Talk:Another Code: Two Memories

Move request

Move to Another Code: Two Memories since this is the English title? --Thorpe 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I own the game. The USA version is called Trace Memory. As far as I know, Another Code: Two Memories is the european name. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Code: TM isn't just the European title, it's the literal translation of the Japanese title. Geoff B 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Query: Since the European version was apparently translated more faithfully, and was released before the American version, then why is the main article on the American version? Wikepedia isn't an American encyclopedia, it's an English-speaking encyclopedia, and so surely the earliest-released English copy, especially if it's the most faithful, is the one that the article should be based on? (I know Wikipedia has a policy of using American English or British English throughout an article based on whichever it was first, but I'm not sure that can be extended to cover differences between versions of a game on two continents.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.115.148 (talk • contribs).

It is indifferent for me. If the main article is about the American version, it is because nobody from Europe cared to expand the differences between both versions. If the only difference is the game title, it is trivial. -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Another

Why on Earth does "Another" redirect here?? Isn't that like redirecting "Super" to Super Mario World? -Branddobbe 08:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Another was one of the names the game was called by the press before the official titles Trace Memory and Another Code: Two Memories were announced. I supposed this is the reasoning here. Aapo Laitinen 09:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit more info

This looks interesting. -- ReyBrujo 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be "Another Code: Two Memories"

Following the Dark Chronicle rule, this page should be called "Another Code: Two Memories". Dark Chronicle was named such because it was named Dark Chronicle in BOTH JAPAN AND EUROPE.

Shouldn't the same rule apply to this game? It was named "Another Code: Two Memories" in BOTH JAPAN AND EUROPE.

That's my argument. I hate inconsistency.

EDIT: ? You've changed "Dark Chronicle" to Dark Cloud 2! This ois crap! This isn't the "Totally American Encyclopedia!" Lordofallkobuns 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironic. I was in charge of moving Dark Chronicle to Dark Cloud 2, but I also worked on moving Trace Memory to Another Code: Two Memories.

But not for the reason that it's both the Japanese and European name, but because it's both the most common English name and it was there FIRST. Dark Cloud 2 came out in the US first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic, yes. But as Another Code, it did come out in Europe (and, I believe, Australia) before it came out in the U.S. I won't argue with you about which is the most commonly-used English name, but it does seem that that's a biased criteria as America's likely to automatically come first under such terms. 217.42.64.91 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of people very slowly revert-warring over this article's title. Please figure it out here first.
This bloody article has been moved twelve times.
MoS says it should stay at the first major contribution's style ("Trace Memory"), but it can also be moved if there's a strong consensus to do so. So please do that: Build consensus, THEN move.
I don't care where it's at, so long as it's by consensus. Bladestorm 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When that's your only good argument, it's not a good argument. I think people have to also ask - why did the person call it Trace Memory in the first place? It's certainly not because of an overwhelming lead in popularity of noteriety, and it's not because of an early release. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, they just used whatever was most familiar to them. There's nothing wrong with that. (I could just as easily ask why nobody who knew it as "Another Code: Two Memories" wrote the article in the first place.) Bladestorm 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

May I also add that the original title was not Trace Memory? The first edit labelled it as "Another", and it eventually was called "Another Code". It was the act of someone changing the title from Another Code to Trace Memory, so logically, Another Code: Two Memories is the appropriate title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize the article has had a couple other titles. Those versions were stubs. And neither of them was precisely the european title. (If they were, then there'd be a stronger case for that title)

But there's nothing in MoS for choosing an article title that more closely resembles an unofficial title. It has two official english titles. "Trace Memory" was the earliest used title. MoS says to use that title.

If you still want to change it, then I won't complain: If it's done with consensus. My primary "argument" is that people need to stop edit-warring without a proper discussion. Bladestorm 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh COME on. So you've gone from "earliest title is what we should use" to "let's just use the NA name for no reason at all now!". Another Code was used for the article before Trace Memory was - someone changed it to Trace Memory, so under your own logic, you should be fighting for Another Code: Two Memories, as it is the first title ever used besides Another, the tentative title for the game (all versions, including in NA). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I've gone from "We should use the earliest significant contribution" to "We should use the earliest significant contribution". Frig, man. READ, then reply. I did point out that unofficial titles don't have much weight (that only legitimate titles should be considered), and that a similarity to an unofficial title doesn't particularly matter. That said, did you actually look at those earliest versions of the article? This isn't the first time I've told you this. It's been using "Trace Memory" since before it's earliest significant contribution.

Whether or not the unofficial titles would've had relevant is a moot point. Trace Memory is still the earliest significant contribution. I went to the trouble of going all the way back to the beginnings of the article before making an argument. I should hope you would have done the same. "Trace Memory" was the earliest significant version. "Trace Memory" was the most stable version. "Trace Memory" is the current consensus. If you want to have it moved BY CONSENSUS, then fine. More power to you. But stop misrepresenting me. Bladestorm 19:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And I declare all contributions before the usage of Trace Memory "significant". Show me one thing to explain how in the world you can declare that the first significant contribution came when someone renamed the article to Trace Memory. I have clearly verified that the earliest title used for this article was not only NOT Trace Memory, but was an official title. The article had an infobox before it became Trace Memory, it had a lead, it described the plot, it describes the gameplay, and has external links. Where do you get off arbitrarily declaring that the contributions weren't "significant" enough to be of any worth? I'm sure the people who wrote them would say "yeah, you're right, my contributions ARE of less worth". Would you also say "hey, the earlier editors may have used the Queen's English, but their contributions weren't significant enough to count!"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)First off, for the last time: READ FIRST, THEN COMMENT.
I clearly stated that "Trace Memory" precedes the first significant contribution. That's very different from, "the first significant contribution came when someone renamed the article to Trace Memory".
Before I address how I gauged the 'first significant contribution', let me first say this: Even if I'm wrong, you're then admitting that "Another Code: Two Memories" is the wrong title to use. Because, if you want to go with with the first title used, then that'd be "Another". Not, "Another Code". Not, "Another Code: Two Memories". Just, "Another". K? Just wanted to make that clear.
Now then...

• This is the first contribution. I do not consider this significant. (Though, if you disagree, then you must concede that it's an argument against, "Another Code: Two Memories". Note that neither provided title is an official english title.
• By this revision, it still only had a (small) paragraph of text, and was classified as a stub.
• By this version, it was starting to look cosmetically better. It still had only one small paragraph.
• By here, in addition to being still just a small paragraph (yes, I realize the first line is separated. But it's still just one paragraph), it has less information than one would find on the back of most gameboxes. Note, however, that it's listed as "Trace Memory". It is not a significant contribution, but it's already named "Trace Memory". Also notice that it's still listed as a stub. The fact that it was a 'stub' implicitly declares it an incomplete article.
• By here, it was getting a bit better, but was still incomplete, and still just a stub. Still, it was, again, already as "Trace Memory".
• THIS is, to me, the first candidate for a 'significant contribution'. This is the earliest that one could objectively declare it. Even then, it was still listed as a stub. So, if it had been changed to, "Another Code: Two Memories" by then, you'd still have an argument. It'd be weaker, since there's still clearly plenty of content there, but the 'stub' label would still give you a reasonable case.
• This is when the 'stub' label was removed. By now, it's clearly recognized as a significant contribution.

See what I'm getting at now?
The title, "Trace Memory" precedes and shares the first significant contribution. It's also the oldest official english language title of the article.
Again, if you can muster consensus for change, I still won't care. But I think I've pretty clearly established this first major contribution thing. Bladestorm 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, comment - MoS doesn't mention significance, and it doesn't discuss the quality of the contribution, only the contributor. And I see several major contributors who acknowledge the Another Code name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)So then, you're saying the article should be titled simply, "Another"? Or arbitrarily discard the first version, to choose the title, "Another Code"? Because, even if one were to go with that logic, it still wouldn't support, "Another Code: Two Memories". Bladestorm 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know that you care more about Wikipedia being rabidly in favor of NA than truth. Brain Age didn't start as the title it's at now, but there CERTAINLY were significant contributions from major contributors when it was known as Brain Training for Adults. Stop flip flopping around. Another Code is short for Another Code: Two Memories - the fact that the original title - both for the game AND the article - lacked the subtitle is NO reason to arbitrarily decide to pass over it and use Trace Memory instead. And Another is a TENTATIVE title which led to the final title - sans subtitle. Seriously, if you really cared so much about the MoS, you wouldn't be trying to find loopholes for the sake of getting your preferred version. You are finding all these minor technicalities to oppose using a title whose usage is argued with YOUR argument - and legitimately this time. The video game started as Another, became Another Code, and then Nintendo of America decided to give it a different title, and then someone changed it for the reason that Trace Memory is the US title, not because it's the English title or the only title that can be used. In fact, the game was titled as Another Code: Two Memories at E3, so it is the original title in all regions - NoA just decided to be different. Get over it - your argument has died and revived as my argument. To salvage it, you just decided to shove down these little technicalities (loopholes and technicalities have no place in Wikipedia guidelines - weren't you and your cohorts at the Son Goku article arguing that WikiLawyering is bad? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Also, MoS is referring to the first major contributor of the article. Obviously, no policy favours treating one editor as being more important than another. That's why it doesn't say 'major editor'. Unless you meant something else? Bladestorm 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Buh? Well, the only way the "major contributor" thing matters is if you declare one editor to be lesser than the other. Also, where's the reason in moving the article in the first place? There was no stability issue - the user did what I did which you oppose, but without a valid reason (only that it was the US title). Also, note that there are no news articles on Google about Trace Memory, but "Another Code" +DS gets three. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am through replying to personal attacks and hostile words.
If you remove things like, "Nice to know that you care more about Wikipedia being rabidly in favor of NA than truth" (which accuses me of profound bias, and a disinterest with truth, in addition to using a term like, 'rabidly'), accusations of trying to find 'loopholes', and references to other non-related articles (I've told you this before. I won't engage in that type of bickering), then I'll discuss the issue with you.
But I'm entirely through putting up with all these attacks, bad faith accusations, and tangents. Bladestorm 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So basically, only YOU can make accusations (such as me intentionally ignoring the MoS because I don't like it - been working on compiling any evidence of that even being true in the slightest sense)?

And you ARE trying to find loopholes. You always were discussing "the original title used", but when I show that Trace Memory isn't the original title used, you are adding conditions and making arbitrary judgement decisions on what qualifies the original title. All regions had the title as "Another Code: Two Memories" initially - that makes it the original title. People called it Another Code - it was not known as JUST Another Code at the time. Someone was using a short-hand version of the title, just like people did with Super Mario RPG and Disgaea. When it was known as Another Code: Two Memories, someone changed it from that title because the title he changed it to was the US title. By the fact that Trace Memory was NOT the first official, non-tentative title used shows that this guideline does not apply. I do not see how you can even begin to argue that Another Code is not the original title even though it was the first final title used in the article, and then someone decided to change a STABLE title, which you claim should not be done, and by that logic, you should be fighting for the original title which was completely stable - Another Code: Two Memories - and not the title that the article was changed to ONLY because it's the US title, and not because there were inaccuracies or instabilities with the original title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not continue discussion of a subject that continues to include personal attacks or accusations of looking for loopholes.
I shall not be commenting further in here unless comments are deleted. I do not intend to delete attacks or insults for you, or force you to remove them, but I will not engage in a discussion that's turned into a boxing match. Note: Silence does not equal consensus in this subject. Bladestorm 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anyone in this discussion that can accuse someone of acting in bad faith and then throw a fit over someone else doing the exact same thing - except with a little more intention than yours, which could only cause a flame war.

The article started out at Another. No one moved to Another Code: Two Memories, but that was the title at the time and the editors acknowledged it.

Fun now, though - I can use your claim against you. "Because the Manual of Style doesn't agree with him, he doesn't like it". And I can actually say that's true - you were supporting it until someone did a turnabout on you, and then you kept playing word games, trying to claim that this case is an exception to the rule, that the original title doesn't count in this one case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there's consensus in at least one other article for using the name used in the most regions; since, of the three regions listed, Another Code: Two Memories is the title in two of them (quite aside from all the other arguments that have come before), this suggests that AC:TM should be the article title. Just putting this down here in case the article naming dispute is revived. You guys seriously need to come up with a proper policy on this - something like "translation used in the first English-language release," or some kind of check-box test. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

When I saw this article had been named after a title the game has in a minority of territories, I came to the talk page expecting at least one person pointing it out - but I had no idea it had gone on for this long. How ridiculous! And everyone getting so angry about this minor issue! Mercy me.

Frankly I think the article sounds silly with the opening sentence stating the alternative title is used "outside North America" - i.e. the rest of the world... --128.243.253.113 (talk) 06:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Move protection

This article has been renamed at least twelve times due to dispute of the proper English title of the game, so I've locked move permissions for now. When the editors have come to a consensus regarding the naming of the article, please contact WP:RFPP to have move permissions unlocked (if needed).

Please note that if I've protected the wrong title of the page, The Wrong Version may apply. Page protection does not endorse any particular version of the page. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be Another Code: Two Memories, since its the more widely used title (Japan and Europe). Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

exactly --UltraMagnus (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that much into this issue, but wasn't the name Mega Drive preferred over Genesis because Mega Drive is both the original name and a name used in parts of the English-speaking world? The same would go for Another Code, but I'm not sure if that was really the reason for the Mega Drive article. Anyway, it is confusing that one article uses the North American name of the franchise and the other one (Another Code R) uses the name from the rest of the world. I'd also support a move. --Grandy02 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The series uses "Another Code" as its title, and this is seen in the sequel also. I say move it to Another Code: Two/Twin Memories --Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, only an admin can move the page. There was a discussion here, but it didn't result in a solution. However, the reasons to use the title Another Code: Two Memories clearly prevail (first English title, literal translation of the original title, used in Japan, Europe and Australasia, European release months before the North American release, article on second game also uses the Another Code title). Well, is there any admin who would move it? --Grandy02 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps look to requested moves? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint! --Grandy02 (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Trace Memory → Another Code: Two Memories — The game was released as Another Code: Two Memories in PAL regions months before the North American release named Trace Memory. The PAL title, the first English title, is a literal translation of the original Japanese title, and the second game uses the Another Code title as well. --Grandy02 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - for further (recent) discussion on the article name see section directly above, and for older discussion see #Move request, and #It should be "Another Code: Two Memories". Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Both names are valid, and the first major contributor to the article used Trace Memory. TJ Spyke 15:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - the first major contributor to the article used Another as the title,[1] and with there being no strong national ties to any particular English-speaking nation, there seems to be no reason to use a title that is appropriate to one region only and at odds with the sequel. Miremare 17:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - It's only known as Trace Memory in NA. Everywhere else uses Another Code. NA does not outweigh the rest of the world. Geoff B (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Support — It was originally titled "Trace Memory", and "NA does not outweigh the rest of the world" arguments can equally be made about Japan, or Europe, or anywhere else. That's the reason that we reply on WP:V, which entails relying on the sources in the article. A brief survey of the English sources seems to suggest that the WP:COMMONNAME is "Trace Memory", but it's not an overwhelming suggestion. Barring the addition of new sources, it seems best to simply leave the article title alone.
  — V = I * R (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - Not really. You can't make the same argument about anywhere else except NA, because everywhere else uses Another Code. NA does not outweigh the rest of the world, but the rest of the world does outweigh NA. If it was one territory versus one territory, you would have a point. Geoff B (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  Comment - Just a quick note. As has been pointed out above by Miremare, the original title was "Another" - it was moved to "Trace Memory" later it would seem. See this edit and this subsequent redirect edit for the Another Code redirect. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you look at the page logs it's clear that the page was originally created at Trace Memory. Aside from that, everything else presented is just personal opinions. Add some more (English) references to the article and we'll have a solid basis to make a decision.
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  I looked at the page log, but I know that the further back you go the more problems there are with page logs having missing data for one reason or another - I also know that this article was created before "Trace Memory" was even decided as the name in the US (see this for the IGN confirming that "Another Code" was coming to Europe with no US date announced yet, article dated April 26th 2005, and this for IGN's preview of "Trace Memory" from E3 2005 reporting on the then-new name change, article dated May 20th 2005). With this in mind it seems impossible that the article was created located at "Trace Memory". Note that the IGN article announcing the new US name ties in with the edit linked above here where the article was changed to refer to "Trace Memory". As for providing references for the article, I actually don't care which location the article is at (hence why I haven't added a support or oppose). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  While I don't have a view on the move I highly doubt that the page was orginally at Trace Memory as previously claimed. Looking at the contribution history the article existed a little over three months before the name Trace Memory was added to the text. While I don't know for sure I highly doubt that this page was titled Tarce Memory and that no one noticed that it was not in the article text for that long.--70.24.178.145 (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  See, now we're actually getting somewhere. Work this information into the article, including adding the sources, and it's starting to become an uncontroversial move...
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  I added the information on the game's announcements and names to the article. So Another Code: Two Memories was both the first confirmed English title and title of the first English (European) release (the latter predates the American release by months, as said). And the article was indeed created under the name Another, with Another Code also mentioned in the article's third version. --Grandy02 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding page logs, it seems that the first article we had on this was in 2004 under the title Another, when it was deleted as a copyvio.[2]. Miremare 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  Looks much improved now, so I've changed my !vote to support.
  — V = I * R (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is the title that the majority of the world uses, the name it was originally released as, and the name the original contributor used. --UltraMagnus (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ashley's nationality in the PAL version

It says in the article that she is British-Japanese in the PAL version. I've just played the game through and it doesn't mention this at all. However, in the flashback to when her mother was shot, the location is said to be Seattle. So in the PAL version it seems she is also American-Japanese. Devoto (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wonder about this statement. I didn't notice any reference to a British nationality of Ashley's father in the game. The same goes for Another Code: R. The games only imply an American origin of Richard Robbins/Robins. Without a source, the statement should be removed. --Grandy02 (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Either way you go about it, you can at least say she's half-Japanese. :D Sera404 (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot help request

The article could really use an image. Unfortunately, I don't have an account, and I'm not sure I could get a non-free image like this through Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I would be thankful if someone could help. The picture would preferably show an example of the pre-rendered images on the top screen, and the 3D top-down view on the bottom screen. It will also have to be free of watermarks. Thanks in advance to anyone that takes up this request. 72.69.112.222 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Another Code: Two Memories. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060207050539/http://www.cinweekly.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060111/ENT09/601110350/1063 to http://www.cinweekly.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060111/ENT09/601110350/1063

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's because you're unaware that the defunct CiN Weekly website is using robots.txt to block the website being crawled by the Wayback Machine. Do you understand now? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Another Code: Two Memories. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cinweekly.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060111%2FENT09%2F601110350%2F1063
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090127020408/http://geimin.net/da/db/2005_ne_fa/index.php to http://geimin.net/da/db/2005_ne_fa/index.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesradar.com/?pagetypeid=2&articleid=36514&subsectionid=1608

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The devs behind Another Code: Recollection

According to a datamine that was done on the Another Code: Recollection demo last year, the developers behind the title are Arc System Works. VGC's review of the title acknowledges this as well. 83.249.250.95 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Now its official confirmed that ASW is the developer.--83.249.250.197 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)