Talk:Shin Megami Tensei: Persona/Archive 1

Rename?

Won't this article be known as "Shin Megami Tensei: Persona"? — Blue。 15:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the SMT pretitle was dropped in Japan and it is unknown if it will be in the Western release. Thus, "Persona" is the most accurate name right now. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the Western release is going to have Shin Megami Tensei in front of Persona. I think it's quite known. Even the reference given in the article says so. — Blue。 05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved since it is confirmed here by the Administrator of the official Atlus forums http://www.atlus.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3150 KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Shin Megami Tensei: Persona

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Shin Megami Tensei: Persona's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hcgaming":

• From Revelations: Persona: Hardcore Gaming 101 - Megami Tensei/Shin Megami Tensei: Persona. Retrieved on 2007-7-23.
• From Persona 2: The Allegory of Whatever - Character Profiles: Returning Characters from Persona 1. Retrieved on 2007-08-05.
• From Shin Megami Tensei if...: Hardcore Gaming 101 - Shin Megami Tensei if... Retrieved on 2007-8-11.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Like Persona 3 Portable before it, which now redirects to Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, this game does not merit its own article, and should be merged and redirected to Revelations: Persona. The basics of the gameplay, story, characters, etc. do not need to be covered, as they're about the same as they were in the original Persona. Most of the game differences listed are too trivial to be mentioned. When you strip all that out, there's not a lot of article left. This can easily be covered in a paragraph or two on the main Persona page, mentioning only the most broad changes to the game (new English translation, updated graphics, new anime cutscenes, etc.). --gakon5 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. On the WP:VG guideline on remakes, the most important parts that allow for a remake article are the verified development and reception sections. The game has been given a significant coverage, and since it has been released in Japan it should have an expanded reception - also the game will be released in NA in a month's time.

And I wouldn't say the game differences, changes and improvements are trivial - that's what makes the remake a remake. As well, SMTPersona have content that Revelations doesn't, as well as changes to the music and soundtrack - these are a significant part of the development of the remake. Now, if we were talking about the the Devil Summoner PSP.... there's nothing discuss there, heh.

I'd try to dig what reliable source I can find on the development of the game. — Blue。 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing to take into account is the length of the Revelations: Persona article. A PS1 game brought over from Japan is not going to have a lot of sources beyond its US reception - development information for such games (unless blessed by Squenix) is very light as the currnet article shows. Since gameplay and plot overlap, there seems to be no harm - and in fact, an improvement - to talking about the PSP remake in the same article as the PS1 game that allows for better comparison and contrast between the original (and the NA release of the original) and the remake. I know there is some dev info for this remake from following Atlus' fan club emails, but I don't think we're going to fill an encyclopedia article with that. --MASEM (t) 12:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, some of the changes aren't trivial, but we have to keep in mind that we're writing for a general audience. That's why, in game articles, explanation of mechanics has to be done in as plain a way as possible. Keeping this in mind, not every detail is important to the casual reader. I'd call new opening, new encounter rate, and new overworld map unimportant. The fact that the game is truer to the Japanese than the PS1 game was is important. Also, that the interface has been redone is important. Everything that's worth mentioning can be summed up in a paragraph.

I also agree with Bluerfn Masem (sorry, wrong name) with regards to article length. The article (Rev: Persona) could certainly be expanded, but there may not be much more to expand on. Getting good sources for a full Development section would be tough, although the details about the NA localization can replace that. As far as audio, there may not be much to say other than "there is a soundtrack." Thus, it can't hurt to have even two paragraphs at most on this game in the main Revelations: Persona article. --gakon5 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. There are no significant changes from the original besides localisation (and the PSP translation should take precedence anyway). The only other noticeable differences are the UI and soundtrack, and on the whole this doesn't warrant any more than its own section under the original game's article. It's like with Persona 3 FES; yes, there's a new story, but that's about all that's different or new. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

....this has been around for a while. Can we just do it? I'm inclined to boldly do it right now. Because of the information overlap, it wouldn't be a straight cut-and-paste, obviously. At the same time, the PSP article has a surprising lack of unique information. At most, there are three fairly sparse paragraphs (in Development, NA Loc., and Reception), and the fat list of changes, which would need to be trimmed and converted to prose. --gakon5 (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this as well. Having played the game for about 20 hours and reading both articles, I don't find that there is much necessity for two articles, and some of the information in this article is misleading anyway. Just add a "PSP Remake" section in the Revelations: Persona article. -- RHelg80 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Gameplay" section is misleading.

I find the following section misleading:

Each playable character has a set of different Contact commands, which will affect the selected demon in one of four ways: Joy, Anger, Fear or Interest. There are occasional questions posed by the demon, and the chosen answer will also have an effect on its mood. By making a demon interested three or four times in a row, they will offer the player their "Tarot Card".

First, the terms "Joy," "Anger," "Fear," and "Interest" are either interpretations or outdated translations. The four enemy emotions within the game are expressed as "Angry," "Happy," "Eager," and "Scared." That may be a little pedantic, but I thought I should point it out.

Second, the above paragraph implies that by selecting the correct options that "interest" the enemy (which I take to mean make the enemy "Eager"), you will be offered their Spell Card. This is not necessarily correct. Different emotional combinations may entice the enemy to offer their Spell Card. Some enemies need to be intimidated ("Scared") to do so, some need to be made "Happy" while others, yes, need to be made "Eager" and perhaps even "Angry". Additionally, some need a combination of two of these emotional states. The system is more complex than what is suggested and the implications present do not seem accurate.

Third, the "Tarot Card" referenced in the article is instead referred to as a "Spell Card" within the game.

I have a feeling that the article was written before the US release and thus this paragraph is a translation of the Japanese version. I just thought I should point out the inaccuracies, whether the article ends up getting merged or not. -- RHelg80 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)