Talk:Final Fantasy All the Bravest

The official name is "All The Bravest" and not "All the Bravest"

Hello. I'd just like to point out that the name of this game is a play on the acronym Active Time Battle (ATB). As a result, the name on the page should have a capital "T" and not a lower case one. Regards. --G-Zay (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the game were literally titled "Active Time Battle", then yes, you'd be correct, but per the English language, and Wikipedia Manual of Style, the word "the" isn't capitalized in titles. I don't believe being an acronym would overule that, especially since it's not like the meaning is lost just because the t is lowercase... Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I often question its relevancy of MOS nor english language. The official title is with a captial T within "The", and about 50/50 of the sources use it aswell, we could go either way but considering the official soelling is with the capital T, im inclined to vote in support of it.Lucia Black (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read MOS:CT. This overules Squares stylization or third parties mistakes. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Squares stylized manner is in all caps, and you have no proof of it being a mistake. MOS allows conventional exceptions to allowing capitalization on the word "The", and this seems completely conventional.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite where it says we can make subjective judgement calls on thing like being conventional? I don't see that in the direct link I just cited. Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

lets keep this civil. Your judgement on reliable sources making the errors is just as subjective. I rather not comment anymore as i fear it would just get more uncivil. But i will make my point by it being conventional, the idea of the title such as capital T for the is ideal as irs meant to be abbreviated as ATB, not only that but the title itself looks off without it as its not exactly a run-off sentence. For example" if the title was All of the Bravest, it would make sense because "the" but in this case it seems "the" is key aspect in the subtitle. If not it could easily go as All Bravest. Of course im not stupid and know the title was made with the idea of it having the acronym ATB but the point still sticks. I gave my reasoning and will like to discuss this more but in the condition that it doesnt go by taking shots at one another.Lucia Black (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of that above was supposed to be uncivil. I think you may be reading that more "aggressively" than I meant it or something. Anyway, my point wasn't that so much that third parties were making errors as much as it doesn't make sense if they capitalize it or not, in titles like this, neither the English language nor Wikipedia's MOS support it being a capital T. Beyond that, we don't use stylizations like that on Wikipedia. It's no different than how the article is "Korn", no matter how many third parties use the band's stylization of " KoЯn". Same things goes with Kesha over "Ke$ha", etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be capitalised, see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_.22The.22. The1337gamer (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I consider sarcasm as uncivil and first sentence was rather sarcastic question towards me. You couldve easily said "thats subjective, what makes you think this is conventional?" I think the rules should change to go more according to what sources consider "english" certain titles werent meant to be written as sentences even if they use english. MOS allows conventional exceptions example The Lord of the Rings however we dont use it for the Odyssey. There are valid reasons why an exception can be used for this article.Lucia Black (talk)%

This is not the place to "change the rules" though. You change the rules first, then apply them. This talk page is not the place to decide such things. We must use the rules currently in place for the articles current title. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Same evidence. The exact same link you both provide, mention that exceptions are allowed.Lucia Black (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The rules allow clear exceptions, is what im saying. For now im merelyentioning that the rule is not absolute.Lucia Black (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That brings me to my other point; my question was not "sarcastic", I would literaly like you to show where you're getting this "convention" and "exception" stuff. Can you provide a MOS policy link or an example of this? I've provided many (as has "The337gamer"), but you have not. (Your examples thus far are irrelevent. "The Lord of the Rings" supports my argument, and "The Odyssey" being titled "Odyssey" means nothing because omitting the "the" from the name is not what we're discussing.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see any compelling reason to make an exception to established MOS rules about the capitalization of articles like "the" in titles of works. The "the" in the title is not a proper noun in the same way that "Time" is a proper noun in "Active Time Battle". I also don't see anything uncivil or sarcastic in any of Serge's messages. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

several stylization have been in titles before partly due to mass reliable sources making sure its the common name. The capitalization is intentional within the guidelines. And some even intentionally deviate from english language and are accepted within wikipedia. Heres a quote "However, some idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage." The list may show common ways to determine but also states in which sources provide, so sources DO trump the rule if there is a number given. That along with the oficial spelling having the T highlighted in the official logo along with A and B.Lucia Black (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Where are you citing from? Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

From the same source 1337 gamer provided.....i keep telling you that we ae all using the same evidence...Lucia Black (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS is clear: The "the" should be lowercase. There is nothing present on MOSCAPS to suggest that the case of an word-article should be uppercase when the word-article is after the first word. If indeed reliable sources are inconsistent, that is even less of a reason to consider external (non-)style. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

repeating wont work unless tou provide something new, i already said that the rule allows common exception depending on sources, its about 50/50 regardless, that including the official makes things clearer.Lucia Black (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, its just that, as Axem and Izno have said, there's very clear wording on how it's typically handled through Wikipedia MOS, and even if your argument to ignore it is plausible, there's no compelling reason why it should be ignored. (Kind of like the saying "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not repeating it. What's new is the argument that your "rule" doesn't exist. --Izno (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide an article where a consensus has been reached to go against the MOS, because I've never seen one for this particular case? The1337gamer (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok im just going to say this: i provided a quote among the same link you all provided. So saying my rule doesnt exist is ridiculous as 1) the quote is within the same link 2) you repeating the exact same thing over and over but at this point why bother? The exception is clear, and its not grounded by common practice otherwise it wouldnt be an exception. 1337gamer you looking dor the odd one within the exception, so no i cant provide one doesnt necessarily mean that the option isnt there. Axem merely mentioned that it isnt compelling. Im merely defending my point, what consensus goes is upto consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I see what your quoting, it's just that I, along with seemingly just about everyone else, don't agree with your strange application/interpretation of it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

if you read it again, the exception is there according to common usage. For now, there is a split of 50/50 between the sources we use now but looking at the other reviews available in metacritic i noticed more sources leaning toward the one ith capital T. Its not an odd application/interpretation.Lucia Black (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but right now consensus is pretty stacked against your interpretation on this. (Even at "no consensus", no action is taken, but it seems like there's consensus for little "t" at the moment anyways.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Prove that my interpretation is wrong or irrational. What does wikipedia imply with common usage? It cant be within wikipedia because then its not an exception at all. Thats like there is an exception to the rule that must be followed by within the same rule. So the rules cant apply to the exception of the rules. What is the exception referring to?Lucia Black (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also the interpretation of that exception given at WP:MOSCAPS should not be upto votecount. Rather we ask within in that same MOS about it to be clearer. Otherwise its misusing the rukes in ones favor. This shouldnt be about one vote but rather clearing up any misunderstandings on that exception in future discussions.Lucia Black (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you don't believe us in how we are interpreting MOSCAPS, you should quote the exact line which you think defends your point of view. Or give us the link to the section that you seem to think supports your view. I can point to WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, which is very clear that your interpretation is wrong. If you want, you should also quote the specific section. --Izno (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...i already provided the quote and its within the same link i MOSCAPS...i keep saying the same thing i dont think im actually being heard.Lucia Black (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As Izno has just linked: Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition_titles, it seems clear that "the" should not be capitalised in this case. This case does not fall under the exception you're quoting from : Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Capitalization_of_.22The.22. The1337gamer (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The way you inrerpeet that exception sounds self contradicting.Lucia Black (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

How? Look at the examples provided here Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Capitalization_of_.22The.22. "The Hague" is an exception. "The Lord of the Rings" is not an exception, the second "the" is not capitalised. This is the same case as "The Lord of the Rings", it is a composition title, only the beginning "the" is capitalised, not the middle one. The1337gamer (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the exception doesnt state specifically which the in what title. All it says that the exception is based on common usage, so it can happen to any title that insist on The even if its in the middle of the title.Lucia Black (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the exception that goes alongside it, the exception is next to the usage of capital T in "the" specifically in the middle of the title. So it cant be referring to "the" in the beginning of the title.Lucia Black (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That section section is referring to usage of "the" in the middle of a sentence preceding a subject, not the middle of a subject/title. The examples listed only demonstrate cases for the correct/incorrect capitalisation in the middle of a sentence for the "the" that precede the subject or begin the subject. Not the ones in the middle of the subject, because they are already ruled out by Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition_titles. The1337gamer (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CT should be the ultimate authority here, because that's the one that specifically deals with titles. As such, that one has no such clause that Lucia keeps clinging to... Sergecross73 msg me 23:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Im still here Serge, i dont "cling" to anything. Im merely defending my point. At this point the capitalization of the in the middle of the title has no ground for either side if these links were all misinterpreted from both sides.Lucia Black (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an actual counterpoint to my last statement? Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you being uncivil? Same answer to your question: Yes. The composition title suggest which letters are important according to wikipedia, but its not because of english language. The "The" is a clear exception to that as it holds significant importance. Your advantageous comments should be better suited by explaining your point rather than bluntly relying on consensus' reason. If i misinterpretted you couldbe been clear on it as 1337gamer did (ironically was also misinterpretted by him when introduced). Regardless the in this titlenis highlighted both in logo and most sources alsonuse it aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

None of that answers my question. Why shouldn't MOS:CT be the ultimate authority, since it is the only one that directly pertains to titles. What you have quoted is not from the one explicitly pertaining to titles. Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not what you originally asked. All you asked what was to counter your point. Regardless if the point is that it's the ultimate authority, then I disagree to the extent that the motives of the rule are there, so if the title trumps the rule by the very principle it follows. As the rule explains that it considers the a lesser important word in a title and usually it's right, however in the rare chance that a title intentionally capitalizes "the" in the middle of the title to show its importance for whatever reason and highlighted in sources, it can definitely be considered as an exception.Lucia Black (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CT is the only one that explicitly pertains to article titles. This debate is about article title. Your argument isn't supported in that policy. I still haven't heard a real argument against this line of logic. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying the principle behind the rule also offers internal exceptions. It's a real argument, just not one you want to agree with.Lucia Black (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that on he policy I'm citing, and you havent convinced a single person such an approach is remotely necessary here. Until that changes, I see no reason to continue arguing with you. I'm done until something new is introduced. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever the name of the game is on the box, is what should be used. Anything else said is irrelevant. Dream Focus 16:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ...There is no "box". It's a digital download...beyond that, if we used that sort of logic, it wouldn't be Sonic the Hedgehog 3, it would be SONIC THE HEDGEHOG 3. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually upon looking the game up in the App Store, the icon looks just like it does in the article currently - there is no title/text, and the game is referred to multiple times, as "FINAL FANTASY ALL THE BRAVEST". So, another reason not to use that logic. Sergecross73 msg me 17:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Where it says All The Bravest, the A T B are all in a different color. Do they do that with other games with the word "the" in it, or was someone already mentioned, is it suppose to stand for something? Dream Focus 17:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • "All the Bravest" parallels to Active Time Battle, the name for the battle system many Final Fantasies use. But...so what? Upper or lowercase, the letters are still readily apparrent; capitalization doesn't affect that. There's no precedent for taking a name stylization, like coloring certain letters, and using that as a reasoning to ignore guidelines on capitalization. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The stylization has been used over the general guideline several times in wikipedia and its allowed. We're not talking about the fact that its colored differently, but the fact that Square Enix highlighted its importance in the title. The guideline doesnt say to avoid capitalizing "The". It just says generally non-important words such as "in, the, on, of" in titles should be lowercased, but in this case "The" is important.Lucia Black (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC) All im saying is that the rules are there for general naming. Certain ones are exception, for example "be Human" intentionally makes the first word lowercase, in which normal rules dictate the first letter of the first word must be capitalized. However there been several exceptions.

For now, the logo of the game Highlights A T and B (Im assuming if we had the logo instead of the app symbol, things would even out more). So im still enclined for capital T in the as its put higher importance from what wikipedia generally claim is not important enough to be capitalized. Because the principle isnt to go by that rule at all cost, but to use the rules for everyday titles such as hypothetically "Ghost in the Shell" and etc. The rules are there simply to avoid unnecessary capitalization. But their no different from any other rules of capitalization outside of wikipedia. Feel free to disagree, i respect your opinion on my reasoning as long as its constructive.Lucia Black (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I just can't get behind your approach; its based too much on your interpreations of stylizations, and the more subjective "Well, we don't have to follow the guidelines, do we?" type reasonings. It just doesn't overcome the hard, factual stances from:

• MOS:CT
• Standard capitalization of titles in the English language
• There being no precedent to your approach in the past, nor is there consensus now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• its a viscious cycle if you use MOS:CT as a reason to allow this as an exception to the same rule. When others have made exceptions.
• i dont see this one as very relevant.
• There have been many articles that use stylization. The very rule says first and last word must be capitalized but several other articles dont do that because they use stylization such as in all lowercase. Consensus should NEVER be a reason to not be opened to the idea (especially when they stopped talking, so its as if consensus stays the same because no one wants to be updated on the discussion)

The guideline is a guideline. yes its there to be followed generally for all standard titles. But its clear that exceptions can be made and have been made in the past. Just because there hasnt been a previous article that fought for the capitalization of "the" in the middle of the title, that doesnt mean that in this situation its impossible to allow an exception ever. The rule is there to assume those type of words in a title are non important.Lucia Black (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As other people above said too, I see no convincing reason to ignore this guideline. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Editors who support changing it to a capital T: G-Zay, Lucia Black, Dream Focus.
• Editors who are against this: Sergecross73, The1337gamer, Axem Titanium, Izno.

So there is no consensus to change it. The guideline page says "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Remember that Wikipedia's guidelines are just suggestions on what the best thing to do is in most cases. See WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. While you can use the guidelines to help you make a decision, you still need to think for yourself. Please don't use the guideline as the only reason you object to the change. Dream Focus 17:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I just gave 3, not to mention I don't buy into any of the counter-argument, so... Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You actually given 1. But the other 2 dont really count.Lucia Black (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So, to make sure we're on the same page here, one of my reasons was The English Language. You mean to tell me that this "doesn't really count"?. Ludicrous. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Capitalizing "The" wont defy english language by all that much. Its something several editors use when they dont want it go the other way. For example: How does "Durarara!!" Acceptable english language yet "Fun." ? I dont by that reasoning usually because its never really backed up properly.Lucia Black (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's just it, and you just admitted it yourself. You said it wouldn't defy by all that much. But it does defy it some. Your words even. I see no reason to go with an option that defies it even a little when there's an perfectly acceptable option that doesn't defy it at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont really believe you care or any one else trully cares about english language format as much as they claim when it comes to Titles because its always inconsistent, i never see the same people fight similar titles already using the stylized form than the general english language form. Its just more convenient to use english language as a reason so IDONTLIKEIT doesnt come in. Its not a dealbreaker is what im saying. But since you want to know where the exception has been done before, Live A Live article has A in midtitle capitalized when WP:MOS:CT states it shouldnt, of course that title defies english language, but at the same time, thats how the title was meant to be written.Lucia Black (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

minor sentence, however reasoning behind edits could affect nuetrality

I changed a minor sentence solely to explain the gameplay and in app purchases more affectively, so it couldnt possibly be affecting the article's nuetrality compared to sergecross revert reasons.Lucia Black (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at with your neutrality concerns, I preferred the original wording, because it better detailed the shortcomings later cited in the Reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The two versions being discussed are shown here, for others who may want to participate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Detailing the shortcomings should be in reception only, it makes the article bias to illustrate that anywhere else (and lead paragraph, but only because the lead is a summary of the article). Gameplay is just to mention all gameplay features "nuetrally". If we illustrate gameplay in a negative tone simply because reception agrees with it, thats still affecting the article's NPOV.Lucia Black (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Which part of my wording implies "negative tone" though? The only thing I can even remotely think of is the word "excessive", but that was part of my edit summary, not the actual wording... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, you now saying the original revision affects nuetrality by your own reasoning. The article should decribe things nuetrally, and your reason for the subjective, non-nuetral version.Lucia Black (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the word "excessive" in an edit summary doesn't affect that actual "tone" of the article though. You're not being consistent in your reasoning, or making any sense. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem for me is the word "individually"; it doesn't give the sense that this is different than say the active time battle system in Final Fantasy where everyone is recharging together; the sources say they do so in sequence in this game, one character at a time. Whatever you choose, that has to come across since it is unique. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This is about the characters reviving, not wether the character's ATB gauge refills. Individually is the same thing, only explained simpler. Regardless the point was to describe it more afectively, the reasons for serge affect nuetrality if the articles intention is to mention the gameplay in a tone that echooes the reception when it can be illustrated in a nuetral way.Lucia Black (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As I asked above, what "negative tone" are you talking about? Which word(s) in particular are giving off this negative vibe? Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

negative has nothing to do with word but wording. You admitted it yourself on how "excessive" is implied in that tone. So your reasons cant possibly be right, if its about subjective implications you yourself admitted that this sentence has. So it affects nuetral point of view if described in a way that implies excessive. Im not saying it has to be my revision over yours, just not the original.Lucia Black (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

So what are you saying? My edit summary violated NPOV, so we shouldn't use my wording, which you really haven't pinpointed a problem with the actual content. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I also remind you to WP:AGF. I already said In my first comment in this subsection that my intent is not to belittle the game. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

the wording is off in the sentence. As if described by an individual rather than described by wikipedia's usual tone. It can be described better and more effectively. The original was bad wording. however your "reasoning" behind it (whch made public by edit summary) violate NPOV. I dont have to "pinpoint" if the entire sentence itself. Im assuming good faith, but good faith can often come with misguided. Again, it doesnt have to be mine, but still has to be described in a more affective way. That sentence, breaks, to much.Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it reads just fine. Also, for the record, the info was written Judge, not me, I just challenged your change. Another hole in your misguided claim about my "motivations" or whatever... Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

yeah, i dont remotely understand what you're saying in this sentence.Lucia Black (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up a typo. How about now? Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Misguided was just to say that bad edits and bad reverts can occur along good faith. I'm not saying you have bad intentions. Im not denying or stating that you are misguided. And i disagree..the sentence is a little choppy. Sure, it may be "passable" but not the most affective way to describe the in-app purchases. Your reasoning doesnt describe the current form the most beneficial.Lucia Black (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

GA status?

Would anyone object to me nominating this for Good article status? I think it’s close. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I created and wrote much of it back in the day, and I don’t think anyone has really touched it in years, so I don’t know who would oppose. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy All the Bravest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 22:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Gameplay

• Final Fantasy missing italics
• leaderboard appears to be more commonly used than leader board
• Inconsistent use of player vs. players

Development

• Android version mentioned in lead and infobox, but neither it nor its release date are mentioned elsewhere

Reception

• Paragraph's quite long, consider finding a way to split it for improved readability. The best thing you can do to help this is to reduce the use of quotation and better summarize what they say. In doing so, the section feels smoother and less repetitive.

References

• US Gamer should be USgamer, much like Eurogamer (sister orgs)
• All instance of either GamesRadar should be changed to 'GamesRadar+'
• Droid Gamers is an unreliable source, please replace

Images

• The screenshot doesn't feel like it properly communicate anything that cannot be conveyed solely through text. Consider replacing with a combat screenshot or not having any gameplay screenshot.
• No text explaining replacability or respect for commercial licenses in rationale

@Judgesurreal777: Just in case. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK @Abryn:. I believe I have done what you wanted. I did some rewriting and splitting of the reception section, and added a new screenshot. Let me know if I missed anything. Now the only thing left to do is I am looking to see if there were any Japanese reviews or development. Then I think it’ll be ready! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, asthma made it hard to respond. As far as the Reception goes, I still think it does too much quoting. It would be best if you summarized a lot more. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Also truth is I wanted to work on this article eventually, its badness was fascinating, haha. At least someone improved it. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel better! I found a Japanese review, so that helps, I added some new development info before I launched the GA. I’ll take another crack at the reception section soon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, rewrite two! Only one quote, a little lengthy but only one. @Abryn: Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, asthma got worse. Will finish review tomorrow. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Take you’re time! We have a big drive ahead of us! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good now. There was also an error in quotation marks but I fixed that, along with summarizing more. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews! I hope to repay the favor someday when I get less busy! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats all. Glad it went smoothly. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Sergecross73: for making it so complete! That helped it to where it is today :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)