Talk:Romancing SaGa 2

Name translations

I'm just curious about the character names listed in the article. As far as I know this game was never released outside Japan and there was no official translation made, so where do these name translations come from? Some of the names seem rather awkward. As far as I know most of these names, unlike many fantasy games, were based on actual words in English/French/German/etc. If these are not "confirmed" names, I consider changing them to more conventional transliteration. o (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Seven Heroes' names

The closest thing to official in terms of translated names for the seven heroes comes from Square Enix's game Guardian Cross, and are as follows: Noel, Rockbouquet, Wagnus, Danntag, Kugenecie, Souvie, and Boqon. 121.1.11.34 (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romancing SaGa 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 22:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I've started reviewing the article and will probably make edits to address minor issue. I'll post review comments afterward. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC))

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article is in good shape. I made edits to address grammar issues I came across. Below are the remaining issues I noticed

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Looks good. Not a requirement but I recommend using the "title" and "trans-title" attributes of the citation templates. If the average reader can't read the foreign language sources, this at least provides them with the headline, and by extension, the talking point of the source.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   The sourcing looks overall good. A few questions though:

   What makes the following websites reliable sources?

   • Cocoebiz (I see this is listed as his official English website, but I've never heard of Cocoebiz before.)

   Cocoebiz seems to be a now-defuncted hosting site ala WordPress or Squarespace. Since it's Ito's original personal career website, I've adjusted it to reflect that. I used it because it was used for other GA-level music articles about Ito.

   • Automaton Media

   Automaton Media is a news outlet managed by Active Gaming Media, and it's been accepted as a reputable sources for other articles I've used it on including 13 Sentinels and Visions of Mana.

   • Game Makers

   Game Makers is a website managed by Japanese development studio Historia (Caligula Effect, Live A Live remake), and yes it's relatively new (begun 2022), but seems reliable and does some types of reporting on the tech side of things that other websites (Game Watch Impress, Famitsu) don't focus on as much anymore.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The reception section is informative but has several topics that could be better summarized. If several commentators had similar praise or criticism, a summary sentence should be created with the various commentary following as supporting evidence. There are more but a few common topics I noticed: story shortcomings, gameplay difficulty, and transition to 3D.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The captions for the first two images are more like labels and don't provide much information. This is an opportunity to reinforce text in the article with visual information. All these questions don't need to be answered in the captions but they are worth thinking about when writing the captions. Who is the person on the cover art (are they mentioned in the article)? Who created the cover art (are they mentioned in the article)? Who is involved in the battle? What about the interface is mentioned in the article? Why are some characters in the battle so huge by comparison?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is very close to GA. In addition to the above points, the following are also worth considering:

   • Remove the "Original" subheading in Reception. Since the reception is already assumed to be about the original, so it seems redundant. Also the remaster is discussed, so it seems kinda mismatched.
   • Briefly mention the Square and Enix merger to explain why "Square Enix" pops up in the middle of the article. A foot note is probably the best approach, but a quick short phrase in parentheses could work too.
   • Not sure what the convention is, but maybe consider "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" since the article is in English and that is the common English title of the system. (I'm aware the two are different enough to be considered separate devices. I'm approaching this from a layman perspective.) This is by no means a deal breaker though.
   • Not a requirement for GA - the gameplay image has ALT text, and it would be great if the other two images had it as well.

   Good job on the article so far. Almost there. If you have any questions about the points I brought up or need further details, please let me know. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC))

@Guyinblack25: Did my best to address most of the issues you raised (my source explanations are next to the ones you highlighted). I did my best with the captions, but I didn't want to clutter the article, mostly because there's been a movement against that kind of hyper-descriptive style. I'm wary of your reception suggestions without specific examples, as due to how little some of the reviewers talk about different aspects, the reception section would collapse into something that stops being informative. I was modelling its structure on the Romancing SaGa article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, here's my opinion but if you plan to use the last two more often, I recommend starting a discussion at WT:VG/S to get more input.

• Cocoebiz - makes sense and seems fine.
• Automaton Media - While the content looks professional, the credibility overall seems a bit thin. Outside of being run by an video game translation company, I couldn't find an editorial policy page or anything on its editor-in-chief and editor. But since the citation is a developer interview, I think it's fine for GA.
• Game Makers looks to have published a book and it's editor-in-chief has industry experience. Given its technical focus, this one looks fine for GA. (This looks like a good niche resource and should definitely be further vetted at WT:VG/S to see if it can be listed as a reliable Japanese-language source for others to use.)

Regarding the captions, no need to make the caption hyper-descriptive. An informative yet concise caption is still possible though. How about these?

• Cover art: "Super Famicom cover art by Tomomi Kobayashi featuring [Character Name]" (I assume she did this illustration as well)
• Gameplay: "A boss encounter in the original (top), and a standard battle in the 2024 remake (bottom) with enhanced presentation. The developers aimed to retain the original's menu-driven, turn-based combat for the remake." (Maybe still too generic, but I think this conveys more information and ties the visual elements to words in the article.)

Regarding the reception section, here are some examples. It basically entails splitting the individual commentary into chunks and then piecing the similar ones together. I admit it can be a pain to switch, and I was hesitant to do the first few times I implemented it. But it ends up being more readable/understandable for a layman. Each one doesn't have to be very in-depth, but pulling the similar threads together make the content more cohesive.

• Story: "Several reviewers criticized the story. While Liam Dolan of Nintendo Life found the premise original, he felt the story and dialogue were lacking. Alana Hagues of RPGFan agreed that the story was lacking. Nintendo World Report's Bryan Rose felt the stories and characters were uninteresting."
  • Alternative depending on when the reviewers are first introduced in the article. If they've already been mentioned, you can simply use their last names. "Several reviewers criticized the story. While Dolan found the premise original, he felt the story and dialogue were lacking. Hagues agreed that the story was lacking. Rose felt the stories and characters were uninteresting."
• Gameplay: "The gameplay received a mixed reception, with complaints focused on the difficulty. TouchArcade's Shaun Musgrave enjoyed the game but observed a lack of tutorials and balancing issues. Alana Hagues of RPGFan described the game as "equal parts fascinating and frustrating", highlighting its innovative gameplay features and soundtrack. He attributed the frustration to a lack of guidance and difficulty spikes. Robert Ramsey of Push Square described the gameplay design as unconventional but felt the game was undermined by poor balancing and the lack of a conventional leveling system."

Hope this clarifies things. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC))

@Guyinblack25: Ah. Okay. That style. I hadn't initially adopted that because so many reviewers used the exact same turns of phrase and it became boring to read through. But if you insist, one top-down rewrite coming up..... --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Guyinblack25 I've done the section your quotes were pulled from, done some restructure/reworking. Do you want the Remake's reception section done the same way? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I think what's there summarizes well enough. I think the article meets GA criteria now. I'll post a final review and close the GAN shortly. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC))

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Reviewing again after recent edits.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good job on the article. Making a proper (and lengthy) article for an older Japanese game is hard. Glad to see this and others getting quality attention. If you're looking to take this to FAC later, areas to work on would be a fresh set of eyes to copy edit, tightening up the citation info (publisher, location, writer or editor-in-chief name, etc.) wherever possible, vet those two sources at review discussion, and strengthening the Japanese reception, primarily for the remake. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC))

Translation into the Chinese Wikipedia

The version 02:36, 31 July 2026 of Romancing SaGa 2 was translated into the Chinese Wikipedia. --𝙵𝚘𝚛 𝙴𝚊𝚌𝚑 ... 𝙽𝚎𝚡𝚝 08:02, 24 August 2026 (UTC)