Talk:The Last Guardian

Referring to the creature

Masem, you were right about the staff not using the "dog-cat-eagle" name combination, but they do mention "man-eating eagle", "dog", and "cat" separately. However, whatever the developer calls the creature in his interview translated from Japanese, perhaps to avoid confusion among readers, it is best not to refer to it as an "eagle" ? Because clearly it is not an eagle... Also, don't you agree that it resembles a dragon more than an eagle anyway ? How about the word "creature" for now ? Until we get the official word for the nature of the creature... Because you are also right that "Trico" may just be a working name.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The literal translation of the Japanese name includes "sea eagle" or "erne", so clearly that's the best description we can use. Also, I've yet to see any source call it a "dragon"; I've seen gryphon, I've seen cat-bird thing, and a whole bunch of other things, but not a dragon (for one, dragons don't usually have feathers). --MASEM (t) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true that dragons don't usually have feathers, and in that way I agree it resembles a gryffon more, but the head structure, legs, and long tail are more reminiscent of a dragon than an eagle... In any case, "sea eagle" or "erne" seems like an excellent compromise. Just as long as we don't simply call it an "eagle". Thanks !--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You could use the official pitch from here. It calls the creature an "erne" (more specifically, "大鷲" in Japanese), and goes on to describe it as having the legs and feathers of a bird, an expression reminiscent of a dog's, the body of a cat, a long tail, wings on its back, and most of all, an overwhelming size. Erigu (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So we should simply use "erne" ?--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Once it's been established in the article that it's an extremely weird and quite huge "erne", I think that would be adequate. Erigu (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

大鷲 appears to refer specifically to Haliaeetus pelagicus, known on Wikipedia's English version as Steller's Sea Eagle. The sea eagles as a group are also known as sea eagle and not erne on Wikipedia. I'm going to be bold and change it to "sea eagle", linking to the Wikipedia page on Steller's sea eagles. If you look at the pictures of real Steller's Sea Eagles, while of course Trico is fantastic, there is a definite resemblance. joye (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Steller's sea eagle" seemed way too specific to me, considering the fact we're obviously not talking about an actual Steller's sea eagle, and the literal meaning of "大鷲" ("great eagle"... nothing about the sea). So I came up with "erne": a generic term that applies to any sea eagle[1] without mentioning the sea. Erigu (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As we have a reliable source that says the title translates to "great man-eating eagle" (this is from [2], we need to stikc to that and not guess words otherwise. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They may be reliable overall, but their translation is a bit strange... And since when do we need sources for mere translations anyway? Erigu (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible release date but we need better confirmation

Please keep eyes open: UK stores are saying Oct 7 for release, but as vendors they aren't reliable (and we can't use this article from Eurogamer [3] since it's based on those dates). A better confirmation would be needed to include this. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

What resolution is this game at? I wont play if its less than 1080p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.61.42 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion.--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yoshifusa Hayama and Fumito Ueda's departure

Should their departure be added to the development section? http://www.gamebandits.com/news/ps3/the-last-guardian-team-ico-producer-leaves-project-25161/ http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39100/Confirmed_Ico_Creator_Fumito_Ueda_Leaves_Sony.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.63.245 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ueda's just got confirmed today, I will add it soon enough (it was only rumored in the last twk weeks)...--MASEM (t) 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cancelled

Let's hope it isn't true, but check this article out http://www.destructoid.com/gamestop-is-calling-to-say-the-last-guardian-is-canceled-218394.phtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.48.230 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a better source. But it is something to watch for :( --MASEM (t) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sony tells Kotaku "This is not true" [4]. --MASEM (t) 20:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to request that we don't add this information in until we know for sure what the situation is. We have no idea why Gamestop did what they did, and to add that would confuse the article. Once we can be clear about that, then addition makes sense. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Gamestop confirms that this was because the game did not have a set release date, they removed it from the system until it does. [5]. I don't think this is a big issue to include even at this point, barring if the larger issue of this practice by Gamestop becomes important. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now we have something to work with, this piece suggesting the misstep will harm sales of the title. [6]. I'll add it in later if someone doesn't beat me to it. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? That this misstep could be costly for Sony is pure speculation from the author's part with nothing to back it up. I'd argue that the amount of people who preorder games from Gamestop before there even is a release date is quite a small percentage of those who will end up buying the game. :) --Conti|✉ 19:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Now it's done. http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/06/07/the-last-guardian-cancelled?utm_campaign=fbposts&utm_source=facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.24.131 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't trust an article that claims it is from "Sony's internal meeting last week". That's rumor-mongering. It could be true, but we need to have it out of Sony's mouth. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah: [7] (Rohde is a Sony Playstation team member). --MASEM (t) 05:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

God of War team helping development

http://www.destructoid.com/god-of-war-team-helping-to-finish-the-last-guardian-222514.phtml

This should probably be added to the article.--Kingplatypus 15:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingplatypus (talk • contribs)

That's in there already, though not from that article (SCE Santa Monica is the official studio name). --MASEM (t) 16:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

PS3 or PS4

The infobox currently reads PS3, on Team ICO it read PS 4 (I just changed that to TBA, but who knows if that sticks). http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-03-shuhei-yoshida-playstation-4-indies-and-the-xbox-one seems to make it clear that it's really unknown at the moment (well, I can't imagine it being anything but PS 4, but what I can imagine is not really relevant to the article). I just got reverted for changing PS3 in the infobox to PS3 or PS4, and I wonder what a constructive way forward is. Keeping it at PS3 untill something more definite comes out? I'm rather opposed to that, as it seems to indicate PS3 as a fact, while it is pretty unsure at the moment. Other options could be keeping it blank, setting it to TBA, or making it PS3 or PS4. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The last official word was "PS3". The entry on Team Ico is not correct, so I reverted that to PS3. Given how much time the game was under development with the PS3 model, it seems more likely to be a PS3 than PS4. We have noted the PS4 launch has come and gone so the reader can determine this might not be final. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

From the referenced source (which is also used in the article)

Q: What console is it coming out on?
Shuhei Yoshida: Ahh... That, I cannot talk about.

seems to indicate that PS3 isn't the only official word anymore though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

For all we know, he could be consider a Vita platform. There's not enough there to diverge from the original announcement of a PS3 game, though we can state that whether the final platform will be PS3 is still in question. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to have something indicating that it's still in question, but I'm not sure what format is best for that in the infobox. I think we can agree (can we?) that it will definitely a Sony platform at this point, and that it won't be PS1 or PS2, but that flat-out stating PS3 is possibly misleading. How about keeping it blank for now? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good points; it's better to just leave it TBD and explain that in the lead (that PS3 was the intended the target) but what it will be on when out is in question. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Doesn't happen too often that I actually see BRD work and end up with consensus without drama, but I'm always happy when it does :) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2014

On 7 JUN 2014 the game is NOT OFFICIALLY cancelled. REF : http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/08/the-last-guardian-cancelled EDIT REF : http://ps4daily.com/2014/06/last-guardian-cancelled-rumor/ 123.192.63.157 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Since IGN's original story has now been called out as "BS" there's no reason to make any changes to reflect this. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting the History section

Don't have the energy to do it now and I need to think about how I'd approach it, but I think we need to rework the history section to reparse how the years from 2009 to now (2014) are handles, focusing less on individual lack-of-appearances at conventions and just more on the general lack of no-shows. Obviously we need to call out Ueda's departure from Sony but I'm not sure yet about the rest. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Evan Narcisse article reference

Hello!

This is my first attempt at discussion on wikipedia /wave

My issue with this page is the Evan Narcisse article reference. I have actually tried to delete this on many occasions. I come back to this page many times in the hopes of finding out new information with regards to this game, one that I'm still hoping sees a release date. And every time I scroll to the bottom, I'm irked by that Kotaku article reference. This tidbit of information is an opinion and not fact. Indeed, it states a few times throughout that it is opinion: "Evan Narcisse for the website Kotaku opined..." and "....reducing the essentialness of the title, according to Narcisse." Even the original article it references is called "Maybe I Don't Need The Last Guardian Anymore." That's all well and fine for you, Mr. Narcisse, but I find this to be out of place on a page that references interviews and articles that reveal FACTS about the progress of the game. Whether or not I agree with what Evan Narcisse is trying to say is irrelevant. The point is that it is his opinion and it doesn't belong here.

Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view: "Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view (from: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)." I don't find this article or his opinions to be neutral. Can we stick to facts and not one person's opinion?

Tanzilliath (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an important opinion, however, on the impact of the delay, and one shared by many others (note how non-chalantly any news stories on TLG when all Sony states is "it's still in development" are written). It is a opinion by a notable journalist (not a random blogger) and thus appropriate. If the issue is that it is possible intermixed with facts, that's something that can be fixed without removal, but outright removal at the present time is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes an "important opinion" exactly? Why is the opinion of a "notable journalist" appropriate on a page/website that strives for a neutral point of view? Again, this is not the point. It doesn't matter where the opinion came from, or what the opinion is. It is still just an opinion, one that not everybody shares and one that is hardly neutral. Thus, it has no place here. I say again, can we stick to facts and not one person's opinion?

Tanzilliath (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

We can use opinions, NPOV policy allows that as long as the opinions are cited and not in WP's voice, that's neutral. And what's important here is the impact the delay of the game is having on it. One is the departure of some of the devs; another is the relevance of the game to today's market. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The departure of the devs is a different article and is relevant, yes.

To be honest with you, I don't even understand why this is an issue. If you look at the 53 articles that are referenced before it, ALL of them concern release dates, status of development, interviews with the creators of the game, etc etc. These are facts. These are tangible things that directly impact the game, from the mouths of the people that are involved with its development. Experts, if you will. They are not personal articles. Then we get a reference to this anomalous article filled with personal opinions that directly relate to Narcisse and Narcisse alone. The entire basis of the article is summed up in the title itself: Maybe *I* Don't Need The Last Guardian Anymore. He doesn't have the same ache for the game as he once did. "As I touched each of these games, the pangs I had for Last Guardian got less sharp." He's filled that void with other games. This is how HE feels. This is how HE has coped. Sure, some people may agree with him, but not everybody. And nowhere in his article is he claiming that everybody feels this way. Just him.

"When Sony confirmed the game's existence in 2009, the video game landscape looked different. By-the-numbers racers, shooters and action-adventure games dominated and indie game development—the risk-taking experimentalism that characterizes the best small-team titles—wasn't as firmly established as it is now." Sure. This is true. He says this. Right after he says "Part of my longing for The Last Guardian comes from the time period when it was revealed." Part of HIS longing. To say that this is "reducing the essentialness of the title" (something Narcisse never says) is extrapolating. It may not be essential to Narcisse any longer, but it is silly to assume that this applies to everybody and is a sweeping generalization. There are PLENTY of people that want this title and think it IS essential. Why does the introduction of more indie games into the market lessen the emotional impact of the game? Can I have some evidence of this? Was Journey not as emotionally stirring because of the existence of Flower or Bastion? No, all of them were amazing in their own right. It is pure speculation to assume that Last Guardian no longer has a place because of the rise of indie games. In fact, I would argue that it will get MORE attention because indie games are actually a THING now. And again, just because Narcisse feels this way, doesn't mean everybody does. And again, he is not trying to say this.

Which takes me back to Narcisse's article. He finished that paragraph with "So, the desire to see a game that would draw from a broader emotional palette was stronger, at least for me." At least for HIM. He wrote something very personal: an article that explores how he is coping with the long wait. Whoever wrote this reference is taking his words, words that express HIS OWN feelings, and applying them to the masses. At no point in Narcisse's original article does he try to apply the way he feels to how everybody feels. At no point in the original articles does he say most of what is said in the reference.

He is not making generalizations. The reference to his article IS making generalizations. He is simply writing about how the long wait has affected him and him only. He does not try to apply his feelings to the masses. However, the reference on this page DOES. And I find that to be incredibly lazy and careless writing. Also the opposite of neutral.

"Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information." The reference is an analysis of a personal essay. And an incorrect analysis at that. This just doesn't belong here.

Tanzilliath (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

An opinion by an expert in the field is not the same as publishing own's thoughts and analysis (as a WP editor). Yes, if this was my opinion, obviously that would be a problem. But Evan is writer for a VG RS, and thus his opinion is that of an expert in the field. Yes, he is speaking for himself, but that's fine for WP. Further, you can't site his analysis as "incorrect" since this is his opinion and as a RS, we can't make that type of qualitative judgement. --MASEM (t) 07:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference on the TLG page is to what I was referring, when I quoted that. The reference itself is an analysis and someone's misinterpretation of Narcisse's article. I am talking about the reference, NOT the original article. And I meant that Narcisse is not an expert on the development of the game because he is not involved in that process. The person who wrote the reference analyzed what Narcisse was saying and made inferences and judgments that weren't correct. And I never said his opinion was incorrect. I said that trying to apply what he is saying about himself to everyone is incorrect. The problem is the reference, not the original article. The problem is that whoever wrote the reference is extrapolating information in a personal essay to be the truth of the matter and that can be quite damaging.Tanzilliath (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see now that you were the one that included this to begin with. And was it not you that wrote "normally wouldn't include opinions like this but this is a very important statement on how the delay has hurt the game"? How about we just NOT include the opinions? Tanzilliath (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And I see that someone else had the same opinion as I do when deleting this previously: "Removed opinion piece on the delays TLG has been plagued with. The piece served no purpose other than to put a random journalist's thoughts on the matter on a pedestal." Tanzilliath (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tanzilliath, welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for opening discussion! I agree with Masem that the opinion piece is rather relevant to the article. Not that this isn't our own analysis (which would be OR), but Narcisse's analysis, and clearly attributed as such. If Kotaku published a piece from Narcisse about the Last Guardian, it's not unreasonable for Wikipedia to publish it. Narcisse's analysis of the impact of the delay is important enough to put in the article - much in the same way as we put in reception on released video games. We can and should publish critical analysis like this on the non-release of a game just as we would publish critical analysis of the release of a game. I really see no reason to omit this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)