyone disagree with this? cause someone deleted it before. Everyone think this is in the right place, or should be there at all? Its pretty useful when fighting a colossus with Agro.Dragosani 23:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who deleted it because I had never noticed the gain, and frankly I find that crouching is much faster to regain health.  If enough people agree it is a useful bit of information to leave in, I'm for it.  I'm just going to make a small copy edit to deal with the capitalization errors.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 07:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extras 

message: I want add a image of one of the Colossi. Which do you think I shoud add? -- Psi edit 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to choose, I'd choose Avion (#5) or Gaius (#3).  Avion because it is, in my opinion, the most animate and life-like of the animal colossi; Gaius because it is the one I've seen most often identified with the game (except maybe the minotaur from the cover art).—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 06:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was thinking of Gaius most of the time I was thinking about the game. Heres all the images I could find:. -- Psi edit 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd say go with the first one, its a good overall shot and doesn't have any spoilers in regards to slaying the colossus itself. Tani unit 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Use the first one.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 05:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright then. If you two can find better images please show them on this talk page. -- Psi edit 21:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone's opinion? 

message: "At this point we learn from Emon that Wander had stolen the sword and used "the forbidden spell" (that is, he killed the colossi using the magic power of the sword)."
I'm pretty sure the "forbidden spell" is the entire ritual of bringing Dormin back together.
:As these actions are one and the same, I don't see a need for a change.  Killing the colossi with the sword releases the pieces of Dormin's essence/power/soul/whatever, and also causes the resurrection of Mono.  This is, undeniably, a ritual.  Rituals often require sacrifice, especially in fiction.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible correction 

message: All right, so A Link to the Past doesn't like having the time attack goals in the colossi table; I can understand that.  I can even see my way to agreeing with him about removing the Agro column, as it is obvious when you approach a colossus as to whether or not Agro will be available.  Great: one more way to keep the article a bit shorter.  However, a part of me is still thinking that time attack mode deserves a little more mention than that paragraph I wrote.  Does anyone else have an opinion?  Am I just in fanboy mode?  The items you win in time attack really change the gameplay: I killed Phalanx in only one round of stabs by using the Queen's Sword.  Using the magic sword, you have to climb him at least twice.  Ideas?—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 05:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I expanded it some, see what you think. Tani unit 14:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great.  I tweaked it up a little to remove some redundancy and to make it (I hope) more clear.—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time attack