Talk:Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Art[edit]

Many fans were divided on the Chibi art style used in the remakes, so could we add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The great Jay (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Enhanced remakes"[edit]

I had removed the marketing jargon of "enhanced remakes" (simply reducing it to "remakes"), but the edit is being challenged with an appeal to precedent, citing the use of "enhanced remakes" in the ledes of Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver, and Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen, so let's examine the validity of the usage in those articles alongside this one.

Searching for "enhanced" in the discussions of those articles' talk pages (including their sparse archives), you find only 3 sections where it's brought up: once for OR/AS, none for HG/SS, and twice for FR/LG (1, 2). For the OR/AS section, although the person who starts the section seems interested in discussing "enhanced remakes" as a phrase, the majority of the brief exchange seems primarily concerned with whether or not they're remakes at all, not whether "enhanced" is a meaningful modifier that should be present in the language. Again, there was never any discussion of note for the HG/SS article, so moving onto the two instances for FR/LG, one exchange can be summarized as two people disagreeing about what constitutes a remake (one person contends "enhanced" is a meaningless descriptor and the other insists that it isn't but never clarifies what about the attributes they list are distinct from "remakes" more broadly), and the other simply repeats the jargon in passing.

All that's basically a long-winded way of saying that, as far as I can tell, there was never any substantive discussion of this usage of the term for any of the ledes, and so there is no meaningful precedent to deconstruct; whether or not it should be used in this article is an open discussion, and in my mind, it isn't a very complex one. The article the phrase links to (Video game remake), makes 1 reference to the phrase "enhanced" remake, where the usage seems to be more coincidental than a deliberate composite term:

In 2003, Sega launched the Sega Ages line for PlayStation 2, initially conceived as a series of modernized remakes of classic games, though the series later diversified to include emulated compilations. The series concluded with a release that combined the two approaches, and included a remake of Fantasy Zone II that ran, via emulation, on hardware dating to the time of the original release, one of the few attempts at an enhanced remake to make no attempts at modernization.

— Video game remake#History

I further contend that this single instance in the linked article is not meaningful to our discussion given that the two of the game pairs in question appear in said article, being noted only as remakes, not "enhanced remakes": FR/LG in the main image at the top of the article and OR/AS in passing at the end of the "History" section. Even if that singular instance was phrased deliberately, it does not impact our discussion here; the article never discusses the phrase "enhanced remake", making no attempts to define it, list examples, or in any way distinguish it as meaningful language.

"Enhanced remake" is a marketing buzzphrase that was copied into an old article over a decade ago without scrutiny and which has simply been replicated to future articles in this series of Pokemon remakes based on precedent that never really existed. Other ground-up remakes like the 2018 Shadow of the Colossus or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D make no reference to such a phrase. It's something isolated to marketing-driven coverage of this one portion of one video game series. This seems open-and-shut to me. The default should be to use language established within the articles and those they link to, not protect meaningless jargon simply because nobody has previously bothered to remove it. Until such a time that Video game remake contains an uncontested explanation of what "enhanced remakes" are and how they are meaningfully distinct from other remakes, its usage has no place. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfsghjkgfhdg: I do agree with you saying that "enhanced remakes" is an uncommon term. Indeed, after searching for it online I didn't find much except for a MobyGames page. I am neutral as to whether or not we include "enhanced" in the article (I'll accept any outcome), but this should probably be discussed in conjunction with editors from the other articles, too. Given the term has been in ORAS since 2014, HGSS since 2009 (its creation), and FRLG since 2005, and there have been no talk page discussions since 2014, there's an assumed consensus on using the term in the articles of this sort of Pokemon remakes, and I'd like to keep some consistency. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assumed consensus

can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others.

But as I've already pointed out, it has not been used to referred to by others or built upon, except in that it was copied from the first article to the second on this weakest possible form of precedent, second to third, and now to here. By all means, give it whatever reasonable amount of time for people to voice dissent against my criticism if such a dissent exists, but I think I've pretty thoroughly laid out why the presumed precedent here is as weak as any could possibly be and why the phrasing is more largely undesirable when assessed without that assumed consensus (total lack of use anywhere outside of these Pokemon articles). Also, it's worth noting that the framing of the assumed consensus page is that you can assume consensus when you want to make an edit until others voice dissent, which is not really relevant here. The users over a decade ago had assumed consensus when they made they edits, but, just as the very same page notes, it is the weakest possible form of consensus. Dissent has been raised with very specific criticisms. If no counterarguments are provided, the default should be to move forward with removing the phrasing from all 4 articles. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment on the other three "enhanced remake" talk pages. Let's see if anyone chimes in before deciding what to do with the term. Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Eddie891 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Anarchyte (talk). Self-nominated at 05:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. The other Pokémon hook has already passed through the system. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

name sounds quite romhacky (not to offend the development teams, but Gamefreak does not stand romhacks)[edit]

Remember Alpha Sapphire and Omega Ruby as edition names? They still sounded nonromhacky to me.

But Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl?

Has Nintendo nowadays allowed romhacky names to counteract romhackers?

Weird strategy for any counteraction ...--2001:16B8:570E:1D00:C14F:B181:1C48:2C0E (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it fits and I like it. Theres nothing wrong with that. UB Blacephalon (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics[edit]

I will update the Pokémon Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl graphics section when more references come. I'll wait when 2 more references come. Dextro is the only ref available right now. 🍓⋆Stary90♡🍧 (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant, Dextro, and Game Rant are the only available sources I can find online since the graphicis update just got announced yesterday. I'll poraboy replace the ref tomorrow or today, depending on if I can find a reliable source. 🍓⋆Stary90♡🍧 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a NintendoLife ref. Just need one more, and we'll be good. 🍓⋆Stary90♡🍧 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a launch title[edit]

Hello! So while reading through the article, I saw this sentence, "and the second best-selling launch title of 2021 in the UK behind FIFA 22", however to my knowledge, a launch title is a game that is available at or around launch of a new console. This game is definitely not a launch title of the Switch so am I misunderstanding the definition of launch title or should the wording be changed? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: You are right, the source talks about the game having the "second biggest launch", referring to its sales at the game's release. I've fixed the wording to make this more clear. Yeeno (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it meant launched title, but yeah kinda weird it was written that way CreecregofLife (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pokémon_Brilliant_Diamond_and_Shining_Pearl&oldid=1210612476"