Talk:Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance

Removed

I removed the part that said that Bertram was Lord Renning, because that is unconfirmed.

Fair enough, maybe we could have a small section explaining the theory later. I know of a picture that makes the resembalances pretty clear.Tigeriz 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Fire Emblem

Once there's been a plot section established, I think that the paragraph describing the fire emblem should be moved there as well as a few other plot-related parts of the Game Mechanics section. For now I've added a spoiler warning to that part. Tigeriz 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Sequel

Do you guys think that a section stating the loose ends and possible reasons for a sequel would be appropriate? I feel that it's pretty obvious that this game was intended to be a prequel and that the reasons that many people feel so should be listed. After all, that does fall under analysis. Tigeriz 05:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not states that it is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. That means we cannot make a section that is not confirmed. We can only make a small section if anything is confirmed. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Story section

Like most other Fire Emblem articles, for consistency, it would be wise not to stuff the story into Gameplay Mechanics.

I began a story outline section. Feel free to add to it since it's still extremely basic and I don't have the time to write more on it at the moment, but it should be a good starting point. Let's make an effort to keep the outline basic and avoid the rambling chapter by chapter retellings that some of the other FE articles suffer from.Hailinel 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Classes

Why isn't Ike a lord? Isn't a ranger supposed to be an archer on a horse? And what is with all these different knights? Aren't they supposed to be called cavaliers? --unsigned comment (01:27, 1 January 2006, 71.250.58.193)

Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance changes the classes, omits some, and introduces new ones. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit confusing. Moreso because they did not choose to refer to the Knight class itself as Armour Knight like they did in previous games. Didn't Ike actually refer to the mounted knights as Cavaliers in his info conversation before Mission 13?--Tjstrf 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ike becomes a Lord later in the game, but he's apparently not the first Fire Emblem protagonist to begin the game in a class other than Lord. It's just a storyline decision. As for the lack of a general Cavalier unit, technically, any cavalry unit, including paladins, can be considered a "cavalier", but the Bow Knight/Lance Knight/Sword Knight designations are probably a bit more helpful to some players since the titles specifically note what form of weapon that character uses.Hailinel 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ike's class is more like the FE8 Mercenary class than the FE8 Ranger. Why didn't they just call him a Mercenary? I don't mind the Weapon Knight name system, I just wish they did something to differentiate the unmounted Knight class itself better. Namely, calling it the Armoured Knight. While we're on the subject of class names, why don't Falcoknights actually ride Falcons? Alternately, why aren't they called Pegasus Lords like the Wyvern Lords? Basically, Intelligent Systems has weird naming policies.--Tjstrf 03:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Namely, there was no "Ranger" class in FE8's Japanese version (the Ranger class in Sacred Stones is just Nintendo of America's name - the original Japanese name for it was "Forrestknight".), and in FE9 Ike was in plans to be named a "Ranger", which Nintendo of America kept in translation. Therefore, Ike has nothing to do with FE8's "Ranger" class. I don't know much other changes on whether they're just stupid translations or not. I'll need to verify them. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 05:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Characters

I think that the characters section needs, shall we say, a bit of work? At present, it has sections on every single character in the game, and many of their descriptions are rather POV-ish, with mentions of this character or that character being better. While this is probably just a symptom of the mass writing necessary to write 46 character sections, and I appreciate the dedication of whoever actually did that, it still needs fixed. I suggest that we cut out all of the minor character's sections, leaving only the original mercenary team and plot important characters from the late game. Meaning we'd keep Volke, Boyd, and Shinon, for example, but not Makalov or Haar. --Tjstrf 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly could create an article listing all the characters (but not use the List of minor characters in the Fire Emblem series seeing as it's becoming large and will possibly expand as more characters from more games are added to it). It's a lot of stuff to clear off, but it is the sort of stuff you might wish to expand upon. An individual page list will be fine for the purposes of explaining some characters and their roles in the game, seeing as the idea of listing all the 46 characters bloats the article (and inflates its size). Just make sure we don't end up needing to cleanup the page after. If you wish, we can attempt List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and link to it from here. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 06:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think moving most of the character descriptions to the proposed PoR character list article would be beneficial. Although to clarify, we should figure out which characters go where, first. I agree that the original mercenary team and important characters in the late game should remain in the main Path of Radiance article, but the importance of certain characters may be questionable. For instance, the Four Riders of Daein are obviously meant to be an imposing quartet, but only Petrine and the Black Knight are given particularly visible time in the story. Bryce and Bertram only appear for a single chapter (although that may be debatable in Bertram's case, as he may be a possessed Lord Renning). While I don't believe that we need to list every single Daein officer that appears in the game, I do think that the notion of the Four Riders is important enough to group them together.Hailinel 07:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The four riders as a group would be okay to note, as well as giving Petrine and the Black Knight the significant information concerning them. If the information about Bertram is verifiable, then it's worth noting. Although fitting the mentioned character's classes… we'd need to think of a format for that. I don't think there's a problem with adding the information of all of them if you think you have verifiable information for them. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea with the minor character list article. Most characters are pretty obviously major or minor, but as Hailinel said, we should figure out the contendable ones first. What about these playable characters, major or minor?

Kieran
Tormod
Zihark
Jill
Lethe
Tanith

Kieran and Zihark are archetype characters, but otherwise not notable. Jill, while seemingly minor, has a lot of background information and if we were to give her full coverage as a minor character, she could probably have a section twice as long as most of the others. Tanith, Lethe, and Tormod all hold positions of some importance to the plot, Lethe not as much as the others. --Tjstrf 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Kieran, Zihark, Lethe, and Tanith are all more suited to the minor character page. As for Tormod, he does play a fairly significant role in the story mid-way through the game, but after his meeting with the apostle, his role becomes very downplayed. However, he is an important figure in terms of the Begnion/Oliver story arc, so I wouldn't toss him aside just yet. Jill, I think, has the most background out of any of the characters suitable to be listed in the main article. Of the "minor" characters, she easily one of the most fleshed out, and so I wouldn't have trouble keeping her in the main article.--Hailinel 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd be pretty sure we could fit the major character's character descriptions and a few otherr bits about them, and use the proposed list to show ALL the characters in depth, such as where they're obtained, their type, etc. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Now, what's the best way to get the information in the two articles organized? Should we divide the main page up by the mercenaries, the Daeins, and the other important characters (i.e.: Elincia, the apostle, etc.), and the general character article alphabetically, or what do you all think? --Hailinel 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Article created. Right now it's just a copy of the section from the main article, with some minor revisions, but we can work on expanding and organizing it over there. We also need to decide what to do with the individual articles about Titania, Ike, Greil, and the Black Knight, which are probably unnecessary right now. Also, I deleted most of the characters from the mercenary troop from the main article as well, because the section was still massively long. --Tjstrf 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I went through and reorganized the remaining character descriptions in the PoR article. Mainly, I moved the mercenaries & allies into one section, followed by the anatagonists and the Four Riders. Further reorganization may be necessary, but I think that the process should be made easier now.--Hailinel 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree Jill and her Father should be removed from Major Characters list. If you really look at it any number of characters could be on there if she quatlifys. Such as Lucia or Geffory or Bastian they are as important or more important than Jill. Jill is despensable she can get killed permently. Her father only appears for 1 chapter. She is no more special than a character like Stephan (who leaves not dies) that has a backstory history. Same goes for Tomord he joins and has a purpose but hes not main at all he can die. IF he gets put in there add someone like Sothe who doesn't die. Also for Petrane I'm adding that she is a Branded as well this is seen when you attack her with Soren. Ivan WW

If Sothe truly is a/the main character of the FE:Wii game, then he will be entitled to his own article and main character listing inclusion. But, until then, he is among the most minor of all minor characters and most definitely does not merit inclusion. Also, Petrine's comments when attacked by Soren are ambiguous, as I have mentioned in previous edits to the section. Jill is only a borderline main character inclusion, but that does not mean her inclusion is grounds for including characters which are in no way notable whatsoever in the main character list. Additionally, just because a character does not "die" per se is not a valid criteria for judging their status, and many characters have equivocal exit texts when they are defeated. --tjstrf 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Character Descriptions

Please do not add too much to any of the character descriptions that are being kept in this article. Detailed descriptions are reserved for the character list article. --Hailinel 04:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese naming for characters?

Applying to both the List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and the list in this article, would it be a good idea to add the Japanese names of the characters? --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 10:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Although this is the English language Wikipedia site, including Japanese character names as additional notes wouldn't be a bad idea for the sake of comparison.--Hailinel 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikify and subject understanding issues

The article needs a good amount of Wikifying. First of all, there need to be more Wikilinks to important information, as I've been told by the person who put up the {{wikify}} template. The article isn't clear to people first reading the article, hence why I've added the {{confusing}} template. The article needs to be made clearer to people who first read. The story also needs some copyediting to be suited to new readers. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 10:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

So what sort of "important information" should it be linked to? Also, what in particular is confusing about the article?--Hailinel 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't expect a first-reader to know things like the classes and such straight off, or what a Brave weapon is (noted in Elincia's description). There are things that should be added that a person needs to know. In particular, we'd need to give the introduction more than just what the game itself is. Oh, and is it me or is the plot a little long? --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 11:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. I'll see if I can't help fix things up a bit.--Hailinel 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing the character sections

Because of the major revamping and merging that the old PoR character list article is going through, the topic of how to organize characters between the primary Path of Radiance article and the minor character article is worth revisiting. Would anyone like to offer up any suggestions on how to proceed? --Hailinel 22:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Oliver

I took this piece out of Oliver's bio:

"Although not explicitly stated, it may also be insinuated that Oliver also has a sexual infatuation with Reyson."

Mainly because Oliver's infatuation with Reyson extends to Leanne when he discovers her existence. It could easily be argued that he obsesses with the herons as a whole, rather than Reyson specifically, and it's still hard to qualify it as a sexual desire without veering into wild speculation, which should not belong in a factual article. Rebochan 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sephiran

Someone in the article has labeled Sephiran as a "she" I'm pretty sure Sephiran is a guy. Anyone got the text to prove this either way?

Yes, the gamefaqs game script has a line from Sanaki referring to Sephiran as a he. Brom or Nephenee (can't remember which) refer to him as master. He's refered to as a monk while he's in disguise, which is as far as I know male exclusive. Changed the article to reflect this.--Mr Bucket 16:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

medallion

I thought the medallion was bronze not silver and why is it listed silver.

Obviously, someone was either mistaken, or it was a subtle attempt at vandalizing the article that hadn't been caught. Either way, it was easy enough to fix. --Hailinel 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting the character section.

The character list article that supplements this main article seems to be firmly established, and it contains much better information regarding each character. Perhaps we could consider cutting down on the character section in this article even further, or perhaps think about eliminating it all together and simply leave some brief paragraphs and a link?--Hailinel 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If we cut down the character list on the main article, who stays and who goes? Ike stays, clearly, as he has his own page and is the main character. Should either Mist or Elincia also remain on the game page? Everyone else can go, as far as I'm concerned. SubStandardDeviation 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't cut. We simply don't list them. If you look at other WP:CVG articles, if the games have characters, they're mentioned in the sdtory and such rather than a dedicated section. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Knight and Zelgius

I don't care what the theory is, this is an encyclopedia not an internet forum and anything about Zelgius needs to be removed from the Black Knight's portion of the article. If it is true (we'll find out by the end of the month) then it can be re-addedSollegend622 05:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

SSB:B

Someone make the update that Ike is appearing in brawl...it just is too awesome...

Wow. Thanks for the heads up. I'll get it added and sourced. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA push

Right, I believe that this can be turned into a GA. The clean-up involves adding references and cutting out minutiae as well as making the prose flow better. Please help if you can. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just about done everything needed so I'll nominate it now. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

A great article, with great prose. Here are some considerations for further improvement:

• slight MoS issues, like how there should be no space between then end of a sentence and a ref.
• gameplay: you point out it has the same general mechanics as other games such as the triangles, etc... should you have a see also referrer to a gameplay of the series section or article?
• influences on other media: unless you think you can make the section into a real paragraph, delete it and put the sentence in the lead or wherever appropriate.

Good editing, David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers David. For the second point, it's in the internal link on the introductory paragraph. I'll make it more obvious. I'll take care of the other two prompts. Thank you. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed all the prompts now. Thank you for the review. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Magic system changes

The gameplay mechanics section of this article states "there are some changes to the gameplay, such as ... a change to the magic system." There is no follow-up to this comment anywhere further in the article. I'm assuming the change being reffered to is the change to the Magic trinity being based on three types of anima instead of light/dark/anima? This is actually not new, as it is the original trinity as introduced in Fire Emblem: Seisen no Keifu. However, it appears to be new from the perspective of those who have played only the Western-released games. What do we want to say about this? Infernal Inferno 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It means a change from the previous games. It doesn't state that it's new. I guess that I forgot to add about the magic triangle. I'll get to it later. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no knowledge of the system in Seisen no Keifu, so maybe it should be best if you edit that section because you know more of the context etc. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps add it in the Weapons section? You might want to point out that the magic system is not completely identical to Seisen no Keifu. The Fire, Thunder, Wind system is the same. However Light is now neutral (as opposed to good against all three), and Dark is missing altogether. Aveyn Knight 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the weapons section would be best. I just don't know how it relates to Seisen no Keifu since I haven't played the game. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently the Weapons section would be an unsuitable location as it is a subheading to Battle Preparations. The magic trinity has to do with combat on the field, and not the preparations screen. There is no section currently suited for this information. Infernal Inferno 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be explained in the introduction of the gameplay section where it is briefly mentioned. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mayhaps we should create a new heading for this. The heading might also include some other omitted features like the limiting of certain bows to Archer/Sniper class only, the shoving mechanic (there used to be something, but it has vanished,) and the ability of cavalry to move again after attacking. How many of these could be included would depend on how broad we make the heading. Infernal Inferno 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

These changes are very subtle and could be considered minutiae. I don't want a section for gameplay nuances that will only interest to fans of the game. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style issues

The use of dashes in this article does not conform to the Manual of Style's guidelines. We are using spaced em dashes ( — ), but the Manual wants either unspaced em dashes (—) or spaced en dashes ( – ) for these purposes. Does anybody have a preference? I have been taught to use spaced en dashes, but the Manual seems to indicate that unspaced em dashes might be more widely accepted. And apparently spaced em dashes are also acceptable outside of Wikipedia (according to the dash article.) Curse English's lack of standardization! Infernal Inferno 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be em dashes as opposed to en. En are just for things like dates or a subsitute for and etc. The em dash is to break up sentences or used as perantheses—as done in this article. So really, it should be unspaced em dashes. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've changed them all to unspaced em dashes. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I didn't really care which style is used, as long as we have consistency and it conforms with the Manual of Style. However, en dashes are just as correct as em dashes. Unlike French, which has an official standards body – L'Académie française – English does not have a single official source to determine correct grammar and punctuationm thus there is not one correct way of doing things. Infernal Inferno 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Death Penalty

When a character besides Ike dies in battle, that character is dead forever, and not just for the remainder of the battle, right? The Wikipedist 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, except Elincia as well. But that's right. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If it matters, I'm pretty sure allied characters who die don't always (maybe they never) count as dead. For instance IIRC if tibarn, lethe, etc are defeated then you're still ok.

But Tibarn can't be defeated.(He's too strong) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.210.151 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But if a green "other" unit (mia, geoffery) gets beaten they are gone for good (though actually I think geoff might have to survive the stage he is "other" in)--Mr Bucket (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NP Poster w/Additional Art

I remember there being an issue of Nintendo Power from late 2005 that had a fold-out poster for PoR, and it had a few pieces of character art that I haven't found anywhere else, such as Sanaki pre-Radiant Dawn. Does anyone know something of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batwing321 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I do. Your best bet is probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines, where someone should have it. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll have this to you within a couple of days. One suggestion I would make before hand, is that the lead appears slightly too long per WP:LEADLENGTH, but it's not "long-long" as in it breaks the flow of the prose, so I wouldn't worry too much. JAGUAR  17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• WP:LEADLENGTH is fine now and complies per the GA criteria. Thanks for correcting this
• "and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo GameCube" - repetition of Nintendo, I think it's safe to lose the Nintendo before GameCube as a lot of VG articles refers to it as "GameCube"
• "GameCube video game console in 2005" - is "video game console" really needed here? It's just that I thought readers know what they're in for when they read about games! Feel free to ignore this, I realise it's minor....
• "A direct sequel for the Wii, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, was released in 2007 in North America and Japan, and 2008 in Europe" - I checked the article and it was released in Australia also in 2008, but this isn't mentioned here

Body

• "During battle, players have access to both the humanoid Beorc and the shape-shifting Laguz" - are the Beorc and Laguz different species and not characters? I initially listed a bunch of errors until I realised that they are both a species as a whole
• "As with previous Fire Emblemt games"- typo
• "At the same time, they introduced the Base element" - why is based capitalised?
• "the Japanese version's Maniac setting was removed, and new Easy and Hard settings were introduced" - wasn't Hard difficulty in the Japanese version?
• "It was released in 2007 in Japan and North America, and 2008 in Europe" - and Australia

References

• No dead links (for anybody else checking this, it did pick up one dead link, but it's been archived)

On hold

This is a nice article overall, very deserving of becoming GA. I'll leave this on hold until everything is clarified. JAGUAR  21:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the above issues. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! This one is good to go. JAGUAR  16:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Data transfer

Can someone add a section at end explaining which data from this game can transfer to and benefit a Radiant Dawn game? I'm confused about this. Something about if you have an "A relationship" giving a "Bond" but not sure if anything else. 174.92.133.112 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cel-shading

Why is this article in Category:Video games with cel-shaded animation? I don't see any cel-shading in the game, besides some anime-styled 2D art, which does not count. SharkD  Talk  03:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150509085504/http://www.dfx.co.jp/en/works/game/ to http://www.dfx.co.jp/en/works/game/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)