Talk:Live A Live

Untitled

I hope this is a good start--I felt the previous synopses were too unspecific and didn't give enough information about the chapters; I realize, though, that I may have been more specific (much more) than necessary. At the very least, I think the variations of Odio for the different bosses should be noted, though it's up to you. Just...don't revert it out of hand, please.

--67.161.120.7, 8/24/05.

Name

I never could make sense of this game's title, but after seeing an article including it (here), it all makes sense: it should be Live a Life. The English title on the front must be Engrish - either that, or Square's executives thought that the title would look cool with the inverted "LIVE," knowing Japanese kids wouldn't know the difference anyways. The title fits perfectly - you get to live out different lives. Do you think this should call for a name change or not? --Tristam 23:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The name of the game is Live A Live. Yes, it is Engrish, but that's the name.Viewer 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also did you notice that it's Live A Evil on the picture :D --Sniper89 17:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime References

Currently, the section on the "Flow" chapter says there are references to Evangelion. However, Evangelion didn't come out until a year after Live-a-Live was released, and according to the Eva wiki page the first chapters of the manga weren't even published until 3 months after the game came out. So despite how very similar the two concepts are, Live-a-live does not reference Eva. 134.71.132.141 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was reading through the article and noticed this too, and if anything, Evangelion borrowed the idea from Live-A-Live. I guess it's logical to remove this line.--Koheiman 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

In the description of the Wild West chapter, "They shoot down most of the members of the gang, until the leader, O. Dio, comes at them with a Gatling gun.", there's no mention that the main plotline involves gathering and setting up various traps during the night, to get rid of as many minions as possible when they arrive at sunset for the final battle.

In the description of the Oersted scenario, I found several things somewhat misleading:

• "Hash soon dies, as he used the last of his strength in the battle." - he dies of bleeding after his plague disease finally overcomes him.

• "After Oersted slays Straybow, Alicia appears and declares her undying love for Straybow before killing herself." - makes it sound like she secretly loved him throughout the entire game. In the (fan-)translation she says the following: "Stay away! ... Why... why didn't you come for me...? I waited for you! Oh, how I waited... But... it was Straybow who came for me! He... He always suffered in your shadow... You could never understand how awful it is to always be the loser! Straybow... It's alright... I... I'll always be with you! *stabs herself*". This makes me think that instead, during the short time he was alone with her, Straybow managed to feed her enough lies / personal problems so that she sympathized with him.

In the final chapter, "Odio draws the heroes of the previous chapters together in one place and time, and challenges them to a final battle. After Odio is defeated by the heroes, he gains an understanding of why they continue to fight, before he dies.". As an alternative ending, playing as Oersted, he will take over all the previous boss battles to slaughter the protagonists, or trigger Armageddon if defeated.

Not sure if such details are needed, just wanted to point it out. Theultramage (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the primary author of the current revision of the plot summary. Before I worked on it, it was 7 pages long, giving way more detail than we needed in a Wikipedia article. My primary goal was to cut out the massive amount of fat in the summary, leaving only the meat necessary to understanding the story. If I cut anything that was important, or introduced erronious information, I can't offer an excuse, only the explanation that I have never played the game before, and as such, didn't know it was important/wrong. Feel free to fix the summary any way you feel necessary. If you want to add information, please do so within reason, so it doesn't get too long again. If you can improve other parts of the article as well, we'd apreciate it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Trivia section

The trivia section currently takes up half of this article. It is full of unsourced information that I must assume is Original Research. I don't want to be accused of vandalism, but this cannot stay the way it is. I'll wait a few days for it to be sourced and moved to a better place in the article, but if it's not sourced in a few days, I'm cutting the whole section. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

June 09 Rewrite

Hi, I've never really contributed something as big as a rewrite to Wikipedia before, but I'm a big fan of this game and this article frankly needed it. I rewrote every word of the article except the music section, which was fine. I understand there's still more work to be done, but it's a lot better as it is (I hope.) I have the knowledge and the desire to improve this article further, so if any more experienced Wikipedians would like to give me some hints on how to do that, I would be glad for the advice. RubilacEx (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for translation

Unfortunately, as a google search reveals, information on this game practically does not exist in English, so a translation is probably the best option. Currently, I feel the introduction and the sections on Gameplay and Plot are in good shape, but this article could benefit from sections for Development and Reception, as well as more information about Music. The Japanese version of this article is a beast with too much information, so feel free to omit extraneous information at your own discretion. Thank you. --RubilacEx 04:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RubilacEx (talk • contribs)

Plot and characters

The summary of flow doesn't make a lot of sense. What happens to the Crusader gang? Why did Matsu have to sacrifice himself? What is the mech? Maybe the information on Akira's family should be deleted, and more should be said about what happens.

Also, the characters part is at the moment pointless: it hardly says anything about them, and it looks like a repetition of the story part. Jelt (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm responsible for the current version of the plot summary and character section. I based them on a story revision that, if memory serves, was 10 pages long when printed out. I don't remember the previous revision answering the first or second question, but for the third, I usually think of a mech as a giant fighting robot that you control from within. As for flow, the story in the game seems to just be structured like that; a set of independent stories that seem to have no connection until the end. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that the previous plot summary wasn't good, but I think for the flow chapter, a summary like this would be better:

"In the near future in Japan, a biker gang called the Crusaders has been kidnapping people with unknown intentions. A young orphan with psychic powers named Akira Tadokoro grows up with his sister in an orphanage. One day, the Crusaders kidnap an orphan, which is rescued by Akira and his friend Matsu. Thanks to his psychic powers, Akira learns the location of the base of the Crusaders, and discovers there a plot by the Japanese government to liquefy people and use them to power a giant idol named Odeo. Matsu then sacrifices himself to power an ancient mech called Buriki Daioh, which Akira uses to destroy Odeo. Dying, Matsu also reveals to Akira that he is the one who killed his father, and that he took care of him out of guilt."

Do you think it's ok (with a few changes), or do you prefer the current version? With my suggestion, you see the events that bring you to the end.

Regarding the character section, I just feel that it should be more developed. My problem is that there's little to say about the heroes, and including every "important" character of every story would be very long.

Jelt (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I took care of the "Flow" section rewrite. I'll leave it to your discretion whether or not you rewrite the characters section, but do be careful with it. I would only include the main protagonists (one per chapter, ie Akira but not Matsu) and the one main antagonist, and I would focus more on the character development as described in the game rather than just what they did, since what they did is already described in the plot summary. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unknown

Yes, I am the now infamous editor who struck on the fateful day of United States eastern time of 12/9/14!

But in all seriousness, I did create a bit of a mess. However, I also included some important details that this article was missing, but also little things on the side that would have, admittedly, would have better belonged in TV Tropes. Delete what you must, especially that little bit about Odio's vulture wings, which DID come from TV Tropes, but do try to keep in the important details.

I've been obsessed with the concept of this game for awhile (concept, mind you, as in I have never mustered the nerves to play it), and this is my first day of editing just so you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.207.186 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Live A Live. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/218274/the-14-best-unreleased-jrpgs/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 07:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Live A Live/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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):

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:

The whole article has been replaced, and any contributions I ever made are effectively replaced, so I’ll take this article! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

This is going to be simple;

I think the into should include a sentence on how people have asked for a remake, or how the creator would be open to it. There’s enough discussion in the article about it to warrant this I believe.

Added.

Add alt text for the images.

Added.

Are we allowed to use the fan names of the characters? I think we need official confirmation that that is allowed.

I used them and the chapter titles after checking on the JP wikipedia page, and finding that the names are practically identical. The fan translation here is very literally a translation, rather than a localization. And there isn't another clear source.

Finally, reception, is there any more? It’s relatively short compared to the rest of the article.

That's all there is.

And that should do it! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Very nice, I will pass it. My FA advice is continue to look for more, especially reception, and great work once again!