Talk:Fire Emblem Engage

Numbering

Is there any argument that they need to be mentioned beyond the invalid "the other articles do it"? If not, I'm starting a discussion to remove it from all the articles.

If Nintendo doesn't bother numbering entries, I fail to see the significance. Doubly so when there's so much back and forth arguing in the exact numbers due to all the remakes, spin-offs, etc. People's attempt to number Sonic the Hedgehog and The Legend of Zelda have been removed on similar grounds. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: It's better to be consistent with the openings on each game. Feel free to remove the numbering from the other articles as I'm personally indifferent to whether or not they're listed or not. My only real issue is the lack of consistency with this change when it only affects this article only. Basically my point is, either keep them all or remove them all. Also mind providing examples of previous revisions of numbering attempts at the other two series? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If that's your only opposition, I'll just remove it from other articles too. It's easy to reword it out of it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

All's good for me in that case then. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Improve ASAP

This article needs to be improved quickly, as the topic Main Fire Emblem Series will be demoted on April 20th if this article does not meet good article status by then! Please improve the article before then! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This FT is doomed. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Go for it. You're probably not going to recruit much new help here though, this article doesn't have much in the way of regular, experienced editors maintaining it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I have started on it in one of my sandboxes. Hope it goes well! QuicoleJR (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"FE17" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect FE17 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 12 § FE17 until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Fire Emblem 17 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 12 § Fire Emblem 17 until a consensus is reached. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - really doesn't feel like the prose is up to GA standards - lots of stand-alone sentences, lack of transition between thoughts, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sergecross73, I haven't read through the article yet; I was about to when I saw your note. I see the nominator, ThePieMaster51, is a relatively new editor and hasn't nominated for GA before. I didn't pick this up to review out of any particular interest in it -- I'm just working on the GAN backlog. Are you interested in taking over the review? That would be fine with me. Otherwise I'm happy to carry on, and given your comment I'll probably look at the prose first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  No no, go for it. Didn't mean to step on your toes or anything, just wanted to through that out there as some input. It's an article on my watchlist because its a game of interest, but I just watch over it more to keep out vandalism or misguided edits, I have no intention of rewriting it or anything. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  You weren't stepping on toes -- I was just wondering if you were interested -- there are always more articles I can review. I'll get started; thanks for the input. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig finds two sites with a lot of overlap, [1] and [2], but as far as I can tell both are copying from Wikipedia.

• What makes nintendo.wire.com a reliable source? The only discussion I can find about it was inconclusive.
• Per WP:VG/RS, destructoid.com is a blog and the individual contributor needs to be established as a reliable source, so is Chris Carter reliable?
• What makes inverse.com a reliable source? See this and this.

Will look at the prose next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I found a couple more sources for the Unity engine, but none seem reliable. Should I remove it? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can field some of these at least:

• NintendoWire is not generally seen as reliable. Its a run of the mill fansite.
• Chris Carter is one of the head editors at Destructoid so his output is generally deemed acceptable.
• Inverse is generally not seen as reliable. They're largely a churnalism output without much original thought - but that means its usually pretty easy to replace their sources with a better one. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Nintendo Everything a reliable source? If it is, this is proof of the game being made in Unity. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not. I believe NintendoLife and Nintendo World Report are the only Nintendo-centric websites that are currently deemed usable. WP:VG/S is a great resource to keep all the community consensus straight. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I will just remove it. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I removed the information sourced to Nintendo Wire and Inverse. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, struck all points above. More shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Is there any way to credit this GA to me and ThePieMaster51? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there's no "nominator=" parameter in any of the GA templates after promotion, and the nomination template only allows a single nominator. The nomination template has a "note=" parameter that some people use to mention conominators, but that's just a text field and the GA statistics are going to record this as a GA nominated by ThePieMaster51. I've suggested that the {{GA}} and {{article history}} templates be changed to allow the recording of nominators, but so far I haven't had enough agreement to feel justified in making the change. You could try suggesting it at the talk page of the article history template, or at WT:GAN, and see if you can get consensus. Also, FYI, your ping to me didn't work -- you have to sign your post in the same edit as you do the ping, otherwise nothing happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

More comments:

• "A primary change from previous installments": what does "primary" mean here? "Major"? I see you use the phrase "primary mechanic" in the gameplay section; does that have a specific meaning in gaming?
• "While Fire Emblem Engage received generally positive reviews from critics, they were lower than its predecessor": I would avoid saying "lower", unless you explicitly want to reference review site scores in the lead, which I don't think would be a good idea. Something like "but it was not as well-received as its predecessor" would work.
• The "Gameplay" section relies a bit too much on the reader understanding the previous games. For example, it jumps right in to "The weapon triangle returns ..." but the reader hasn't been told yet that combat is part of gameplay. Take a look at a couple of other GAs -- Balan Wonderworld starts the gameplay section by saying it's a platform game, then gives the players' roles, then defines the gameplay area, and progression through it, and then starts giving elements of the gameplay. Or take a look at Kena: Bridge of Spirits -- again it starts with the game type, describes the player role and says there will be combat, and only then talks about weapons.\
• Similarly you mention that players can change classes, but you've said nothing about what the classes are.
• Another example: you mention "units" without ever saying how these are integrated in the game play. Do players control units? Are the units independent allies?
• I assume "stat bonus" refers to player stats? I looked in glossary of video game terms and found "stat point" defined; if that's the meaning, I would link to that definition in the glossary, at least.
• "lords of previous Fire Emblem games, like Marth and Celica": I think we need to give the reader a bit more information about why this is desirable -- were these allies in the previous games? Do they have special abilities or are they particularly powerful? Reading further I see a brief definition is given at the start of the plot section, but the reader shouldn't have to wait for that.
• The paragraph starting "There is a hidden set of numbers ..." is simultaneously a bit vague and too specific. Hidden numbers control everything in video games, after all, so pointing this out without giving an details isn't very useful. I think it would be better to say something like "When a character levels up, the increase in their stats depends partly on their character class and partly on ..." though I'm not clear on what the end to the sentence should say. "... partly on the character's experience"?
• "The player must also be mindful of which units they pair up to eat together." Why?
• "Additionally, after visiting a kingdom for the first time, the player can donate gold to that kingdom, the player to receive bonuses". Ungrammatical.
• "such as an increasing chance of finding Gold and Silver Corrupted": this doesn't mean anything to anyone unfamiliar with the franchise.
• "It is used to scan Amiibo for resources, as well as unique items": I think this needs a little more explanation too.
• What's a Paralogue?
• I wouldn't use "romance" as a verb, unless that's the verb used in the game, in which case I'd make that clear.
• The plot section is over 1,000 words. MOS:PLOT gives a guideline of 400-700 words for films; MOS:VG just says to be concise and avoid trivial details. This doesn't give us a hard limit but I do think this is a bit too long -- the overall word count for the article is under 3,000. The VG MoS also suggests merging the plot with the gameplay, which might avoid some of the problems I mention above about the order in which things are mentioned and explained.
• "One thousand years ago, the evil Fell Dragon Sombron appeared in Elyos and launched an invasion, but was defeated by the Divine Dragon Lumera. However, her child Alear was gravely wounded and placed into a slumber to save their life." It seems clear that Alear is Lumera's child but as written "her" is more naturally parsed as referred to Sombron, since Sombron is the subject of the most recent main verb.
• Also, just checking that the pronouns are deliberate -- Alear is "they" and Lumera is "she"? From a quick bit of googling it appears that you're doing this because they can be set to either gender for the game, which is fine, but it does read oddly -- as if she/he has made a pronoun choice, as people do.
• I'm still not clear if the player's character is Alear -- it seems from the lead that that must be the case, but it's not stated in the body.
• "Veyle reveals she is Sombron's daughter and Lumera's assassin, stealing all of the Emblem Rings and forcing Alear and their companions to flee for their lives ... They discover that Veyle has an evil split personality that is loyal to Sombron." Isn't this saying the same thing twice?
• "Meanwhile, two of the Hounds defect to Alear's side in order to save Veyle." This doesn't seem to make sense. The Hounds were fighting for Veyle; how does switching to fighting against her help save her?
• "Alear confronts Veyle and Sombron in Lumera's former castle, but Veyle breaks free of her brainwashing": "but" seems the wrong conjunction -- Veyle breaking free defuses the confrontation, it doesn't retaliate against it.
• "he is seemingly reunited with the Zero Emblem": I don't understand either "seemingly" or "Zero Emblem".
• Look for unnecessary words in the prose such as "additionally", "however", and "as such"; these can usually be deleted without harming the meaning, and usually that improves the flow.

Looking through the rest of the article, I agree with Sergecross73 that overall the prose is not up to GA standard. Here are few examples from a skim through:

• "According to Tsutomu Tei, game director from Intelligent Systems, Engage has story structure simplified compared to the previous title in the series, Fire Emblem: Three Houses, focusing in only one major goal so that players can focus on tactical gameplay." Several problems. Looks like there's a possessive pronoun missing in "has story structure"; "focusing in" is an odd usage; and "focus" is used twice in only a dozen words. And in fact it's used again in the next sentence.
• "discussing about the marriage system": ungrammatical.
• "for the direction of a flashy direction"
• "Due to the amount of detail and colors of Pikazo's art, the 3D model team had difficult to bring it to life in 3D, to the point it was suggested to use the 2D art for dialogues like in previous games in the series, but in the end the team was able make it closer to the original illustrations after a lot of hard work trying to make the models similar to it." Too long for a single sentence, and clumsily worded in places -- "had difficult to bring it to life" is just ungrammatical, and "Due to the amount of detail and colors of Pikazo's art" is oddly phrased -- why not something like "Pikazo's detailed and colorful art meant that..." or something simpler along those lines?

These are just examples, as I said. I'm going to fail this; I recommend shortening the gameplay and plot, and then a getting a copyedit done, before resubmitting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. I will work on that. It will hopefully be ready to resubmit in a couple of months. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Pre-GAN chat

Hello article watchers (@Sergecross73 and QuicoleJR:, anyone else out there too), I'm considering throwing this up for GAN again soon. Any thoughts / issues we should address first?

Some general comments from me as a bit of a pre-review of my work...

• There's a few short paragraphs which I know riles some editors, but I don't see a way around them because the topic is too disconnected from everything else in the remaining short paragraphs. The most obvious example is the Manga section, where we have one tiny article translating Nintendo itself. This has absolutely zero to do with Release IMO, hence marking it as its own section when I first edited it, but Quicole also has a point that it might just stand out even more if given its own top-level section, so better to hide it in "Release". In the same way, I don't think we have a lot to say on music other than the two sentences we have short of just reposting the entire interview - I don't feel it's super relevant to mention which composers also worked on Three Houses, etc. Same with the FE Heroes sentence, we've got one sentence worth of content and that's it and it's unrelated to everything else. So I think the current structure is acceptable as is, but open to suggestions.
• The lede currently doesn't summarize or discuss the "Development" section at all. This is intentional, but I can see that possibly being questioned. I find that Wikipedia articles over-emphasize development stories compared to public interest in them when I've asked normal non-Wikipedia editors for feedback before, and I don't think anything in Development is so important as to be put in the lede. Also, our Development section is essentially primary-sourced at the moment. I'd be more confident including this in the lede if we had some spicy Jason Schreier style independent source on the development, but we just have a pile of interviews. (And, speaking personally, interviews that are OBVIOUSLY BEGGING FOR A REBUTTAL on parts... all the talk about wanting a broader audience than Three Houses, because clearly if we remove all the sad stuff there that scared people away, we'll double our sales! Wait, accounting said our sales were cut in half instead?)
• I mentioned it in an edit summary, but while our plot section barely scrapes in under the "limit", the DLC plot section is technically over WP:VG/PLOT suggestion of 300 words. That said, I feel like the intro sentences are not really the DLC plot summary but rather just a "shifting gears" set up to not just launch into the DLC plot with no frame beyond the section title (and thus shouldn't count against the limit), so I personally think it's fine. (And no need to make the DLC plot even more incoherent than it already is.)
• I know some editors dislike repeated "Journalist Alice B. of Website X said...", but I'm one of those people who disagree, and think that this quickly becomes "invisible" to readers. See WP:ELEVAR, basically - no need to mix up the constructions constantly unless you actually want to draw attention to them, which we don't generally. I did try to make it so that a specific journalist was only ever quoted once, and if they were used as a reference multiple times the other times would be for stuff that lots of people said.

SnowFire (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, let me give it an run through later and I can give some thoughts, but I think it's much improved and much more in the ballpark of GA status now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The Reception section is quite flowery in places. If it is from specific reviews, it should probably be in quotes. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

While a quote-heavy style is better than misrepresenting reviewers and/or being an empty section, my understanding is that too many quotes are discouraged in Reception sections. (WP:VG/REC suggests "minimizing direct quotations", albeit right next to the very wrong guidance about "avoid A said B". Mind you, I think "minimizing" is too strong as well, but I don't think the current reception section is lacking in direct quotes.) Summarizing a reviewer's views in prose is fine. (And while flowery, the WaPo article was equally flowery? I'm just transmitting her spin. It went on at some length about how the Paralogues were great and accurate, so I think reducing that to the Paralogues being "lovingly recreated" is a fair thing to take if said Paralogues were "some of my favorites" and able to make the reviewer "weepy-eyed with nostalgia". Clearly the designers did something right.) SnowFire (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• I did a quick skim over, and I think its looking pretty good. If its not at GA level yet, its at that sort of level where working with the reviewer should get you there relatively easily.
  • Agree that some of the "short section/paragraph" just can't really be helped. My only addition to it is, with some slight reframing, we could potentially connect the "4 composers for 4 continents so they have separate vibes" and "Different environment for the 'Fell Xenologue'" as more of a collective "here's how they tried to make different parts of the game unique" type thing. Just a thought.
  • As far as "Dev info for lead" goes, you could mention that its development started at the same time as Three Houses. It could tie in well with the "it wasn't reviewed as well as Three Houses bit.
  • I didn't read the plot/story parts yet, since I haven't played the game yet (but plan on doing so in the coming months so I don't want to spoil it for myself). But I believe sometimes long/story-heavy games are given a little extra lee-way. Same goes for story DLC on top of it. Reviewers wouldn't like it if we were talking about Sonic Frontiers or something, but you might have some extra consideration given to you considering the game we're dealing with.
  • I write reception sections both ways you mention - I vary based on what I have to work with and how easy it is to blend the content. I have no problem with what you've done here. And with quotes: a common philosophy on Wikipedia is, only direct-quote when you've got quotes that just simply can't be paraphrased for the same impact. So if you don't have many quotes, I think that just means you did a good job at paraphrasing, or the source material didn't have a ton content that couldn't be easily paraphrased. Sergecross73 msg me 18:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback & edits. Would still like to figure out some way to phrase the WaPo Paralogue bit in a way that's both accurate and succinct (merely recreating maps doesn't say much on its own, it's that it was done well), but it's fine for now I guess. Went ahead & nominated it, we'll see how it goes. SnowFire (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary

@Zxcvbnm: I do appreciate you taking a look, and I did keep some of your changes. I don't want to be accused of OWNership on the plot section, but in the same way, you could commission 10 good writers to write a plot summary and you'd get back 10 different, valid summaries. So it's not worth dueling too much over stylistic differences - just the stuff that's clearly slackly written or in error. Anyway, to avoid any OWN accusations, to spell out some reasons on why I disagree on the plot summary stuff...

(I've stuck this in a collapsible section as a courtesy for those not interested in plot details, i.e. Sergecross.)

Extended content

We already established dragons live in human form in the preceding paragraph. Sombron "recovering" is better as it's implied Sombron was sorta-dead, not merely drained of strength, but is now at least able to order Hyacinth around. Game is real vague on this point since he apparently needed another dose of power in C10, so we should use something equally vague. Corrupted are fought before Elusians, so honor order in-game. The unknown attacker isn't a "mage" (Zephia is the one referred to as a Mage Dragon), we know from later information she's a fell dragon. This is a setting where even physical-themed Emblems and characters can fire magic beams so Veyle is really not heavily associated with, like, Gandalf tropes. It's worth spending a few extra words than merely say Alear "succeeds" Lumera. This is foreshadowing: Alear is taking the role of Divine Dragon (even if technically it might not be theirs by blood). Besides, "succeed" is generally used for political roles, and we hear basically nothing about Lumera's political role as monarch. It's not incorrect, but the mood is off. I've removed "named / called" myself when it's unneeded, but it's there for a reason here: sentence flow. There's already a comma in Veyle's adjectives so I want to avoid two new commas that slow the sentence down. In the same way, the comma you added earlier isn't necessary - we're moving from point to point. (On the Four Hounds, that is a striking enough title that explicitly saying "named" helps. Don't make the reader do extra work in filling in missing words.) "Converting Emblem Rings" reads strangely: how is that different from any other magic artifact changing hands? I know what you mean, but a casual reader might not. It's not the taking of rings themselves that the plot considers shocking, but rather the Emblem characters associated with them. Veyle's identity is not a secret anymore when it's revealed, so your phrasing doesn't work. Nor was it ever really intentionally a secret, it turns out evil Veyle was clueless that good Veyle was buddies with Alear. If you compared my version to older versions, I've tried to reduce the amount of "stolen" / "steals" / etc. that presume that Emblems are rightful property of anyone. Ivy / Zelkov just take / bring them. My phrasing "two of the Emblem Rings that Elusia had controlled" is trying to hint more directly that the two Emblems they bring are new ones, not two of the six that were just taken. If we were doing a 1000 word summary then we could just explicitly say they were Lucina & Lyn (and talk about how these were the games that introduced / re-popularized FE in the West, comparable to Marth in Japan), but we're stuck with this. "Split personality" suggests the actual, medical disassociative identity disorder too much. Side rant: we need to create a "Multiple personalities in fiction" article so that we're not distastefully linking to a real-life psychological condition that has very little to do with how it works in fiction. Two personalities is factual and gets the point across, because Veyle's condition is magically induced. (If it was portrayed as a psychological issue, even fancifully, then maybe we could call it a split personality, sure.) I don't think it's that relevant to say that Lumera "recruited" Alear or convinced them. The important part is just that past-Alear turned against Sombron. "Veyle's evil side is defeated" sounds like psychological combat. No, it's Veyle herself that is defeated, just while the evil side is in control of her. I'm very hesitant to call the other Veyle "good" though - she is portrayed as extremely sheltered and naive, and meekly goes along with Zephia earlier. The reason she defects isn't out of do-gooderism (she could have left long ago if that was the case), but rather out of creepy siscon "Anything for you, brother/sister!" despite only meeting Alear literally one time! Ick. (In other words, if, hypothetically, Alear was evil, then Veyle would still follow Alear because Veyle's morality seems to be "whatever Alear wants.") I think "innocent" gets the point across - she's sheltered and not very savvy, but also not evil. Calling it "Lumera's castle" is rather dated as she's already dead. It's just the castle of Lythos at that point in the game. I don't really agree with your phrasing on the other C21 stuff. I'll chalk this up to stylistic preference. The general emotional sense of the scene is that Alear is protecting Veyle because something something sibling promises and family above all. Your version seems focused on the physical sense of the scene by talking about the specifics of blocking a magic beam, which is secondary IMO (especially given that the staging makes 0 sense). And I don't think "Collecting all 12 rings" flows easily into the next sentence - I much prefer the full stop to separate these, collecting the rings is more associated with killing Alear. You've killed the fun beat on the Fire Emblem reveal! Sorry, this one really is just worse writing. Why would you reverse the order there? It's a classic kicker. Imagine you were giving a lecture or standup comedy - you say "the new thirteenth Emblem" (dramatic beat) "the Fire Emblem" (crowd: "ooh, that's the title of the game!"). Hiding it in the middle of the sentence ruins the effect. Throwing two different terms in a row that don't really matter isn't great. IMO, we might be spending too much time on Sombron's motivation anyway, but I've tried to fit in the details of the two names in context rather than "pausing" to explain them. It's not even clear if Sombron really wished to destroy the world. DLC Sombron, sure, where he's become a card-carrying villain dedicated to ensuring that even after he dies someone will go crazy and corrupt the world, but Sombron just sounds like he wants to get away and tells Alear to leave him alone. It's not clear at all that Sombron reunited with the Zero Emblem from a simple reading of the game script. It is, at most, undetermined and sequel bait. "It involves" visiting a parallel world? No, it doesn't "involve" it, it just is it. Involve would imply there are other things afoot. "Reverse Elyos" isn't really clear what it means. My spelling out of "most everything is inverted" is clearer to an audience who isn't sure what "Reverse" as an adjective might mean . Personally, I think the fact that Rafal did this at Nil's request is somewhat relevant here, since Rafal is meant to be sympathetic and join the party. In other words, Rafal wasn't just an imposter for no reason. (Ideally we'd also add in the nonsensical plot point about "Rafal had been driven insane by a corrupted dragonstone of Sombron for why he randomly played the villain", but I feel we're already capped on words.) SnowFire (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

From these issues, it is clear you are not in full understanding of the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. Plot summaries have to be dry, emotionless and sound as little like a publicity blurb as possible. It's not editors' job to assist the game with dramatic plot reveals or making things sound cool. So, something like "the thirteenth Emblem - the Fire Emblem" sounds overdramatic, while "the Fire Emblem, the new thirteenth Emblem" is solely explanatory without drama or pathos. This is how it should be.

I'm not going to claim my writing is perfect, but some of these changes fixed unencyclopedic statements. "Most everything is inverted" is a generalization. The color of the sky isn't inverted (I think), water isn't green, the planet isn't square, so "everything" is not actually in reverse, and claiming that it is is incorrect.

Other changes seem nonsensical. How is Lumera recruiting Alear irrelevant? Turning against someone of your own free will is quite different than being convinced by someone else.

Finally, it's disruptive editing to immediately revert WP:GOODFAITH changes simply because you disagree. Discuss them if you must, and I'm fine if there is consensus to roll them back and others agree with these claims, but immediate and unilateral knee jerk reversion was not merited in the slightest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

C21 plot beats: It's true that Wikipedia writing is not a magazine... but... you're speaking to somebody who *mostly* edits on boring scholarly stuff these days. I can do dry & detached, sure, but you have to reflect the material, too. If the material is meant to be heart-tugging or sad or funny or whatever, then honoring the material means presenting it as it is. It's funny you mention pathos, because my other article up for GA nom - Chapters of 2 Maccabees - has scholarly debates over whether the book was written in the "pathetic" (in the sense of pathos) style, or whether the pathetic style was a thing at all and it's just a term of insult for works that are written in frankly a maudlin way (there's a bit on that at 2_Maccabees#Reliability_as_history). To play this emotional aspect down or to try to rewrite sections clearly meant to generate an emotional response is to warp the work in the case of 2 Maccabees, and it's the case in quite a lot of dramatic fiction. Javert doesn't just randomly fall in the water: the dramatic reason is important. In the same way, if a literary character valiantly sacrifices themselves for another, and the author is very clear that they consider this a key moment, a wonderful expression of love, blah blah blah, then attempting to make it a dry, emotionless moment with "Bob dies when shot by a bullet meant for Alice" is not really reflecting the work. Anyway, back to Engage... Engage is not subtle about the emotional logic behind that scene. It is very, very bluntly a maudlin sacrifice, not just the result of combat. On the nature of the Fire Emblem, it's a stinger in-game, so I'm presenting it as a stinger in text. I'm just being accurate to the game.

"Inverted": The very next sentence makes clear what is meant by everything being inverted. Anyway, your phrasing of "reverse" has exactly the same theoretical problems if a reader is deadset on ignoring the context. They'll just have to read the next sentence.

Who recruited Alear: This is actually the one I feel the least strongly on. I actually agree with you that it would be nice to include that, and I'd absolutely have included it in a 900 word summary. However, this is a 700 word summary. Some important facets just aren't gonna make it. In my version, there just barely isn't room, but if that fact made it into your version, I wouldn't consider it a problem, no. But this is why cooking by committee can be hard - if we compromise and keep including everything anyone wants, we end up with a 1200 word section instead.

If you're throwing "you don't understand the Manual of Style" at me (which is rather unkind, I dare say), I'm gonna throw this one back at you: you aren't familiar with Wikipedia editing standards if you think there's some minimum guaranteed time of keeping a change. I do agree that there is a requirement to discuss, though, which is why per WP:BRD I made sure to include detailed reasoning for why I think some of your changes were unproductive so we can discuss them here. (And I didn't even strictly "R" in the sense of revert, I kept some of your changes as already noted.) If you want to sway me on the merits and/or get a consensus that I'm wrong on the other stuff, happy to adjust! But sell us on the merits in a discussion, then. I'll be the first to edit it back in if it turns out you have a point. SnowFire (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It is more than a little ironic when last month you went and rewrote the former plot summary, which had consensus to be there, and now argue that changes should not be made without consensus. Anyway, the only way I feel this can be resolved is getting consensus of other users on whether the original plot summary, your plot summary, or the newly edited plot summary is better. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Re the previous version: The article failed the GA nom before. I'm just trying to get it into a better shape to pass this time. And yes, this is also why I'm a bit more trigger happy on trying to keep quality up. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And you've done a great job at it too, the article is far better than when it failed it's first GA nom. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Fire Emblem Engage/GA1 I only noted a few fixable problems with the plot summary but nothing on the level of a full rewrite being needed. They could easily be addressed by tweaking a few words and sentences. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend looking at the page history to see what the article looked looked like at that time. It was a fine start/C class, but definitely a GA quick fail. (Though why you're going there when your rewrite of the plot section is being challenged is beyond me. Kinda feels like you're just trying to go the contrarian route here...) Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, even the last GA review itself literally concludes with comments like "Looking through the rest of the article, I agree with Sergecross73 that overall the prose is not up to GA standard." and "I recommend shortening the gameplay and plot, and then a getting a copyedit done" so I really have no idea what you're taking about here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• De-indent: Sergecross73, Zxcvbnm wrote a lot of the plot section before, so it's not just being contrary, he just prefers his version. Which I get, but comparing with the old revision, I feel very confident saying that my version is better. And by that I don't mean I personally think it's better - of course I do, but I'm biased - but rather that if I asked friends to read through both versions and didn't tell them which one I wrote and which one did they like better, that they'd pick mine. Which, to be clear, I sorta did - I've run the current article past friends in an RPG Discord chat and people gave me the thumbs up. I think the old version is way too in-universe rather than "experienced as the player does" and also draws out some stuff that is at best implied in the game, and not that important if real. SnowFire (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  If it matters, I fully admit that the gameplay section you wrote is much better then what I originally wrote. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  And no offense intended to your version earlier. It was fine, just not GA level. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  No opinion on the plot RN though. QuicoleJR (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fire Emblem Engage/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 22:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• I think the lead paragraph could be split into two, with the second paragraph beginning at "One of the core parts". Also, certain story elements, I'd recommend cutting down - for example, I don't think it's important to mention in the lead Alear's age,
  • Hmm, I'm gonna push back on this some. The first paragraph is 7 sentences and 172 words. That's a pretty typical size for a paragraph. I'm not averse to short paragraphs - I use them in the body a decent amount - but the lead needs to be the most tightly written section of the article, and splitting this in two results in paragraphs that are a bit clipped to my eyes. Additionally, the part about both Alear and Sombron seeking to control the rings is "finishing" a thought brought up earlier in the paragraph that was describing the game's central conflict. If a reader reads the first paragraph, they'll know what's being fought over in setting and the relevant stakes, while I feel it ends up cut off if such a paragraph break is added.
  • I don't think Alear's age is discussed? I suppose you mean the "awaken from a thousand-year slumber" part. I don't think that's there to discuss age, really, but rather set up Alear as a new actor on the field - they weren't participating before and don't know anyone and are an outsider, but are thrust into the conflict now, rather than being an existing part of the world. It also sets up that there was some relevant backstory 1,000 years prior to the current events, which is true.
• Having no development info in the lead makes it feel incomplete.
  • I mention it above on this talk page, but IMHO, many video game articles are entirely too focused about development details in the lead section, especially for games that don't have "celebrity" designers like Yoko Taro or Hidetaka Miyazaki. I'd kind of like to train the habit out of our GAs. For something like Elden Ring, we have sources that talk about Miyazaki & George R. R. Martin and such, but our development sources here are essentially all interviews. And this leads to a problem: some of the stuff in the interviews isn't reliable compared to what shipped, so we're stuck only discussing "this was the intent" level stuff. More generally, I have run Wikipedia articles past people in the past and a routine point of feedback - from people deeply invested in video games (!) - is that there is too much boring, irrelevant detail about the development that they don't care about. A combination of reader disinterest, lack of secondary sources, and reviews not talking about development much suggest that Wikipedia should stash this information away and not highlight it in the lead. I suppose there is *one* point that I could include about development in the lede, but I'm going to warn you that it's going to sound like axe-grinding. The development interviews make it very clear that the dev team wanted to do something different from Three Houses, and the reviews / other sources talk quite a bit about "Three Houses vs. Engage" and how Engage usually comes off worse. So... I could try to work that in. It's gonna sound like a Three Houses fanboy working a "take that" into the lead, though, since it can't help but come across as anything other than "look at these idiots trying to mess with a winning formula".

1. I'm pretty much satisfied with the lead in its current state.

Infobox

• Being single-player should be mentioned in the article's body
  • I believe it already is - last sentence in "Gameplay"?
    • Ah, my mistake - I expected it to be sooner.
• A lot of the staff is unmentioned later in the article (and possibly unsourced), and I think it's important that including someone in the infobox should have some evidence of specific importance to the game's development. I feel like it might come off as indiscriminate.
  • By default, it's sourced to the game's credits (fandom copy, but it matches the in-game credits to my knowledge). Hmm, you're even more aggressive about trimming down the Infobox than me! I'm definitely a fan of a lean & mean Infobox, but looking at the documentation of Template:Infobox video game...
    • I don't like to be too much of a stickler about this, I just feel like it makes the infobox really unwieldy (for me it pushes the screenshot down and makes the gameplay section look a little worse). There was a discussion on WT:VG about this, and as I recall, there was a feeling that there should be stricter expectations of who to include and why.
  • The directors and one of the producers are in the article. The documentation for producers just says to include people with that title if there are three or less of them, and there are indeed exactly three.
  • I'd already removed designers & programmers, which are the fields the documentation says not to include in modern big budget games.
  • Composers / Artists are maybe the most interesting ones. We do discuss Pikazo, so I think she needs to stay, but if we're including anybody, I think it's fair to include the other leads - Teraoka is at least mentioned as an art director in this interview [3] even if it didn't fit into the main article, and Hiromi Tanaka is credited as "Art Design Lead." I think they're fair to keep. Composers, it's a long list, but we do discuss that a team of composers were used intentionally to create different styles of music in the article - the Infobox is verifying that yes, it's a team. If we stick just the one guy with a wikilink there, it may look like he did *all* the music. This is the part that is most debatable, but I'd personally rather keep 'em as proof of the "team" composing aspect, but I suppose we could delete all of them, or move it into an endnote or something.
• Another issue relating to staff is whether there's any commentary relating to the game's composers. There is some talk of music, but is there any commentary by the composers? Is any one of the composers the lead composer?
  • No, I wasn't able to find any commentary by the composers, unfortunately. The most I got was that it was done by a team as the development section discusses. Yasuhisa Baba is credited as lead composer but I didn't find any sources discussing his specific work. [4] is the most in-depth thing I've seen on the topic: Tei said "One sound composer was assigned to each country" and Nakanashi says "Takeru Kanazaki wrote Solm's music." That's it.

Gameplay

1. Unique personal skills or a unique personal skill?
   • Could be either, but I interpret that sentence as referring to each character individually. A single character has multiple stats and multiple growth rates, but just one personal skill.
2. Is support level the same as support rank?
   • Yes, they're basically synonyms. If you search, you can find sources using both "rank" and "level."
     • I'm aware they're synonyms, I just think it might be confusing to someone if they see support level and support rank and think that these may be different gameplay terminologies.
       • I checked the game and the tutorial under "Support" seems to use "Support levels" (and the tutorial called "Bond Level" says... well...), so I've standardized on that.
3. "rivers might by impassible to ground-based units" and "fortresses might grant defensive bonuses" just checking, but are there circumstances where ground units cannot cross rivers, or fortresses cannot benefit from defensive bonuses?
   • I'll rephrase to be less confusing. "Might" is referring back to earlier in the sentence to "terrain in general", i.e. it's hinting that different terrain has different effects, but fair point that it can also be read that Fortresses can work differently (which was not the intended reading). Went with a different phrasing, take a look and feel free to edit it further.
4. Unless I overlooked it, the article doesn't cover range
   • I feel like this is too in-the-weeds on gameplay. I went back and checked some other FE GAs, and it's not discussed in either Fire_Emblem#Gameplay or Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn#Gameplay for examples. Fire_Emblem:_The_Blazing_Blade#Gameplay mentions "attack range" in passing, once, but with no further elaboration and while talking about something else. I feel that going in-depth into range would require discussing weapon types first: e.g. Arts have range 1, Bows usually have range 2, spells usually have range 1-2, etc., and I expect the GAMEGUIDE police would get angry about that. But more generally, I think this is just basically understood about any sort of tactical game already - of course swords would have different range than bows. The final kicker is that game reviews don't seem to talk that much about range either. So I'd rather leave it as is, but happy to discuss.
5. Some terms use quotation marks around them, but others don't. This feels a little inconsistent. Not a big deal, just think it might be worthwhile.
   • Checking... so I try to use quotes when calling out non-standard usages of terms, i.e. "don't try to interpret this as normal English, it's a term of art". For example, "Engage" doesn't really mean English engage, but the non-standard use "power-up". Same with "Skirmish" (quotes clarifies it's a specific term the game calls it, not just a casual use of the word). I've looked them over and think they're used acceptably at the moment, but happy to take another look - basically quotes calls out "no, this isn't a typo for prologue, they're really called Paralogues."
6. Not a failing issue, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to merely select a few Emblems instead of listing all that were available at launch.
   • Given that many of the Emblems have articles to link to... I feel like the Emblems are central enough to the game that it's worth listing them. If nothing else, it's definitely helpful for the DLC lest the DLC just say something vague like "wave 3 included more Emblem Bracelets", and once all the DLC Emblems are listed, I feel like the 12 main-game ones might as well be included too. On a more pragmatic note, if we did only list a few, I have no idea how we'd restrict which ones to mention. I guarantee that well-meaning editors would hop along to add the others that are missing, and I'm not even convinced they'd be wrong to do so. If we really did want to lock this down, the only way I could see it working is to mention only Marth and nobody else, given that Marth is on the cover and is the most plot-relevant Emblem. But... eh, I feel like "which Emblems are in the game" is of more interest to readers than 90% of the other content. So I'd rather just keep them all - 12 isn't so many as to be over-the-top, especially given that we can get them out of the way in a sentence.

• Side note on "like" vs. "such as": I believe "such as" is correct for those. A quick Google brings up [5] which writes that "Like is used for comparisons and isn’t inclusive, whereas such as is used to introduce categories or examples that are inclusive." Rivers and fortresses are examples of terrain actually in the game, not hypothetical examples, so the inclusive phrase "such as" is proper. SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Development

• Is there any info about localization?
  • Not really. The localization was mostly drama-free. You can find Bounding Into Comics and idiots on Twitter claiming the localization was "censored" but these are not reliable sources and are also wrong anyway. When reviewers discussed the English game script, they mostly didn't discuss the translation or blame any plot problems on a bad localization.

• I've interleaved some replies above - feel free to tell me if you prefer I create a separate reply section. SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That's consistent with what I've found too regarding localization. Idle grumbling about trivial changes on Twitter and non-RS like Niche Gamer, but nothing noteworthy made it to reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

So there's no RSes to even state that content was changed? Not asking for a controversy section or anything. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe any content did change, other than some of the names that would sound weird in English being replaced (Ryul/Ryūru -> Alear, Fogado / Timerra's class being the English word "Vigilante" in Japanese but the implications being all wrong in English, and thus becoming "Sentinel", etc.).

To go into it in some more detail: the main accusation that the niche sources surface is that the localization either censors or tones down some of the S-rank dialogue / endings between Alear and younger characters (Anna) or characters that would be incest (Veyle). But... this just isn't actually true. What is true is that there are words that can be translated multiple ways in the same way that words have multiple definitions in the dictionary, and it's possible to translate some of the words in the most lovey-dovey way and still have it technically be a defensible translation as far as "my Japanese-English dictionary says this is a meaning." But real translations take into account context to pick which word. Like... a classic example is kuso which, technically, can potentially be translated as "shit." But the usage is fairly harmless and 8-year olds can say it without it being offensive or anything in Japanese culture, so if you have a cute 8-year old in a non-edgy media saying "kuso", you should probably use "crap" or "poop" or the like in English to get the right vibe. In the same way, the mood of the scenes - even in Japanese - is very "best friendsy" for most characters. They're not getting married or anything, just complimenting each other as The Best etc. As such, interpreting every word as if it should use its most maximally romantic connotations would be inappropriate.

That said, I agree it would be nice if there was some source that talked about the localization in more depth - I'll keep an eye out if one crops up, but I haven't seen any yet. SnowFire (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Images

1. The Alear arts have a white background on my setting, which I think can be fixed.

• • Is this really desired, though? I imagine if someone has a skin that has a different background, they might still want a consistent backdrop here. I could certainly edit the image to make the white area transparent, I just assume that's not a good change in a Wikipedia context that wants a consistent display. Is there a policy or discussion on this to your knowledge? If not, happy to kick this over to WT:VG. SnowFire (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I believe that the image, if made properly transparent, will have a background that matches any style.@Kung Fu Man: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
      • That's correct that it'll match any style, I'm just saying that's not always a good thing. Less of an issue with Alear because they're very colorful anyway, but you wouldn't want, say, a background that matches the outline of the character that'd cause it to be difficult to detect where the character starts at a glance. Anyway, looking closer at File:Fire Emblem Engage Alears.png, it seems that the image is transparent in the background already. (And while Alear is wearing white, the edges of Alear's outline aren't except at the shoulders, so the default white works fine as a background IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
        • I'm entirely unsure why it's not a good thing in this case. I don't see anything about the image that suggests making it properly transparent. And I'm aware that it appears transparent, but in practice, it is not. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
          • Hmm, so what are you looking for? Like I said before, the background is already transparent, by which I mean it's alpha channel has the opacity of the background set to just pass through what's "behind" it. You can see an example at https://fireemblem.fandom.com/wiki/Alear where the blue background there is in the background of the page.
            • I won't fail for that, it's just a thing I notice with some transparent images that they are less "successfully" transparent than others.

Reception

1. Multiple reviews in the table do not appear to be utilized in the reception section. Namely Destructoid, Famitsu, Game Informer, and Siliconera. I recommend incorporating the sources into the text, either by adding them to help further substantiate a point or expand on any new points that they may touch upon that the article currently does not.
   • Famitsu isn't really usable because we only have a score. Daytona USA is a recent FA that went against the guideline about using everything in the table in text on grounds of a wider, international viewpoint to keep Famitsu, so I'd rather keep it. Went ahead and added the other three, although...
     • I'm not gonna be a pain in the butt about that. Might be worthwhile to see if anyone has access to that copy of Famitsu if you wanna being it to FA though!
2. "Reviewers generally considered the gameplay of Engage excellent" This is a minor nitpick since the text afterward seems to substantiate the claim well enough, so I don't know that the Vice citation needs to be attached to verify that. I'd suggest either removing it or adding Vice's specific praise of the gameplay if you can make it fit.
   • I removed it, but also snuck Siliconera in as a replacement. Wasn't sure what to call out since that was a 10/10 review so having it next to a generically positive statement seems okay - I don't want to have TOO much space be devoted to calling out specific magazines.
3. "Other reviewers were outright hostile to the cast" Without checking the reviews, the way they're described - as having boring support conversations - does not seem hostile to me, just mere dislike. I'd recommend either changing it from hostile to a more neutral descriptor or clarify what was particularly hostile about the criticism.
   • I'd consider calling them boring is pretty hostile for media designed as entertainment! I guess boring is one step above offensive at least. Anyway, from The Gamer review used as a reference:
     • It's frustrating in the extreme - I just do not care about these characters and their plight, and even the ones where I might have, the game offers me no reason to invest whatsoever. I highly recommend Fire Emblem Engage because the gameplay and battles are stellar. Just be prepared to find yourself skipping a lot of stuff by the end.
   • Here's Kotaku:
     • Engage is so shallow about its worldbuilding and characters that I find myself feeling unattached to any of them.
   • And fairly extensive other complaints on the writing / plot. TheGamer also writes "It may also be that the writing, both in terms of plot and dialogue, is horrendous" and Kotaku also called out "terrible writing". Went ahead and expanded that to make clear it goes beyond just the characters themselves. I didn't cite her again on that sentence, but Ash Parrish's Verge review also mentioned "flat, uninspiring characters" and "Your companions, while visually interesting, seem like mere placeholders" which sounds pretty hostile to me.
     • I think that's a much better setup.

Miscellaneous

1. I don't know why, but there's an error on this source: [6]
   • Fixed.

• Annoyingly enough, the Destructoid review had some ad that was so bad that it froze Chrome so badly I had to entirely restart, losing everything I wrote here on the talk page and my in-progress edit, so the above was typed again along with some of the changes having to be written again. Very frustrating. On the double spaces thing, MOS:DOUBLESPACE allows both styles; it's just editor preference, there's no effect for the reader. Obviously fine to prefer single spaces if you're making an edit, but no need to go through and redo all the sections as a generalized clean-up. SnowFire (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Okay, it looks good. Sorry for the delays, it's been kind of hectic IRL. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Overall

1. Well-written
2. Verifiable with no original research
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated

Plot rambles

Mostly talking to myself here, because beats me how to source this. In theory, plot sections are sourced to the game itself, but this can run into issues when the plot has holes parts that are unclear, and this can be accidentally smoothed over in the summary.

• Currently, the article says "Lythos is a central holy land reserved for the Divine Dragon and their attendants." I'd say that's accurate to the game, given that you see exactly 0 people living in Lythos other than them. However, there are "Lythos-style" cuisine and clothing, which make of it what you will. More interestingly, in the manga, there are people living in Lythos. Were they always there, or is this a manga-only truth? (Incidentally, if Lythosians really are a thing, then our heroes are real jerks for saying precisely nothing about what would happen to the innocent Lythosians when they abandon Lythos to its fate. Were they just occupied by Elyos? Killed by corrupted? Killed by Gradlon popping up out of nowhere?)
• For the DLC, the article says "Alear and Sombron are both dead, having killed each other in the war one thousand years earlier". But some of the Alear / Corrupted royal boss conversations suggest that the Corrupted knew their world's Alear, and further, some of the Corrupted royal boss conversations suggest that everyone being turned into Corrupted was a fairly recent phenomenon. I am inclined to chalk this up to just bad inconsistent writing, but eh, maybe Parallel-Alear did die more recently? But to what and why, if so? SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)