Talk:Final Fantasy/Archive 2

Criticism

Two obvious points:

1) Combat occurs far too often to the point that it is simply irritating (Citation not needed, trust me on this one), as well as monsters are not visible, fights seem to occur randomly outside of safe locations eg: Towns or when air bourn.

2) Gameplay (At least on the earlier games) is extremely linier especially when compared to games such as the Might & Magic Series (Might_&_Magic). The games feel as if they 'run on rails' and there is very little, if any free exploration or decisions on order of missions/quests.

30/09/2006 02:40 GMT (Anon)

(Drewbacca123 here. I'd just like to say that the above cannot really approve of Final Fantasy, as any fan knows the fights are the main part of the game, and without them you cannot proceed in the game. Also, there are dozens of sub-quests and minigames to complete, i.e. the chocobo treasures/Ozma battle in FF9) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewbacca123 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 24 February 2007. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I have started a reorganization of the Criticism section. I think this approach will help us present criticisms in a way that non-FF fans can better understand. I started the first few sections. The original text I left under General Comments If others like the way I started, my plan is to fold the original comments into various sections, similar to what I have done so far.

I would encourage people to take a minimalist approach to criticism. There is no need (IMHO) to document all the variations that exist, but rather talk about trends, with possibly a few examples. The more "in this title, this happened, but in that title, that happened" there is in an article, the harder it is to follow. I believe the goal should be to help the reader understand the major criticisms about the series, and possibly the reasons behind those views.

What do the rest of you think? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently revising the altered section. A lot of it is minor cosmetic changes, but I'm also rearranging some things and removing others. Here's a paragraph that I'm in the process of removing, and why I'm removing it.

"In most of the recent Final Fantasy titles, some sexual tension exists between two or more characters. Typically the hero is male and two or more of the female characters are attracted to him. Sometimes another male character is jealous of the hero's popularity. These relationships are frequently the basis for the drama and humor that appear in the game. Much of this development is done using cutscenes and/or FMVs."

I'm taking it out because Final Fantasy games all the way back to the fourth installment include such sexual tension. In Final Fantasy VI, Locke was the center of attention to Terra and Celes. In Final Fantasy IV, Kain and Cecil both vied for Rosa's affection (though it was made very clear that Rosa cared much more deeply for Cecil throughout the game).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.43.112 (talk • contribs)

Then change it to "all but the earliest games" wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the removal was a good choice, "sexual tension" is fairly vague and is fairly common in plots of all mediums, RPGs included. Considering the length of the series and the close scrutiny it receives from its fans, concise is probably the way to continue to go in the criticism section. Logalot 03:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this section taking up a third of the article? It needs to be shortened and referenced, not expanded. ~ Hibana 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I started this set of changes, I have drastically pared down the section. I believe I kept the core issues and dropped the extraneous details. Hopefully it can stay "lean and mean" wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like a lot of the criticism section has largely been rewritten by 81.96.205.76. This would seem to be the cause for even more tags indicating how messy the criticism section is. Is there agreement that perhaps these changed should be reverted? Logalot 01:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to log in)

One spot that irks me, though I admit that this could be purely personal bias, is where it says that some fans believe the earlier games may not have enough content to warrant spinoffs. Aside from how it doesn't address the notion of a remake for those games (which would not require "enough content"), it comes off to me a bit slanted. One could argue that Final Fantasy X didn't have enough content to deserve a sequel, yet Square-Enix found a way to create another game out of it. Just the same, Final Fantasy IV could easily focus on the origin of the crystals, perhaps a threat lower than the underground, et cetera. Whether or not a game has enough content, then, becomes purely point of view. Some of the other criticism for current spinoff works was also taken out of the mix. In other words, right now at least, I support reverting it back. - Zoghade

I agree, this guy's changes are too much, too fast. Unless he defends them here on the talk page, or someone can argue with me, I think they should get reverted. I just uh, need to go look up how to do that? Excuse my noobness. Logalot 22:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the article hasn't been reverted back yet, I added my piece about the whole "not enough content" thing. - Zoghade

Alright, I reverted the article, I apologize for the long wait, but little has been added to the criticism section since 81.96.205.76's changes, apart from those meant to correct his work. I hope in the future he/she will discuss major changes here instead of just editing them in and dismissing many other's work. Logalot 22:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a DVD movie and a FF game? The movie has voice overs.--Can Not 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it FINAL FANTASY?

On the official Square Sites, it says Final Fantasy in capitals, why? --FlareNUKE 04:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe because the title of every game is FINAL FANTASY instead of Final Fantasy. Officially it is FINAL FANTASY, probably it is trademarked that way. MythSearcher 05:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So maybe the names should be in Capitals then? --FlareNUKE 11:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but some people think that all caps make it very annoying(or in your face). I personally do not care since it got the same meaning and pronunciation. However, I guss wiki's policy is to use official naming as much as possible. MythSearcher 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's often written with lowercase on the boxes, and probably in the official intruction booklets as well (I don't have any on hand at the moment). This is the back of the first Final Fantasy box, North American version. This is the back of Final Fantasy X, French version. ~ Hibana 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure, maybe because their PAL because the NTSC Strategy Guide had it in Caps, and all of titles are written in uppercase (then again there is no lowercase for Runic MT Condensed). --FlareNUKE 03:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't an entry on the requested moves page for this, so I added an entry that said to discuss the rename here. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Although the official site is in all caps, most articles about the series use mixed case. The current use of title case seems best to me. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia convention (i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)) to use normal capitalization rules regardless of whether or not the trademark holder might prefer all-caps. As such this should stay "Final Fantasy". Dragons flight 14:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not moved. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also because the game is of Japanese origin, and I generally find that when an English word is used in Japanese, it's always in full capitals... AVALANCHE from Final Fantasy VII, for instance, doesn't stand for anything, but it's name is in full capitals, like an acronym. That's just my thoughts though. --Sleeping Evil 14:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As a note, Final Fantasy is not trademarked as all capitals, but it's a constant. The tradition began with the first game. All dialogue was in capitals, including the box art, and the intro screen. It's not so much a neccessity as it is tradition. And the Japanese are a very traditional people. -Emhilradim 18:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nuke the Criticism section

The critism section of this article is totally flawed, unsourced and full of POV. I say we completely remove it and re-write it from the ground up, from reliable sources. Thoughts? Comments? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. I've broughit to the talk page since every anonymous user seems to put in their two cents on the series and it's just become a giant mess of POV and unreferenced garbage:

Criticism

It is difficult to summarize criticism of Final Fantasy since there are so many titles in the series, and each title has significant differences from the others. In addition, there are many types of gamers who like the series for a variety of reasons. As each new title is released, those who feel that the new game has departed from why they like the previous games in the series will tend to complain about the game, while those who feel that the game has supported or enhanced what they liked about the games will tend to praise the new title. It is not uncommon for the same title be considered one of the best by some fans, and yet as one of the worst by other fans.

One characteristic of the Final Fantasy series is that virtually each title in the series is different than all the other games. Certain features will appear in more than one title, but at a minimum the characters are different, the world itself is different, usually the battle system is different, etc. A comparison between the only sequel in the series (X-2) and the original title finds that even though both take place in the same world, and with many of the same characters, the battle system, as well as the general feel of the two games are drastically different. In many cases, there are more differences than similarities between any two titles in the series. This makes it difficult to objectively compare the individual titles because there is no single benchmark to define what is a good Final Fantasy game.

For some gamers, a good RPG is like dining at a fine restaurant: the goal is to enjoy the experience rather than seeing how fast you can finish the meal [1]. These types of gamers enjoy being immersed in the game's world, exploring different areas, playing all the side quests and mini-games, etc. It is not uncommon for such gamers to be at the point where they can finish the game, but instead choose to continue to play, possibly leveling up, exploring remote areas, etc. For these gamers, the more diversions there are in the game the better they like it. On the other hand, there are many other gamers who enjoy the challenge of finishing a game in the shortest possible time. These gamers consider time spent in cut scenes and side quests as a waste of time. They will also tend to level up their characters only when they have to because of stronger enemies. Clearly, these two groups will evaluate the same game quite differently.

In the earlier titles, where graphics were very limited, the appearance of the characters was communicated mostly by comments made in dialogue. In the more recent titles, the sexuality of a character is more obvious, and some fans feel that this has gone too far. A source of frequent criticism along this line is Final Fantasy X-2, where Rikku wears a bikini top and a skirt that has been described as "would make a fine belt" [2], and Paine makes suggestive comments during in-battle chatter. Many of the costumes leave little to the imagination, and the in-game battle scenes where they change costumes are often quite suggestive.

Many long time fans of the series blame what they perceive as a fall in standards on the departure of character designer Yoshitaka Amano after Final Fantasy VI. Tetsuya Nomura, who has handled character design for the majority of the post-Final Fantasy VI series', has been criticized by the Amano fans, especially those who feel that Nomura's designs look too juvenile when compared to Amano's work. Similar complaints have begun to surface surrounding the departure of long-time series music composer Nobuo Uematsu since Final Fantasy X, where he shared the role of composer with Masashi Hamauzu and Junya Nakano. Final Fantasy XII sees Uematsu's role diminished to a single song. The game's theme song is performed by Angela Aki while the rest of the soundtrack is composed by Hitoshi Sakimoto. Final Fantasy XII has neither Amano nor Nomura as character designer, but instead has Akihiko Yoshida.

Final Fantasy is also known for "re-inventing" the series with almost every game, as each game takes a different approach in gameplay than the last, though the plots generally remain very similar in regard to their central structure and use of certain repeated plot devices and themes. Although some feel this keeps the series from feeling stale with repeated sequels, fans of one game may not like the other games in the series. Of the more recent installments in the series Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy XI and Final Fantasy X-2 have been most frequently singled out for criticism: Final Fantasy VIII for its radical story and cast of entirely human teenaged characters, Final Fantasy XI for switching to a MMORPG format and Final Fantasy X-2 for its status as the first direct sequel to a previous Final Fantasy game, taking a radical departure from the serious tone of Final Fantasy games (especially Final Fantasy X), and for its supposed overreliance on fan service, as the playable characters are frequently featured wearing revealing clothing (Final Fantasy X-2).

Still others view the series as straying from its roots in general in hopes of garnering more money from those who would follow the series solely because of its name. These people feel that recent projects rely too heavily on older, more popular projects and characters, such as Final Fantasy VII and its primary protagonist, Cloud Strife. The overwhelming attention given to these more renowned installments has incited great animosity in some long-standing fans of the series, especially those who cherish games that have been largely ignored by Square Enix. Part of this issue may stem from the belief that greater attention toward the more popular and recognized games in the series is tantamount to a betrayal to those fans who stuck by the company even before it became a household name. Another factor of this approach to newer works within Final Fantasy comes from Tetsuya Nomura's decision to avoid anything he did not personally create himself, though he has slightly relaxed this personal rule in Kingdom Hearts II.

Other fans also fuel this fire from time to time by consistently asking or demanding certain games in the series get more attention by the company. Since games made in the 8-bit and 16-bit eras of gaming usually only get a quick conversion to a new system with a few minor tweaks or additions, fans of games in those eras feel that more money should be directed toward new projects for the older, less known games of the series, or otherwise for brand new projects entirely. This is especially true in the case of Final Fantasy VII; as of 2006, this game has at least seven spinoffs as part of the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, including a controversial rumored full remake of the game, a possibility that leaves the fanbase divided.

One final point to make involves what some fans believe has been a priority shift by Square Enix on what is most important for a Final Fantasy title. Many people follow the sentiment that earlier games stressed characterization and story-telling, and held a fantasy atmosphere. Meanwhile, they feel that later installments in the Final Fantasy universe hold too much emphasis on good graphics (as previously noted), sex appeal, fanservice (also noted above), and have moved away from the fantasy atmosphere. One often cited example of this last point is Final Fantasy X-2, where the game takes on a more light-hearted, pop music/pop culture atmosphere, which some describe as having a "girl power" vibe.

Anyone who wants to get started, hack away. ~ Hibana 00:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the criticism section is fine the way it is. Regardless of my opinion, someone needs to get the criticism section up because the "hate" (negative views) of Final Fantasy is a huge part of the Final Fantasy community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.13.132.168 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 May 2006

Do you care to justify your position given WP:NPOV and most especially WP:V and WP:RS? How is it "fine the way it is"?

I totally agree that the article does need this section and I am hoping to put aside a large amount of time to get a start on this soon. If you'd like to get a start on it, feel free. But bear in mind that I will revert anything that is not cited from reliable sources.

--JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 19:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph can definitely go, as it is merely repeating redundant info. The second to last paragraph needs to be rewritten and sourced, but it is definitely worthwhile, and could be merged with the third to last paragraph, and the comment about pissed-off Amano/Uematsu fans could be stuck there as well. Perhaps the best thing to do is write an article called Criticism of Final Fantasy. Crazyswordsman 00:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why criticism needs to be cited by a "reliable source," when a clearly POV claim such as saying the FF franchise is notable for "complex character development" (to whom, a fourteen year old?) does not need citation.Jeodonnell 04:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, if it does not need any citation, anyone can add in their own view and thus is definitely NOT suitable for an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Having any part of the article without a reliable cource is just making the article like a fan forum. MythSearcher 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Toroidal

There's a dispute about the following line:

In the games in which the player has full control over the airship and can fly throughout the world, the game map wraps both horizontally and vertically, implying that the planet is toroidal.

A couple of people who are unable to visualize this are changing "toroidal" to "spherical." Please stop; you're incorrect. If you fly to the north pole and then keep flying, you do not pop up at the south pole. Think hard about this. A map that wraps both horizontally and vertically is a map of a toroid, or donut-shape. Look at this map of Earth: [[3]] If you fly north off the top of the map, you don't pop to the bottom. TomTheHand 01:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

But if I fly off the right side of the map, I show up on the left side of the map, and if I fly off the top side of the map I show up on the bottom of the map. The behavior is the same whether I am flying horizontally or vertically. Are you sure it is a toroid? Do you ever see "North Pole" and "South Pole"? Why can't the top and bottom of the map be connected the same way as the left and right? Projecting a 3D object onto 2D will always create distortions. If anything, I would suggest the world is more like a cube instead of a toroid. (Perhaps that was the true meaning of the clue "The world is square" ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a cube. A cubical world would wrap in the same way as a spherical one, it'd just be pointer ;-) The behavior you're describing is explained by a toroidal world. Look at this picture of a torus [[4]]. Imagine "unwrapping" it to a 2D map: slice it open around the smallest radius in the middle, and then make a slice like the red circle in the above photo. Travelling off the right side of the 2D map puts you on the left side, and travelling off the top puts you at the bottom.

A torus has no "North Pole" or "South Pole"; I brought them up because Xornok and TheGhostChild said the way the map wraps implies a sphere, and I was trying to explain how that cannot be by explaining the way a map of a sphere wraps. A cube would also have North and South Poles, and a 2D map of a cube would wrap similarly to a map of a sphere. Travelling off the top of the map, to the North Pole and past it, would not suddenly put you at the bottom of the map, at the South Pole.

I'm not saying that the designers of FF wanted their world to be toroidal. I believe it's unintentional, and I'm saying that the way their map wraps is only explained by a world that's a torus, and the world cannot be a sphere or cube. TomTheHand 02:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother commenting on its shape in the article at all. I mean, you're right and everything, but why does it need to be in the article? It's not an important point in the games, or even mentioned in them; so there's not a lot of point that I can see in putting it in the article.

And actually, a cube-shaped world would have six discrete square-shaped sections such that flying off the left side of one of them might very well leave you at the top or bottom of another. That's even less like the way FF worlds behave than a sphere is. PurplePlatypus 04:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it could be a square, a really, really, HUGE, square (implying INFINITLY hugh). Imagine, infinite identical surfaces, happening the exact same thing. If you fly off the top of the square, you make a 90 degree turn and you appeared on the lower side of the next square(where that square just have another group of the same people flew off it.) if you fly off the edge on the left side of this square, you arrived on the right of the next.

A sphere will work if the square we see is not oriented like our normal world map. Think about having the 4 corners warp together forming a point(Cutting away some part of the square will work better) You will have a sphere having the original top touching the bottom and left touching the right but not having its north pole touching it's south.

And all this talk is simply useless, according to WP:OR wikipedia is no place for original research, and all this toroid, sphere talking is all original research UNLESS official data could prove it to be wrong. For example, we can all see a sphere in Final Fantasy VII in various in game movies instead of a toroid. There for, it should not be included in the article. MythSearcher 07:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sphere version still doesn't work, as far as I can see. (If you think it could, show or describe what a map of our world done along those lines would look like. I'm almost certain that you'll find that it's just physically impossible to have all the right things touching each other.)

It does not matter if it works or not, the point is It is original research and it should not be included into the article. I know my version will be somewhat out of the 3-D world since a lot of stuff will over-lap each other. The simpliest way to think of it will be just think of a big ocean part that the game skipped the flying time. As long as the square we see is only half of the sphere, and there's more stuff over there that does not show on the map. (or simply too much stuff shown on the square we see) In our world map, if altered, it would look like we have cut out the whole Antarctic and its surrounding ocean(or some part in the middle of the Atlantic ocean) and then having the hole filled with a mix of sea extended from the four sides. MythSearcher 11:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, a sphere works... if we assume lots of extra stuff that there is no in-game evidence for? Isn't that just a roundabout way of saying it doesn't work? I do agree (as I've already said here) that it doesn't belong in the article, though for reasons Tom has already articulated in the posting below this, I think you've arrived at that conclusion for the wrong reason. I see it this way:

• Having the article mention that they're probably torroidal: Kind of neat, but not very relevant. Don't bother.
• Having the article mention that they're probably spherical: Equally irrelevant and, even worse, also demonstrably wrong (unless, as you say, we assume a lot of stuff the games give us no reason to assume). So even if consensus leads to mentioning a shape, it has no business being that one.

PurplePlatypus 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it's fun trivia, and I don't think it's original research. My source is the Final Fantasy games which have a world map you can fly around in. It wraps vertically and horizontally, therefore it's a torus; there's no research involved. It's obvious if you know what a torus is. Look at it another way: take the map of an FF world. Wrap it into a cylinder so the top touches the bottom. Now curl it around so the left touches the right. I think it should be in the article but written in such a way that you realize you're reading a bit of trivia, not actual information on the games. TomTheHand 13:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, stating it is any shape already is original research. My bad for having discussed what it could be. Why does it have to be in 3-D form? Like in my first posting, which is exactly how the coding of the games were written, a plain of infinite repeating worlds which just forms a square, nothing more, nothing less.

I never intended to state if it is a sphere or torus, I mentioned it could be a sphere just to demonstrate how it is original research.

We could mention the ones that actually showed us the 3-D view, like I said earlier, FF VII used a sphere when viewed form outer space. I do not remember what others look like. (Probably none in 1~6 since there are no 3-D graphics) However, as I recall, VIII, X have shown scenes with a sky that you cannot see the other side of the torus.

MythSearcher 02:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course a sphere works, think about it logically: If you travel along the surface of a sphere in any direction, you'll end up back where you started. The problem is simply a matter of perspective, by comparing it to traditional maps of Earth you're getting nowhere. To make all directions loop properly, all you have to do is stretch the sphere flat while cutting only a single point in it, let's use the north pole. Now, stretch it out into a square. The entire perimiter of the map is the north pole, while the south pole is in the center. On a sphere, moving over a single point in a strait line causes you to come out on the other side of that point. On this version of the map, since the perimeter is a single point, you always come out on the other side. LifeMega 23:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Kind of like a quincuncial map? I... suppose that's possible but weird. TomTheHand 00:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no in-game evidence for the huge distortions in distance this would produce (for example, you don't travel faster near the edge of the map than in the center), nor for all the places near the edges of the map being really close to each other as they would be if this were the correct interpretation. For example, Maranda and Thamasa seem to be a fair distance apart, not practically next to each other as this would make them. I could go on. I'll concede it's not impossible, but a torus fits the in-game evidence quite naturally, whereas you really have to stretch (double meaning intended) to make a sphere fit it. PurplePlatypus 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The inner side of the torus have shorter distance than the outer side by simple radius calculation.

Also, it is very unnatural to have nothing in the sky no matter where you are at in the world if it is a torus.

And in the quincuncial map, it is a little different than the one LifeMega mentioned. LifeMega's map would be kinda like the one I discribed above, with a square cut out. It is just that the square became infinitely small in his version. In a quincuncial map, it is like you take a sphere, cut a cross one it and start stretching it open, look from the top and you will see a square map at some point. (Of course, distorted.)Which would be the first sphere I discirbed in my first post.

Also, sphere or torus, you should always encounter a line where sun light cannot reach. (darkened by the world's own shadow.) However, no matter how far you fly in the FF worlds, you will not see day-night conversion, and thus, a simply 2-D square is a lot more natural than the 3-D models. (And code wise, it is exactly the way it works.)

Like I said, this is all just fan talk, no reference could be found in most games and thus it is original research which should not be included no matter what. The only reference we could see is FF VII, which actually shows a sphere.

MythSearcher 10:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FF IV also shows the planet as a sphere quite clearly, in several shots from space. In FF II the in-game map is made to make the planet appear spherical, and in FF VI it shows a round planet during the conversion to the World of Ruin. Although of course since every game is different, there's no way to generalize it, or tell definitively in the games which don't contain an image of the planet itself. Maybe some of the worlds are toroid and some spherical, and some just flat squares. LifeMega 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to bring up an old, dead subject, but just thought it's intereasting trivia to point out that day and night are sometimes a matter of location. FFVII always turns to Sunset when at Cosmo Canyon. In FFIX, it's always night in Treno and Burmecia, and approaching these areas creates dawn and twilight conditions. This model cannot work with any shape. I think we just have to assume an alien physics in operation. --Daedalus 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links Unhelpful

I think that a minority of the external links provided are not particularly helpful to people who wish to find out a range of different Final Fantasy sources. Why not include some of the better fansites (e.g. spirasdestiny.net, ffnet.org, and square-online.info) rather than an archaic Final Fantasy Wiki, particularly when this is a Wiki in the first place? Having two seems redundant, and the FFWiki is rarely used. Linking to it seems bizarre. (81.174.137.126 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC))

It is because wiki's policy is List only one fansite. The External links section was supposed to be links that have information mentioned within the article as a source of what is written here, like the reference section. MythSearcher 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.ffwiki.net/ is a more consistantly updated Wiki, just as a matter of information.--69.42.17.86 07:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Overview

RE this sentence: "Unlike a typical sequel, Final Fantasy II featured entirely different characters, with a setting and story bearing only some thematic similarities to its predecessor."

It's my understanding that this kind of sequel IS typical in Japan. Maybe it wasn't back then? Can someone clarify this point? Bihal 02:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy games aren't really Sequels, persé... They're merely installments in a franchise. There are only a few variables that are constants, and regardless, there is never a mention of a previous game, or a future game. Each game stands on its own, or they can be considered a franchise, but, there are no sequels. The obvious exceptions to this is of course, Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerebus, and Final Fantasy X-2. However, notice that the sequel games actually share the same name as their prequels? It doesn't change the game's number, merely the title associated. For example, with DoC, it adds the words "Dirge of Cerebus," and for FFX-2, it adds the hyphen and the 2 to the end of the title. -Emhilradim 18:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Game List

Does anybody agree that a game list that sorts out Japanese vs American titles, etc... would be useful? Novati 23:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't already someplace, that would be good. If it does exist, then it should be more obvious. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much covered in List of Final Fantasy titles though. There's not that much difference between them except for FFIV and FFVI anyway. ~ Hibana 02:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for, myabe the link should be more prevalant?Novati 13:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am looking for the same information. Can someone sort it out into a simple chart. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcip (talk • contribs) 08:41, 21 December 2006

The Boxs at the bottom of the page could have dividers between the platforms they were realeased on. for instance like: I II III | IV V VI | VII VIII IX | X | XI | XII | XIII

Adding external links

I've added my final fantasy XIII external link to this page, as there are none/few other external links that link to sites with content directly link to the fabula nova crystallis project.

Joey-

I've added the final fantasy google theme collection to the links.

April-

DS FFIII instead of NES FFIII

Shouldn't the Final Fantasy III link in the third paragraph link to the DS version of the game, as that is the version being referred to? I'm gonna change it. Choogle 12:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

haha wow

"Many entries in the Final Fantasy series involve broadly similar plot points, such as rebellion against a major economic, political, or religious power, a struggle against an evil which threatens to overtake or destroy the world, or nature versus technology. The love between major characters,[21] and in some cases rivalry between characters,[22] as well as the death of major (and sometimes playable) characters, will also drive the plot"

wow. not like these are common themes present in millions of works of fiction, representing archetypes used for thousands of years or anything. oh no. theyre unique to final fantasy. hahahahahaha. vaguest section ever. 209.240.117.44 01:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't claim they are unique to Final Fantasy. However, each title has many of those similarities. How many RPGs have major characters die on you? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Legend of Dragoon had 2... -Xornok 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Damnit, I just ordered that game and I see a spoiler. --SeizureDog 10:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Aerith's Name?

Aerith/Aeris' name might not refer to the Japanese translation of "Earth." I have found several links between Final Fantasy VII's character and place names, and Norse Mythology, and these findings suggest that her name might be a part of it. Midgar, as we all know is the large, dark city of FF VII. Midgard in Norse mythology is the name for the world in which humans dwell. Another similarity would be Nibelheim/Niflheim. What does all this have to do with Aerith? Well, remember that Aerith is an Ancient: a being of an old race. In Norse Mythology, the Aesir were the chief gods of Asgard. Transpose the R and S in Aesir and you get Aeris. This is only my theory on where Aerith's name might have come from. Thanks to anyone who will give me some response to this. Outlawed Heroine 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just coincidences, Aerith/Aeris is in fact intended to mean Earth and Migard is the name of the 'world' humans live in right? Plus I see no connections between Nibelheim/Niflheim. Nate09 09:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Great reference for final fantasy

This is a video with the entire history of Final Fantasy game discussed. Created by squaresoft: [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spydercanopus (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Citations

Note: I rewrote my original comment to be more clear about why I think more citations are needed.

Overall this is a very nice article. However, it is almost completely lacking in citations. It only has one actual citation that I could find. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should strive to find proper sources for the content of this article. A great deal of the article draws generalities about the Final Fantasy games, which therefore need secondary sources for verification. Also, adding citations for other facts such as release dates and so forth is good too, even if they're unlikely to be disputed, because it makes the content more verifiable, helps make vandalism easier to spot, and gives the reader sources to find more information. Read the policy citing sources and no original research.

To the person who deleted my tag, look at the notes section. Most of those aren't references. Most of them are just adding more information to the footnoted statement. Furthermore, I'm not sure citing the game itself is a valid. But, setting that aside, using examples from the games to draw generalities about the series without citations would technically count as original research. In any case the article clearly needs more good citations.

I think this article is very well done, but this is one of the aspects of the article that seems to be lacking compared to its overall quality. Thus, I added the tag to encourage contributors to add sources as new content is added, or to find sources for the existing content. If you believe the tag is inappropriate, please state why. Otherwise, I will put the tag back in. Nimrand 14:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, see the Stargate article for an example of a similar kind of article that is well cited. Nimrand 14:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, compare this article's notes section to the notes and references section of The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, a featured article. Nimrand 17:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Crystals

As they have appeared in so many games, perhaps an article should be started titled "Crystals (Final Fantasy)", listing the games in which they have appeared and what their role in said games were? Drake Clawfang 23:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I created such a page, but it is currently a stub. Help in expanding it would be greatly appreciated. Drake Clawfang 19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

I reverted an edit by User:Nimrand that claimed citing an example is original research. I'm not sure of the reasoning.

Under common motifs and themes is a comment that some final bosses that aren't known until the end of the game. In many of the FF games, after you beat who you thought was the final boss, they make some reference to their master, and you end up fighting some previously unknown entity. A footnote was attached to this statement citing two examples. This footnote is what was removed, and replaced by a {{fact}} tag.

The comment from the edit was that citing examples of generalizations was original research, and that secondary sources are needed. Any thoughts on this? It seems to me that the footnote are as valid as any others in that section. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, my original fact tag that was removed by the added footnote was intended for the whole paragraph, not just the last sentence. Secondly, I do not have a problem leaving the examples as a footnote if you want, but it is not a reference for the information being stated, and therefore the fact tag should remain. WP:NOR states that original research includes text that "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source." Drawing generalities by citing the original games as examples counts as analysis and synthesis of established facts, and it is not being attributed to a reputable source. It may also be the "introduction of original ideas." While all the statements in the paragraph about villans accurately describe some games of the series, there are many games I can think of in which a number of the stated generalities would not apply. Additionally, it could be argued that many of the themes discussed in the villans paragraph are common in fiction in general, and so may be misleading to say they are common themes to the final fantasy series specifically. The point is, the accuracy of the statements is disputable and simply pointing to examples does not satisfy the requirements of WP:NOR. In order to make this a more verifiable article, secondary sources are needed to show that a reputable source has drawn the same conclusions about the common themes of the series. Using commentaries or interviews from the designers of the games would work as well, since they know if they intended something to be a common theme or not. Currently, almost no sources are cited except for the games themselves, and that hurts the article.

I agree that the villans paragraph is no more poorly cited than most of the common themes section, but I felt that while some common themes were more obvious and less disputable (like Cid) this paragraph was among the least obvious and most needing of a real reference to a verifiable source. Others could use references as well, but I wanted to tag the areas that needed it the most, and not just mark up the whole page ;-). Nimrand 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the point is, without using sources for these kinds of generalizations, its too hard to tell the difference between statements that can be considered factual, and those that are just the opinions of a few editors. It opens the door for anyone to add they're own opinions via analysis of facts. For instance, it would allow one to state that FF 12 is a rehash of Star Wars by citing numerous examples of the similarities between their plotlines. Nimrand 01:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem I've struggled with for some time over video game articles. The problem is that there really aren't many reliable secondary sources for video games. You can find game reviews in magazines, but they are often funded by the game companies. You can find personal reviews on blogs, gamefaqs, etc. but those are basically some person's opinion.

What has seemed to work is peer review. If somebody adds a note that doesn't sound right, one of the regulars will flag it or fix it. I know that doesn't conform to WikiPolicy, but we always have the pillar to ignore rules if they don't make sense. ;^)

For a reality check does anyone question the comments about villains in Final Fantasy? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncited facts that are peer-reviewed by other Wikipedyians is a textbook case of original research. Such a [rocess would essentially be the creation of new secondary source material, when instead Wikipedia's mission is to synthesize existing sources. Even though game magazines often have biases, they do at least have professional editorial oversight; the solution to POV concerns there would be to cite multiple magazines, as is often done in featured articles about video games. — TKD::Talk 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I think the villans section could use a lot of cleanup. Is there anything that is factually incorrect in it? Maybe not. But, to me, it seems like an unfocused list of very vague generalities that lean more on the side of being conventient plot mechanisms that are overused in the fantasy RPG genre than "common themes" of Final Fantasy. There are also statements which I find to be at least questionable. For instance "A Final Fantasy villain often becomes self-destructive after encountering a dark secret regarding their own life and eventually plans to destroy the current world in order to create a "new and better" one." Does this really happen "often"? Because I can't think of any other than the two listed (though I've only played I, VII, VIII, IX, X, and half-way through XII). And, what exactly is meant by "often"? Does that mean it happens in most Final Fantasy games? Does it happen many times in a single game? I could nit-pick at a number of other things, but that would be to miss the point. Right now, unless I've miscounted, this very long article has only two explicit external references. A number of those who have been editing this article seem to be working on the misguided belief that adding a footnote to give examples constitutes a reference. It doesn't. While I don't think we should delete content just because we haven't found a reference for it yet, we should still strive to find those references that are needed. I realize that reliable sources may be hard to find, and that peer review is important in these kinds of articles. But, peer review is only so effective when one doesn't have sources to draw from. The whole point of references is that anyone (not just someone who has played the games) should be able to come to the article and verify its information via the references it provides. Furthermore, all the Final Fantasy game articles I checked have significantly more than 2 references, so, clearly, references can be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 07:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

US vs Japan covers

Think it should be mentioned somewhere how FF covers are almost so radically different between the two countries? Japan goes for a simple, artistic logo thing and America always has to have some kind of CG art of the characters. Packaging for other Euro countries tends to vary between the two, but usually goes for the Japan look. It seems to really reflect on American values (less art, more action!) and is pretty clear example of localization practices. It would be interesting if Square happened to have made a statement on this fact too.--SeizureDog 10:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cid

Do we really need such all the new information that has been added about Cid in the common themes section? Several new sentences have been added in the last few weeks, some of them discussing his appearances in specific games of the series. Because this is already a long article and we already have a whole article devoted to Cid, we may want to trim down the paragraph on Cid in this article. Nimrand 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to revert one of the latest additions, but figured I would wait and see if anyone else commented. It isn't just with Cid, it seems that there is always somebody who wants to add some new detail, exception, etc. I've tried putting some of those kinds of things in footnotes so that the article reads smoother, but I think a good purge would also help. ;^) -- Wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm a little thrown by the statement that "Although he [Cid] is rarely the same individual...". Has Cid EVER been the same individual from one FF game to the next (not counting X-2 of course)? Its clear from the author's original wording (which was something like, although Cid is rarely the same invididual and never the same age) that the author clearly meant to imply there were exceptions. But, I'm not sure what exception the author meant to refer to. And, it seems to contradict what is stated in List of Final Fantasy characters. Nimrand 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Series

I just came here to ask opinions if this link is worthy of being hosting on the Final Fantasy page, it's about the history from the first, to the current, providing screenshots and a lot of information:

• www.snesclassics.com/history/final-fantasy.php

Note: this link was later blacklisted due to spamming.--A. B. ^(talk) 01:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be best to ask the community rather than just add it without a word.

Thanks for taking the time to look! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snesclassics (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

It is a nice synopsis of the series, but I don't think it justifies inclusion as an external link under the External Links section, as one has to be very selective about such things. However, it you can find specific statements in the FInal Fantasy article that this link corroborates, then cite it as a source. It pretty much accomplishes the same thing, and it improves the verifiability of the article.  :-) Nimrand 00:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nimrand :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.169.97 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 January 2007.

KH series

have you noted in the srticle that some charecters in FF apear in the Kingdom Hearts game series? Just wondering if you have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.189.251 (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Duh. They also appeared in Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Mario RPG, Ergheiz, Itadaki Street Special, and Mario Hoops 3 on 3. --Sir Crazyswordsman 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

well, I was only asking, dont bite my head off!!(I know they appear in those games aswell!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.224.238 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 January 2007.

Footnotes

Is there any way to either hide or take away the quote in footnote #27? I appreciate that whoever wrote the piece was able to give full attribution, but it just seems a little more than necessary. Seems like the citation of the actual publication and page numbers should be enough. Quietchild 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else believe that the use of footnotes in this article is downright excessive? Afterall, if the reader just ignores the footnotes, then they serve no purpose. But, if the reader does follow them, more than half the time the information linked to doesn't seem all that important, and the reader has no way of knowing what the footnote is until he or she follows it. To clean this up, is there some kind of criteria we can agree upon to determine which footnotes should stay, which ones should be brought inline, and which ones should be deleted entirely? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that having this many footnotes is a bad thing at all. Even if most readers ignore the footnotes, it's still better to have 'excessive' amounts of them than to have none at all. Even if the information seems trivial, at least it is sourced. There are too many articles that have few, if any, sources for their information. I think we should let this one be an example of thorough sourcing. Nique1287 14:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone seem to think that just because its a footnote it counts as a source? Less than half of the footnotes in this article tell the reader where the information came from. I would never want to remove citations, but the number footnotes that aren't citations should be limited. It seems that footnotes are being used in this article as a band-aid for the fact that lots of people want to add extra bits of semi-tangential information that makes the article hard to read. To fix this, editors push the extra information into the footnotes section where it is less disruptive. This isn't always a bad idea, but we need to decide if the information is really relevant and needs to be there at all.Nimrand 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are all either actual sources, or explanations that would detract from the article if included in the plain text of it, such as the repetitive listing of the titles in which the names appear for footnotes 11 through 16. I don't see why the latter should all be included in the main body of the article since they're often long-winded or repetitive, but they should definitely not be discarded as they do offer explanations which are useful to the reader. For example, footnote 38, which gives an explanation of the system which would not only not really fit into the paragraph but would also almost double its size, or footnote 5, which gives a note on exceptions (sequels/prequels) to the rule stated about the re-occurence of themes through the series. Footnotes aren't just for straight references, they're also a very valuable tool for giving explanations that just don't fit into the framework of the article itself. That's why I don't think we should remove them. Nique1287 17:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we delete all of them, I just think we should use them judiciously, and I'm just asking that we build a consensus. For instance, do we really need footnote 10 about the alternate spelling of Cid in Final Fantasy : The Spirits WIthin? It doesn't seem all that relevant to an article about the Final Fantasy Series in general, and we already have a full article dedicated to Cid. Or, there is the lengthy explaination of the gambit system. I might see that justifiable in the article on FF XII, but I question if it really is really needed in this article. Also, I think there are cases where, with some editing, the same essential information could be conveyed without the need for a footnote. Thats just my two-cents, if no one else sees a problem then I'll leave it alone. Nimrand 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I've probably added more footnotes than anyone else. What happens, is that there is always somebody who knows some little bit of trivia and seems determined to add it to the article. I tried reverting for a while, but they just kept reappearing. So what I finally did was move them down to the footnotes. That way, people who want an overview can read the main article, and those who want to know everything known to mankind, can read the footnotes.

Frankly, I don't like all the footnotes any more than the rest of you, but it seems the only way to keep all these distracting bits of trivia from creeping into the main article. I would love to cut more than half the article out and leave just an overview of the series, but (IMHO) it will just grow back over time. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Reviews

Since there is a comment not to add additional external links to the article itself, I am adding this to the discussion page, as requested. I thought that links to reviews of various Final Fantasy games might be an appropriate addition for this article.

GameVortex's Final Fantasy Content - News, Reviews, etc. Updated Automatically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dageck0 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Title of article

Most video game series articles contain "series" in the title, like The Legend of Zelda series or Resident Evil (series) and use the individual title for the initial game (The Legend of Zelda, Resident Evil). Shouldn't this follow the same pattern? Rhindle The Red 02:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Final Fantasy Series" will redirect to this article. I guess an argument could be made to rename this article to the series title, and redirect the name to that. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is replacing this article (Final Fantasy) with the article currently at Final Fantasy (video game) and moving this article to Final Fantasy series. This seems to be in keeping with the practice followed by most video game series articles. Rhindle The Red 14:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. It should be Final Fantasy series, as Final Fantasy may be confused with Final Fantasy (video game). However, I believe that title of the article Final Fantasy (video game) should remain unchanged for disambiguation clarity. --Daedalus 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)