Jump to content

Talk:Final Fantasy/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Merchandise

There is a large market for FF merchandise, yet its not mentioned here at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.137.127 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely right. Please add a Merchandise section, thanks. Kariteh 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Limit break merger

The limit break article is interesting in the context of the Final Fantasy series, but is probably not ever going to stand on it's own, so I propose it be merged here. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly argue against the merger. This article is already too long, and trying to stuff more into it would result in a mess, IMHO. I should point out that the same tag has been added to Final Fantasy Magic. IMHO, both tags are inappropriate. The arguments expressed in the magic article was that it was unsourced, which (again, IMHO) has nothing to do with notability. If it is going to be merged into something, I would recommend the magic article. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be merged, but not here. It would be better to be merged into Common themes of Final Fantasy as a section under "Gameplay Elements". --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 08:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
(pasted from FF magic talkpage) A few months ago, we started a sandbox of a gameplay of Final Fantasy article, User:Deckiller/Gameplay of Final Fantasy, which will bring together the Final Fantasy items, Limit Break, elements from the main article, Final Fantasy magic, and overviews of other articles. It's been put on the backburner temporarily. — Deckiller 01:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I also think that merger would be a mistake. Both of these articles are long and merging them together would create an article that is far too long. – Lilwik 07:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The Limit Break article appears long only because it's full of pure fancruft and game guide details. Wikipedia is not a game guide. We don't need to say that performing a limit eight times will grant you the level 2 limit, or that you learn Seraph Strike when your club skill reach 40... If reduced to actually interesting and notable information, the Limit Break article would definitely be short enough to be merged in Final Fantasy (series) or Gameplay of Final Fantasy. Kariteh 09:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It must be shortened for a merger GreaterWikiholic 04:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears consensus is against the merger, perhaps we should bring it up again when we are ready to create Gameplay of Final Fantasy. Judgesurreal777 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

More sources

I removed {{More sources}} because it is asking for more sources. There are three references given and 20 notes. It seems to be adequate to me, espeically comparing it to a number of other articles on Wikipedia. It would be better to use {{fact}} to talk about which specific points need to cited rather then just tagging the entire article. If fact, when using tags, there ought to be something addressed in the talk page by the person placing the tage, but there isn't any that I have seen. --Pinkkeith 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it back, it is mentioned here: Talk:Final_Fantasy/archive_3#Citations.2C_Take_Two --Pinkkeith 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RPGe nominated for deletion

the people who first translated final fantasy v are being nominated for deletion. this is insane. voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPGe 209.209.214.5 05:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

source for this info

"According to unconfirmed sources, Sakaguchi had plans to retire after the completion of the project, so it was named Final Fantasy.[citation needed]" I remember watching an interview with Hironobu Sakaguchi as a part of a documentary titled "Final Fantasy: The Past, The Present, The Future". He revealed the reason why the series was named "Final Fantasy". The statement above is completely correct. I'm just not sure how to add a source.. Someone please? Aurora sword 04:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Use this template: Template:Cite video Kariteh 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Original Release Order

A presumably new editor (Special:Contributions/69.152.113.102) added a list of U.S. release dates, which was reverted by User:Kariteh. I added a welcome message to the anon talk page, encouraged them to create an account, and to start a topic on this talk page about the addition. When they did instead was add the list again, which was reverted again, followed by a v4 tag, which I believe was too harsh (WP:DBN).

The original justification for the revert was that this isn't an American version of Wikipedia. That is true, but it is an English Language version, and release dates for English language versions of FF seems appropriate. I believe that this information should be added, but differently than it was. In particular, I think we should have a table that lists, in order of release, the release date, both the Japanese & English numbers (e.g., II/IV) and the platform, along with the name of any compilation (e.g., "FF Origins"). This should include the re-releases as well, such as the recent PSP and DS versions.

Any comments? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if PAL region releases are included too. And still, there's already a long and almost-complete List of Final Fantasy media, so this table may be redundant. Kariteh 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm the one that posted the U.S. release order. I didn't mean to repost it, I just thought I had forgotten to save it(didn't see the message). Sorry if I caused any trouble, I was just trying to add something that I thought needed addition. The area is slightly biased because it has the timeline on FF release dates, but those are only the Japanese release dates (well, technically "first" release dates). I see the List of Final Fantasy media , which is very similar, but I think this sort of thing warrants its own condensed section ( or something :) )on the "main" page. Eagle5000 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not really biased since these are the original release dates, not some particular local release dates (like the US ones). If more dates have to be added, then both North American and PAL region dates should be added, or it would really be biased. Kariteh 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

I'm sure many here know that FINAL FANTASY is official displayed in all capital letters, and only for sake of space does the American fanbase typically lowercase the non-initial letters. However, since this is a project aiming for a comprehensive, end-all source of information, I suggest that we at least capitalize the first instance on the title, the bolded words at the beginning of this (and, hopefully, all other FF) articles, as well as any external links that retain capitalization in their headings. T.J. Fuller, Jr. 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese always capitalize words written in Western alphabet. This detail isn't specific to Final Fantasy. See also WP:MOS-JA#Capitalization of words in Roman script. Also the American fanbase is not the world; they lowercase in other western lands like Europe and co. too. Kariteh 09:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Main games

Someone explain to me how the barely-readable paragraph jumble for the "Main games" section is better than my previous edit, a comprehensive and succint bullet-pointed list. SimBen 06:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons is to maintain consistency of prose throughout the entire article. If not, we would have ended up repeating the List of Final Fantasy media. — Blue。 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That and lists are generally frowned upon on GA and FA articles, which is where I'm sure some editors would like to see this go. I'll admit it is not the easiest to read paragraph and am open to suggestions on how to improve it. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC))
Something like the Zelda article would work, maybe adding a short descriptive paragraph for each game in the main series while still listing them as bullet points? SimBen 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda (series), which is a good article, lists its games. The Prince of Darkness 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't hurt to try it; given the number of games, a paragraph format is a bit difficult to read. Though I don't think it should include the numerous platforms and release dates like the Zelda one. That's what the separate game articles and FF media list are for. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
Ok, it's been switched to a list. Could someone more familiar with the series add some more content to the descriptions like significant changes and additions to the series? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
I'm not convinced X-2 belongs in the "main series" section. It's really more of a spin-off; if you're gonna start including sequels to Roman numerals, Dirge of Cerberus, Crisis Core, Revenant Wings, Versus XIII and the FFXI expansions would also fit the criteria. SimBen 17:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll integrated it into the "Spin-off" section. Also, what should be done about the anime and CG films? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
Either put them in spin-offs or make a new "Non-videogame" subsection. You might just wanna link to the List of FF Media, though. SimBen 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in the opinion that this is much better:

a.k.a. a prose list. — Blue。 20:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that too, but wasn't sure because of the lack of content. That does look better though; I'll change it to that way. And to anyone familiar with the series, they still need some extra info. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Rewrite

Hey, after going over the article, here are some ideas I think could help get this article to GA and maybe to FA. Hopefully some editors more knowledgeable about the series can assist with some of this.

  • Expand the lead
  • Expand of the information in the "Main games" section.
  • Added citations throughout most of the article - mainly the "Overview" and "Music" sections
  • I think the "Music" section could use a rewrite and sources, mainly because some of it sounds like original research.
  • Fill in the "Merchandise and other media" section

With a little work, I think this could easily make it to GA pretty soon. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for all your hard work. The article looks much improved. I took a first pass editing the music section to cut down on the amount of content, considering that this article is long and there is already an article for FF music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
What about moving the music section under development? If graphics and technology go under that heading it would seem music should too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the information that will be in the "Music" section. If it's a simple description of the type of music, I think it can stay where it is. If it will focus more on the development of the music, then yeah it probably should be moved. Right now it looks pretty like a simple description, but it may change as we go. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Getting to GA

There are a few relatively quick things that I think can be done to get this article ready for GA. They are mainly reiterations of the list above, but these are the ones I feel are most pressing for GA.

  1. References for the "Music" section; thanks Nimrand, it looks much better now and is only lacking sources.
  2. Expand the main paragraph to the "Merchandise and other media" section.
  3. Have a fresh pair of eyes do some copy editing.

Any help with these would appreciated. There is currently a backlog of nominees at the WP:GAN so, there's no real rush. But the sooner we get it to GA, the sooner we can get it to FA. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

I just got done reading through the reception section. Its pretty good overall. We could probably use more content for criticism of the series, so that it doesn't come off biased or too much like an advertisement. Also, we have five different "top games" lists where Final Fantasy has appeared mentioned at the end of the first paragraph in the section. I think it would be better to pick the two most notable "top games" lists, and remove the other three from the paragraph.Nimrand 01:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Which lists do you think are the most notable? (Guyinblack25 talk 01:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
I edited the mentioning of the lists to be more concise. I haven't had a chance to look for more criticism yet; I'll try to do that sometime this week.
Quick question, does it look like it could pass GA right now? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I definitely think so. Well done, Guyinblack25! The Prince of Darkness 18:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody feel like nominating it. I've already got an article nominated there and I believe Wikipedia discourages multiple nominations from a single editor. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC))
I'd like to. But, from what I've read from the process, it requires some committment of time from the nominator, and I don't have that right now. Maybe in a week or two. If someone else can in the meantime, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrand (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoever nominates, I'll be around to help address any issues. So if you don't have time to it's no biggie. Plus if anyone is unfamiliar with the GAN process this could be an opportunity to get accustomed to it. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

Just a thought I'd like to throw out, should the "Reception" section be below the "Merchandise and other media" section? My reasoning is to introduce the video game series, then the related media, and end with the reception of everything together. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Sounds reasonable to me. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 21:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambig?

I'd like to see some disambig in the title. It doesn't matter to me if the original FF gets the main title or not, but I think that they're both too well-known to just give to one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There is already a disambig page: Final Fantasy (disambiguation). IMHO, this article has definitely served as the main root to other FF titles, and deserve the main title. IDK if there's a discussion already. — Blue。 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The most recent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy/archive/25#Title of FF series article (again). Anomie 11:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if there's a consensus against making this a disambig, then I suppose I won't complain about it being a GA with the title it has. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle System

Although it may seem that I am splitting hairs unnecessarily, the "Battle System" section says that "...and then finally by Real Time Battle systems starting with Final Fantasy XI." This implies that XII has a Real Time Battle system, which it does not. It uses the "Active Dimension Battle" system which, although it can play as if it is real time, it is really just the "old" ATB battle system with the ability to move characters, gambits, and a couple of other minor tweaks. In short, I'd like to change that part of that paragraph, and I will do such unless somebody opposes (or if somebody else changes it). --ThisistheHenry 04:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? You're right after looking at it again, it does seem a little off. I'm not sure what to do for it though. Any other thoughts on the rest of the article? (Guyinblack25 talk 13:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Games section

Have you thought about turning this part into a table? See Fire Emblem for an example. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The thought did cross my mind, but personally I think that tables for video games series often look cluttered. I think that could be a detractor at FAC. The best tables I've seen were on the List of Final Fantasy media, but the spacing is more list friendly rather than article friendly. We tried a mix of the manga and video game tables in the List of Kingdom Hearts media#Video games section, but adding in a image kinda threw things off a bit. I kinda like the current format, but think additional content about the individual games is needed. What does everyone else think? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Game screens

Something that just occurred to me. We have two screen shots of battle screens. Sorry to say this, but should we maybe switch out the first screen shot from FFII/FFIV with a screen shot of a world or field screen? Here are some possible images already used in other FF articles. Image:FFIV overworld map.PNG, Image:FFVIIfieldmapexample.JPG, Image:Ffxfieldmapexample.jpg, and Image:FFVIIInavigation.JPG. Just a thought. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

GA on Hold

Ok, this is a great series article so far, but there are some issues:

  • Lead- this is kinda awkward, specifically "The series has met with positive sales figures and has received an overall positive reception. In addition, it is well known for its visuals, music, innovation, and use of technology. Many Final Fantasy titles have received positive receptions and met with commercial success." How can a series sell less than 0 games? And you repeat yourself again.
  • Game Screens- entirely unsourced.
  • Images all images need specific fair use rational to the page(s) they are on.

When you fix these issues, leave me a note. David Fuchs (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Conceivably, it could for some reason (probably tax) to pay others to take the games off their hands.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Images have been individually "fair-use rationalized" bu User:Guyinblack25, except for the Final Fantasy logo. — Blue。 17:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking better, but the 'game screens' section is entirely unsourced still. David Fuchs (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
We'll see what we can do. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
One has the caption "ripped from a ROM", that's enough. Another one's history states a change to "PC Version screenshot", so I presume it was a capture, as well as the other one by the same user. I thought about asking this user about the pics, but I didn't try because he hasn't edited since August... igordebraga ≠ 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about the pictures- I'm talking about the content. David Fuchs (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The lead has been further tweaked and a few citations have been added to the "Gameplay" section of the article. More are being sought. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
The article has been copy edited and additional citations have been added to the "Game screens" section. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))

3rd Party

Was Final Fantasy always 3rd Party to Nintendo, or did it originally start for Nintendo, and move on later? If the latter is the answer, shouldn't there be a mention in the article over why they became 3rd Party? (assuming anyone knows) Poke DP 10:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Square was always third party. They just developed for the Nintendo platform. They switched to Sony when Nintendo refused to add a CD drive. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Do you mean Square as a whole, or the Final Fantasy series by itself was always 3rd Party? Poke DP 06:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Both.Nimrand 14:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Thanks. Poke DP 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues with this article

  • This article uses abbreviations that may be confusing or ambiguous.
  • To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, the Main series section may require cleanup because it is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. It looks like Wikipedia:Proseline too.
I'm not convinced a prose form would be better than list form given the large number of games in the series and that the section's primary purpose is to list the games in the series and not much else.Nimrand (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is factually inaccurate:

    1. In 2003, the series' first direct sequel, Final Fantasy X-2, was released.
  • Legend of the Crystal was released ages before X-2.
  • Three Final Fantasy compilations—Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, Ivalice Alliance, and Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII—share many settings and themes.
  • These series definitely don't share settings, and all FF games share themes anyway; so this sentence is either totally inaccurate or too vague to be meaningful.
  • Although most Final Fantasy installments are independent, many themes and elements of gameplay recur throughout the series.
  • This contradicts what was just said above.

Other issues:

  • "Game screens" has tons of unsourced sentences
  • "Battle system" has tons of unsourced sentences, especially with the final paragraph who's totally unsourced
  • The "Music" section has a few unsourced sentences and is clearly not exhaustive as it's too much geared towards Uematsu. Only two other composers are mentioned, in passing.
  • The "History" section has a high amount of unsourced and highly challengeable sentences ("inspired by DQ", etc.); moreover, it's incomplete as the "history" which is discussed is actually just FFI and FFII. Nothing notable is said above anything past FFII.
  • An actual "Design" (not just "Character design") section which would discuss the recurring directors, battle designers, etc. of the series is missing. Hiroyuki Itou isn't even mentioned once in the entire article!
  • The "(Character) design" section just gives names and doesn't tell anything about Amano's, Nomura's, Yoshida's, etc. distinctive art styles.
  • Why is Vagrant Story mentioned? It's not even part of the series.
  • "Graphics and technology": tons of unsourced sentences.
  • "Merchandise and other media": first paragraph has only one small generic source.
  • "Anime and films" and "Literary adaptations": the last two sentences of each of these sections are unsourced.
  • "Reception": too much geared towards the US. The series was primarily designed and released for Japanese audience, yet nothing is said about Japanese reception. This is definitely not irrelevant; for instance with FFXII the designers went as far as changing the game's main character for the Japanese players' sake.

Thanks for your attention. Turd the Borg (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. You're just starting an edit war, and pointing out things that don't need to be improved at all. I suggest that you be more careful before ruining article's with unnecessary templates. The Prince (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to improve the article, and you "IDONTLIKEIT" counterargument doesn't help much. Vagrant Story isn't even part of this series. Turd the Borg (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You're vandalizing the article, not improving it. If you continue, you'll get blocked. The Prince (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm new, I made a mistake and I've learnt something thanks to GuyinBlack25. Now I'm discussing on the talk page...I'll get blocked because I talk? Turd the Borg (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because you're adding templates that you don't know anything about. The Prince (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, let's step back a second. Some of the issues listed have some merit and some don't. Let's talk this out in a constructive manner to come to an agreeable consensus. Let's go over the points mentioned above and see which are valid and which are not. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

In regard to some of the issues listed above, in no particular order.

  • With regard to the abbreviations. We don't know what abbreviations you are referring to. Without specifics, we can neither discuss/argue or fix/edit such content.
  • With regard to the series first direct sequel. Final Fantasy X-2 is the video game series' first direct sequel. You are right, that could be clarified better. I believe that because that information was listed in a subsection of the "Games" section, the collective editors felt that was implicit. Tweaking the sentence to better clarify that wouldn't hurt.
  • With regard to the three Final Fantasy compilations. It is true that those three don't share a setting, however the titles in the three separate compilations share their own respective settings.
  • With regard to the possible proseline. That particular section has undergone several different revisions to properly convey the information about the main games. The content organized into paragraph form degraded the readability of the content and tables often take up more room than they should. So given the disadvantages to those and the repetitive nature of the content, a bulleted list was used. Proseline generally applies to current events; not that it can't apply to video game articles, but it hasn't in the past that much. While the information in the section is dated and bulleted, it is meant to convey information about the separate games, not give a timeline. Each bulleted paragraph provides information on each of the main games in the video game series to be descriptive of the games.
  • I don't see how "Although most Final Fantasy installments are independent.." contradicts with "Three Final Fantasy compilations.." The words "although most" implies that most but not all installments are independent, which in turn allows for compilations to share a setting and not be independent of other installments. Could possibly be reworded, I'll look into it.
  • With regard to unsourced statements. While having every single sentence properly sourced in an article would be ideal, it is impractical and not necessary. Sources are generally meant to be added to controversial statements or content that is likely to be challenge in validity (this does not include challenging for the sake of challenging which would lead to everything being source). While we could try to source every single statement in the article, leeway must be given to allow for multiple ideas to be consolidated into single statements and/or paragraphs. Another comment I'd like to express about references is that sometimes they don't just apply to the sentence the footnote number is attached to. Some of the references cover two or more sentences, the footnote number is simply added to the last sentence. So some seemingly unreferenced statements are taken from the sources provided in the references, just not the ones directly attached to a footnote number; such as "inspired by DQ".
  • With regard to the reception section, though information about Japanese reaction and sales information is included, we'll try to find some additional Japanese criticism. Though I feel the current amount is sufficient, additional info can only help the section.
  • With regard to Vagrant Story being mentioned. A major character designer did previous work on the game, which shares a setting with FFXII and FFT. Though this connection could be better conveyed.
  • With regard to the history section. The point of the history section is to provide the background and origin of the series. A section detailing the history of the entire series would add excessive length and detail to the article. Various aspects of the games are covered in other sections of the article and in their own separate articles.
  • With regard to the design section. You're right that the section does not adequately describe the multitude of designers in this series. While we cannot include every single one, we'll try to rewrite this section to be more inclusive.

I hope this addresses most of the issues you've brought to our attention. We'll try to address the others in a timely manner, hopefully to gain your support for Featured article. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

  • TtB: although I agree that the article needs additional work, your comments here are a bit extreme. On Wikipedia, it is important to be a realist; I've noticed that you've been shot down over radical comments on other articles as well. But then again, this entire new wave of overcompensating Wikipedia editors is a problem—it's not just you. — Deckiller 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Turd the Borg's account has been blocked, I'm guessing for being disruptive in manners similar to these. While I think some of his comments deserve attention, I recommend taking it with a grain of salt.Nimrand (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

World of mana

The mana article mentions that the world of mana was a side story to Final Fantasy, though most elemnets were dropped in the second story. so wouldnt that make it partly a spinoff? Even if it was only the first game? If not it should at least get a tiny mention in the spinoff and direct sequels section. Let me know if this is a good or bad idea please. (Masterxak (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

I believe that Final Fantasy Adventure was listed before but has since been removed, though I don't why. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC))
It's been added back in, thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

We should have put this on the Wikipedia main page!

Today (December 18) is Final Fantasy's 20th birthday. This Featured Article should have been on the main page! FFXII International + Paul Rodgers (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't even realize that. Oh well, I'm kinda glad it didn't because Today's FA always gets vandalized so much the day of and for days after, especially "pop culture" articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

Reception section

Just thought I'd throw out a suggestion and see what everyone thought about it. What about adding in table of aggregate scores similar to Crazy Taxi (series)#Reception? It was recently added to Kingdom Hearts (series)#Reception as well. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Never mind, after looking at the early games, most of them don't have aggregate scores. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC))

Final Fantasy III has been demoted from GA and needs to be re-promoted by June 10, 2008 or the topic can be removed. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Final Fantasy battle systems

Resolved

Please actually look at the article before you voice your opinion. Final Fantasy battle systems As you can see, it is a stub, and 90% of the information is already in the article. Add at most a sentence or two, and this can be merged and eliminate this stubby article that asserts basically no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. It would definitely help the main article by adding another reference. The patent info would be a nice addition that can be sourced by the patent itself. However I do think the battle system article should be trimmed down first to make the merger go more smoothly.
Another issue is what should be done about the images? The patent image looks like it would be a good one to include instead of the FFIX one currently used. The Tactics one might be a good one for the CTB. I don't think we could include more than two images in that section of the main article (and even that might push it). Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC))
That design sketch looks pretty good, might be good to transfer to the main article. The other one, no opinion, so do what you feel is best with it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that anythig that has to do with FF should be on the page.Just put it in diff sections.Then if somebody's looking for that particular section they can see it in the contents.You should only have at most 2 pictures, just enough so that people who accidentaly find the page will know what it is and might be interested.Just put in 2 really cool scenes from one of the games.Jacob Green696 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the merge too. The FF battle systems article is borderline game guide material. The references to Grandia, Heroes of Might and Magic V, etc. do not establish the notability of the topic, they're just trivial similarities that exist because the FF battle systems simply aren't that unique to begin with. Developers love to create fancy names to make their gameplay features stand out, but in the end these are marketing gimmicks and there's not much to say about them in terms of encyclopedic treatment. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I think that the page shouldn't be that long, but should at least mention how Final Fantasy's battle system began and how it has changed over the years. In regards to the pictures there shouldn't be more than two or three for that's all it really takes. But, it would be tricky to pick the pictures. I suggest that you designate what areas are to get pictures and then go from there. MoggishFashion (talk) 20:15 , 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.142.184 (talk) 07:58, May 23, 2008

Tydus?

why is it always Tydus this Tydus that? --Faxle (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Sales figures

I kind of like the idea of including a table like this, but I think the format should be different. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Couldn't hurt. But how would it be structured with respect to system? Would you include the PlayStation, GBA, and DS versions of the games, or just use their original platforms? I was never able to find reliable sales figures for the Famicom versions of II and III :/ ~ Hibana 17:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy (band)

I haven't found out how to do it myself, and don't really have the time to do so right now, but shouldn't there be a redirection link to Final Fantasy (band) (which redirects to Owen Pallett)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellevc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's listed on Final Fantasy (disambiguation), which use to be at the top of the article, but was removed for some reason. I'll add it back in. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
Thanks a lot, Guyinblack25! Jellevc (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Anime

Does anyone know about an anime called Final Fantasy 10: Another Story? No mention of this is made in the article or derived articles. CFLeon (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X: Another Story is a short CG movie chronicling the events between FFX and FFX-2. I think it would have to be mentioned in the FFX article instead. — Blue。 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Section heading

I think the section titled Overview should have a different name. The article is referring to the whole media franchise, not the video games. However it seems that the section Overview refers to the games only. Maybe it should be changed to Overview of Final Fantasy games. However I am not sure if it should be included in this article. However I am not familiar with the Final Fantasy franchise so this may be a misunderstanding on my behalf. I would have changed it already if it weren't a Featured article. --Stinkypie (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see that the expansive list is being edited to remove the OR and such, but a lot of the references are made to specific Final Fantasy games, so I don't feel that they necessarily belong here because this is about the entire franchise in general. Zybthranger (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to condensing it even further into say a prose paragraph that just discusses its role in popular culture using the kinds of sources found at Google Books that discuss its role in popular culture rather than dwelling on the specific examples of a list. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the addition of this section, but I have to take issue with the structure and some of the sourcing.
  • The number of subsections gives undue weight to the whole pop culture section. Switching to prose would be a better fit with the whole article.
  • I think the descriptions should be more condensed to talk in more general terms. See Space Invaders#In popular culture and Pong#In popular culture for examples.
  • Several others are somewhat trivial by comparison: hair styles in MK, the Kingdom Hearts references (already in "Direct sequels and spin-offs" section), and the two sports references.
  • I believe Ars Technica is a blog and would need to establish the author as an industry expert.
  • I've never seen Slam Sports before, but it's reliability would need to be established too. However, if the Sabin reference goes, then there's no issue.
Other than the above issues, I don't see anything wrong with having the section. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

Origin

I've found something in this article that bothers me a bit, as I had never heard it told this way, but I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt instead of out right deleting it. The origin section of this article states, "as Sakaguchi planned to retire after completing the project, it was named Final Fantasy," and then gives two references to back this statement up.

The first reference is (Berardini, César A. (2006-04-26). "An Introduction to Square-Enix". TeamXbox. IGN. Retrieved 2007-09-29.), but it clearly states that the reason for naming the game "Final" was because it was Square's last ditch attempt to stay out of bankruptcy.

Reference Text: "Sakaguchi, who at the time was the company’s president, knew this would be his final chance to save the company, so he picked the term “Final” for what could very well have been Square’s last game."

The second is ("Developer Bio - Hironobu Sakaguchi". MobyGames. Retrieved 2007-09-29.), and I find it questionable at best. MobyGames is an open project to which anyone can contribute. (See their about us page.) WP:SPS says, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." The text itself seems to be a little embellished, so I'm not certain how useful it actually is as a source.

Reference text: "Square's games were not very successful at the time, so with the remaining money available, he decided to make his final game and retire from the industry, or so he planned. This final game was called Final Fantasy, which sold a lot better than anyone (including himself) anticipated."

So my problem is this: one source doesn't back this up at all, and the other doesn't meet Wikipedia reliability requirements. Does that mean the statement is wrong, especially since I have never heard it this way? No. But Can anyone find any reliable sources saying otherwise? KhalfaniKhaldun 04:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Moby Games does have limited editorial oversight, but you're right, it shouldn't be used to source that content. It's fine for the second citation for Sakaguchi's game credits. I believe there's a print source and a GT video for the retirement source. I'll look into it later. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))

The series name, Final Fantasy, is often attributed to Square’s dependence on the product as its last throw of the dice – but the truth, says Sakaguchi, was that it was his personal last effort.

— http://www.developmag.com/news/28960/Sakaguchi-discusses-the-development-of-Final-Fantasy

Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've updated the references for that section. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

New game

In the latest issue of V-Jump, there are the first glimpses of the new game Final Fantasy Gaiden: The Four Warriors of Light (ファイナルファンタジー外伝:光の4戦士, Fainaru Fantajī Gaiden: Hikari no Shisenshi).Fractyl (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NES vs. Famicom

I've had to correct this twice now. The second and third games were originally released on the Famicom, NOT the NES. It doesn't matter that the NES was the American/Canadian/European equivelant of the Famicom, they were two different systems. You can't stick a famicom cartridge into a NES, and you can't stick a NES cartridge into a Famicom. There was NEVER a release of FF II or III that would run on a Nintendo Entertainment System, so saying they were released on the NES is simply NOT correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WraithTDK (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree there are several prominent differences, they are same system. The reason the different cartridges don't work is mainly because of a regional lock out system that was designed to prevent unauthorized games for the system. Most other differences are minor technical upgrades (the two systems were released two years from each other) and tweaks to appeal to specific regions. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
I agree with Guyinblack. They're localized versions of the same thing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That may be, but the bottom line is that the NAME of the system they were released for was The Famicom, not the NES. Therefore, saying they were released for the NES is wrong. To say that a game was released for the NES implies that the US/Can/Brit version of the systme could play these games, and they couldn't. I understand that the NES and the Famicom were virtually identical, however, the name Nintendo Etertainment System applies SOLELY to the western version, which could NOT play games made for the Famicom, which was the Japanese version. Therefore, saying that a game was released on the NES implies it was available for the Western system. This. Is. Wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of easily verifiable fact. Grab a NES. Try to play Final Fantasy II or III. You can't. Wikipedia standards says all content must be verifiable. What I'm saying is. WraithTDK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
Wraith- with all due respect, I wouldn't try to plug a Final Fantasy III cartridge in an NES because I know they don't work together. The software and hardware are still the same though. There's just an additional bit of hardware to prevent piracy. I understand the argument you're presenting, but I think it's more a debate about semantics than accuracy.
It is not the job of this article to explain the difference between the variants. Labeling them as two different things can create confusion for the general English-speaking reader. If they want the details about the release, they can read up on Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, and Nintendo Entertainment System. They same goes for the SNES releases, details can be found in the respective articles. That's what the wikilinks are for. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC))
Alright, 1. You just got through saying that a FFIII cart and a NES would not work together. If they wouldn't work together, then saying FFIII was released FOR the NES is factually inaccurate. 2. Actually, there' more than just an additional bit of hardware to prevent piracy. That may be the only difference internally, but the shell of the systems are also different, as are the shape of the cartridge. A famicom cartridge litterally would not fit in a NES. 3. Labeling the systems as two different things may cause minor confusion about the nature of the Famicom; however, I should point out that A. The purpose of this page is not to educate people about Nintendo hardware. The purpose of this page is to provied the most factually accurate information about Final Fantasy games available. Your version is not factually accurate. The linked NES page (which Famicom redirects to) would clear up any misconception, should the reader chose to look into it. B.I also contend that your version causes confusion, as anyone who does not know the difference between a Famicom and a NES would be led to believe that somewhere out there are FFII & FFIII cartridges that would work in the grey box they have tucked away in their basement. This is not the case. 3. Yes, they can read up on the release details by going to the game's individual page. However, by that exact same logic, if people want details on what a Famicom is, they can get details for that on the NES page. As you said "That's what wikilinks are for." WraithTDK (talk)
Wraith- I still believe we are debating trivial semantics. There are regional differences for numerous electronics. I fail to see why this one is so special in an article that only gives a small description of it. If this were the NES article, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But this article is meant to give an overview of the Final Fantasy franchise to an average English-speaking/reading end user. Because of that, we have to avoid diverging on a tangent about a term that is meant for a non-English-speaking region.(Guyinblack25
1. If the issue is, to you, a matter of trivial semantics, then WHY is it so important to you that it end up being YOUR way? If it's really a matter of trivial semantics, the it shouldn't really be that important, in which case you shouldn't care. 2. Yes, there are regional differences in many electronics. For example, a PS2 in Europe plays games in PAL format, while the PS2s in America play NTSC. In this case, you are talking about two of the exact same systems, and you would use the name PS2, because it is accurate. However, with FFII & FFIII, you are talking about two visibly distinguishable machines that not only will not play each other's cartridges, but were given different names by their manufacterer. The NES was the grey square cube that most americans over the age of twenty are familiar with. It played NES games. And ONLY NES games. It did NOT play Famicom games, and thus did NOT play FFII or FFIII, which means that saying that either of them were released for it is incorrect. We don't have to go off on a tagent to explain what the Famicom was; that's why the Famicom Wikilink redirects to NES. If anyone is unfamiliar with the Famicom, they can click on the link and find out what it was. Like I said, the goal of the Final Fantasy page should be to educate on Final Fantasy, as accurately as possible, not to make sure people know their console history. WraithTDK (talk)
Regardless of that, WP:OVERLINK states that multiple links to the same article should be avoided. Having those two links together like that will cause confusion to the laymen. So again, I ask you to please to stop reverting things before the discussion is over. If you feel that these practices does not accurately depict the information. I suggest you take it up with other video game editors at WT:VG to get more point of views. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC))
Fine, then keep the one link. Regardless, you continue to bring up Wikipedia's lesser rules and concerns, but seem to be ignoring the major one: a Wikipedia article should be as accurate as possible, and saying that FFII and FFIII were released on a system that can not play them violates this goal. Perhaps YOU should take the matter up with other editors. I again fail to understand why you continously point "the way things are supposed to be on Wikipedia" but expect ME to make all the concessions.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

Errr... What confusion will it make if the article says Famicom but noy NES? Did not follow the editting, but the discussion itself is confusing. MythSearchertalk 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I argued that the details behind the differences between the Japanese Nintendo Family Computer and the Western Nintendo Entertainment System are not needed to understand this topic. Such information will create a divergence in the topic that can be avoided by using the system's common English name.
Wraith argued that not showing the difference will misinform people into thinking that the games are universally compatible across regions. That is how I've interpreted it anyhow. Wraith may or may not agree with my description of his argument. More point of views would be appreciated, because it's mainly been Wraith and me going back and forth. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC))
Not exactly what I argued. I never advocated talking about the differences between the two systems. I simply stated that because FFII and FFIII were only released on the Famicom and not the NES, the article should say they were released on the Famicom. Seesm like common sense to me. WraithTDK (talk)
Okay, I understand what is going on now. I don't have a strong preference, but since I am a more technical person, I lean more towards Wraith's position than yours. More accuracy is always appreciated but I also agree with your point that it is not always necessary. I, however, do not really know if the westerners are not familiar with the name Famicom or not. If most people understands the word, it might just be a simple solution to change the wording like Wraith suggested, just for ending the argument. MythSearchertalk 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe most Western gamers over a certain age are aware of the term, but I'd say the general public is ignorant to it. That's why I'm opposed to including it, as I think it will create more confusion than if the terms are omitted.
Also, I don't really see using only NES as an inaccuracy, but rather a generalization. For instance, we don't take regional lockout into account for other articles about specific SNES or PlayStation games. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC))
I would argue in favor of saying SuperFamicom for games that were not released on the SNES, but I'm not interested in opening a whole fresh can of worms on that topic. As for the Playstation; that's not really the same thing, as in Japan, the Playstation is still called the Playstation (well, whatever the closest Japanese translation of Playstation might be). You don't have two very different looking systems with two different names, each of which have certain games in their libraries that are exclusive to them. WraithTDK (talk)
As I am not an expert on this(and probably bias due to the fact that I am an Asian and are familiar with both systems) I guess I do not have much more input on this. However, I would suggest trying to have consensus in the related wiki project and make it a guideline, it will reduce future arguments, hopefully. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wraith- I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#NES vs Famicom. Please respond to further comments there. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Layout

If you ask me the layout of what games went in which order on what consoles is totally incomprehensable. I can't tell which games are for which consol. I think that it could be layed out a lot better. Fire Emblem has a good example with it's chart under the games section. Just tweak it some and the article would look a lot less like a text block and be easier to read. 64.123.206.72 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the prose does not lend itself to easy information about the games' releases. But that is not the intention of that segment. The article is meant to convey an overview of the Final Fantasy franchise as well as its history and impact. Such info about specific releases are less relevant to this topic. I suggest checking out List of Final Fantasy media for that information. It is more suited to that purpose. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
K. Thanks. 64.123.206.72 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A few issues

A quick run through Checklinks shows a few links with redirects and one link which doesn't appear to go to an article at all, stated as a server error:

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Final_Fantasy

Not too big but should be attended to. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the link issues except for two from GameInformer.com. Since they switched to a new format, I think all their old content is gone. The new format looks to still be in a beta phase. So I'm not sure when the old content will return if ever. I checked archive.org for old versions, but nothing came up. I'm out of ideas. Everything should be fixed. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

FF XIV

The article states that FF XIV is to be released on PS3 and PC, where it has been released that it will be released on XBOX 360 as well.Kilshin (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you can provide an official press release and/or other reliable source to back up your claims? --The Taerkasten (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a criticism section?

Honestly now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Honk2234 (talk • contribs)

You're welcome to make one, just make sure it is properly sourced or it will be promptly removed. SpigotMap 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The "Reception" section already features a mix of praise and criticism. A separate section solely for criticism would probably violate WP:NPOV. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
I agree. I can't see any reason that we need a criticism section when we already have a critical response section.--76.69.167.254 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Crystals

I tried loading the video that was used as a reference, but I couldn't, so I was curious about what they had to say about the common use of "crystals" in the series. The only games in the series I have a general knowledge about are I, VII and X, and in those if I remember correctly, they didn't utilize crystals per se, but "orbs", "materia" and the "sphere grid system".

I think it would be a good idea to give some ideas on the specific variations of this theme, and i'll try to research more of the other games myself, but if someone else knows more than me about all the games, perhaps that could improve the article more effectively. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The video stated that Final Fantasy III, IV, V, VI, IX, XI, and XII feature crystals. While Final Fantasy I first used orbs, this was later changed to crystals in remakes/re-releases. The video also drew a parallel to the materia, but not so much with the spheres in X and X-2. However, it also stated, "10 and half [not sure where the half comes from though] of the 12 Final Fantasies have used crystals or orbs to serve as the emotional link to the planet's life force."
To further clarify, the whole caption was less about the crystals and more about illustrating themes in Final Fantasy V that are common to the whole series: collecting crystals (or orbs), save the world, and defeat an ancient evil.
Let me know what ideas have about the caption. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
I think if someone could give some brief, specific half sentence examples of them in the series, that would be enough for someone not familiar with the subject. After all, all the games in the series have characters that use swords and magic, but that doesn't make it unique in the RPG world -- broad concepts aren't good here. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What about this for the caption:
"Final Fantasy V is typical of the series in that the heroes must retrieve crystals to save the world from an ancient evil. Shown is the character King Tycoon approaching the Wind Crystal, one of four elemental Crystals that controls wind currents and is linked to the world's creation."
Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Sales discrepencies

Regarding overall series sales figures, there should definitely be "more than/over" before the figures listed as they are inaccurate. Firstly it states by August 2003 there was 45m total sales. I calculate (based on the wikipedia entries for the games released prior to then) it's conservatively 67m. This is further strengthened by the strange 18m increase by the next figure in December 2005 despite there being no significant release in that time period. Only Crystal Chronicles & Before Crisis, there should have only been a 2m increase. There is absolutely no chance that older titles accumulated 16m sales, video games don't sell like that. Since I cannot beat the official cited sources, it would be best if the earlier ones are just deleted as they are unnecessary. 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.226.234 (talk)

Sorry, but I disagree. While I agree the lack of details leaves room for doubt, there were a number of releases between August 11, 2003 and December 19, 2005 in addition to Crystal Chronicles and Before Crisis.
Another important piece of information is that the press releases talk about the "franchise", rather than the solely the video game series. The franchise can encompass all the other media, like Final Fantasy VII Advent Children (September 14, 2005 in Japan), Final Fantasy: Unlimited (October 28, 2003 in North America and March 15, 2004 in PAL regions), and printed media.
I agree that we can't know with any certainty because we don't have Square Enix's sales records in front of us, but I see no reason to doubt the increase between the two dates. And given that the numbers are press releases from Square Enix, I see no reason to doubt the source. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

KH a spin-off?

Bread Ninja recently made an edit removing KH from the list of spin-offs. This was quickly reverted. However, I'm not entirely sure whether or not KH counts as one. Crossovers can hardly be considered spin-offs... TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe developers and third-party sources have considered it so. That's why its listed as such. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC))
Really? That's something to think about. Anyway, the spin-off page defines it as a work that derives from an existing work, so I guess KH counts. Spin-offs aren't strictly a change in narrative viewpoint set in the same fictional universe? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume not. The Final Fantasy games don't follow the traditional definition of a sequel either, but they are considered as such. We just go by what the sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
Gotcha. Thanks for clearing this up for me. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Another source

Kotaku posted:

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact expansion

Just wanted to go through the recent expansion to the impact and legacy section. Unfortunately, the mix of the different sources and attribution made it difficult for me to sort through them. I would like to add much of it back, but think some scrutiny should be applied first.

Here is the new text with the new sources for it.

The game also introduced different methods of transportation, including a ship, canoe, and flying airship,[1] the latter inspired by Hayao Miyazaki's Castle in the Sky.[2] Final Fantasy II is considered the first sequel in the industry to omit characters and locations from the previous title,[REF] a concept influenced by Nihon Falcom's Dragon Slayer series,[3] which Square was previously involved with as a publisher.[4] Final Fantasy II also introduced an activity-based progression system,[5] which has been used in later RPG series such as SaGa,[6] Grandia,[7] and The Elder Scrolls.[8] Final Fantasy III introduced the job system, a character progression engine allowing the player to change the character classes, as well as acquire new and advanced classes and combine class abilities, at any time during the game.[9] Final Fantasy IV was an important milestone for the genre, introducing a dramatic storyline with a strong emphasis on character development and personal relationships,[10] as well as the Active Time Battle system, a hybrid of turn-based and real-time combat.[11]
  1. ^ Vestal, Andrew (1998-11-02). "The History of Console RPGs". GameSpot. Retrieved 2009-09-10. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Rogers, Tim (March 27, 2006). "In Defense of Final Fantasy XII". Edge. Next Generation. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  3. ^ John Harris (July 2, 2009). "Game Design Essentials: 20 RPGs - Dragon Slayer". Gamasutra. p. 13. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  4. ^ Kurt Kalata. "Dragon Slayer". Hardcore Gaming 101. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  5. ^ Roschin, Oleg (March 26, 2006). "The World of Asian RPGs". MobyGames. Retrieved 2009-09-10. {{cite web}}: |chapter= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Patrick Gann. "Romancing SaGa". RPGFan. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  7. ^ Francesca Reyes (November 4, 1999). "Grandia". IGN. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  8. ^ Jeremy Dunham (July 26, 2007). "Final Fantasy II Review". IGN. Retrieved 2011-03-02.
  9. ^ "Final Fantasy III". Na.square-enix.com. Retrieved 2010-09-13.
  10. ^ Kasavin, Greg (2005-12-12). "Final Fantasy IV Advance Review". GameSpot. Retrieved 2006-09-10.
  11. ^ "Final Fantasy Retrospective Part XIII". GameTrailers. 2007-11-02. Retrieved 2009-03-30.

The first thing that caught my eye were whether or not some sources were reliable.

  • MobyGames (To my knowledge, MobyGames is only considered reliable for developer credits.)
  • Hardcoregaming101

The second thing that stood out to me was if the impact section was the best place for some content.

  • Dragon Slayer info should maybe be moved to development.
  • Miyazaki info should maybe be moved to either development or gameplay
  • I don't think the Active Time Battle system needs to be explained again

The third thing is that I think we should attribute who made the claims. Not just with the above content, but most everything in this section.

Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Regarding MobyGames, I think it's the other way around: it is considered reliable for its articles, but not for its developer credits. As for Hardcore Gaming 101, the articles written by Kurt Kalata and John Szczepaniak, both of whom have are writers for mainstream gaming publications, are considered reliable. As for inspirations, you may be right that these should be moved to Development. ATB probably doesn't need another explanation, but it would be useful to provide some explanation regarding its impact on the genre. With this in mind, I think I'll have another go at re-writing that paragraph, keeping it relevant to the section. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Moby Games is listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4#MobyGames. Can't say I completely agree with it, but that's where things stand now.
Do you have more information about the two authors at Hardcore Gaming 101? What publications did they write for? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
I see. I wasn't aware of the recent decision to demote MobyGames from situational to unreliable. Nevertheless, I avoided restoring the MobyGames material, so that shouldn't be an issue here.
As for the Hardcore Gaming 101 writers, Kurt Kalata is a writer for Gamasutra, while John Szczepaniak is a writer for Retro Gamer and The Escapist.
Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Compilations in the aggregate scores.

I was wondering if we are supposed to be technical when adding games to the GameRankings/Metacritic table. Should we have the Dawn of Souls scores separately since it's still FF I and II, or should we not include it because they're compiled into one game? I'm also confused about Darkness's insistence on not counting the Dawn of Souls score while including the FFIV Complete Collection in it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No one? Anyway, either we keep both or get rid of both. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think it's got to be consistent either way. And I favor not having them since compilations skew the numbers.Ultimahero (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. Stand alone releases sounds like the best way to go. (Guyinblack25 talk 10:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC))

adding a paragraph about plot

I've been monitoring the Common elements of Final Fantasy article. With the exception of the section about plot, the entire article is about characters. My goal is to turn this into a Recurring characters of Final Fantasy or Character design of Final Fantasy article (which would be tough to reference, but not impossible based on what I've seen out there).

For that reason, I'd really like to move the section about plot to this article. Some of it is original research, but we could give it a good old try and then trim it back if necessary. Trust me that this small inconvenience to the series article will be better for the overall organization of FF articles. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just expanded the common elements section for this article to include some plot info. You could use it to expand Common elements of Final Fantasy#Plot if you want.
I get want you're saying about original research, there's really only one statement referenced, and one of the two references looks dubious. Tell you what, I'll add the statement about Gaia to this article and leave the rest up to you or the consensus reached here. If you want to further expand the common elements article with the plot sources, go for it. If you want to remove it entirely, go for it. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
Just so you don't think I'm trying to dump my garbage in someone else's backyard, I went to the effort of researching and referencing the section about plot. The idea would be to have a Plot, Characters, and Gameplay subsection under the Common Elements part... with the latter two subsections linking to more detailed articles on character and gameplay. Randomran (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll merge the plot section if you can find some more sources for this article's gameplay section. Every time I look at that section my head hurts. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

←(Un-indent) Excellent work on the gameplay article. I'll comb through it to make a condensed version for the main article. Quick question to clarify things, you want the whole "plot" section of Common elements of Final Fantasy to be removed and merge with the current content into a "plot" subsection of "Common elements"? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

I dont know where to post this, but I dont want to post it on the main page yet, however to main central theme in ALL final fantasy games as far as I can tell, is that the planet is actually a living being, and its "life" is threatened, by the antagonist, while the hero group (usually a rebel faction) is FATED to stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.215.62 (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta have sources. Besides, I think the current section already covers that stuff. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Androgynous and effeminate main characters"

I removed the first phrase in the "Characters" section since it stated that the main characters of the series are androgynous and effeminate, and increasingly so. First of all, such a statement is obviously biased and based on perception, and as such does not belong in a neutral article.

Secondly, "androgynous" means a person who is not distinctively male or female (which doesn't apply to any of the main characters in the series who are all clearly portrayed as one or the other), and "effeminate" means a person who acts womanly (which again only applies to female characters of the series).

Furthermore, the sources used to "back up" the claim were a review to a completely other game, a parody site and a random article from IGN. I know that sentence was only added in the article to rile up fans of the series, but I sincerely hope I won't see it there again after this. SamSandy (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't how the sources are unacceptable. Gamespy, IGN, and GameInformer are well-respected entities in the gaming community that satisfy WP:RS. Also, that statement was not added there to "rile up fans", it was added to provide information about recurring themes. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
I agree. Neutral point of view doesn't mean "positive point of view" or "cater to fans of the topic"; it means compile as many perspectives from reliable sources as possible to cover the topic as best as possible. I'm adding the sentences again. — Deckiller 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to third that opinion. There has to be a really really compelling reason for removing information that has been sourced to reliable third-party sources. Also, I might add that Character design of Final Fantasy was changed, and I went ahead and reverted the bold change for the same reason. Randomran (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is totally absurd, people. A chapter can't be based on something made-up like this - just read the sources and you see the words are only mentioned in passing in them by random people with no real credibility. I can understand that the main characters aren't buff, muscular studs like in Western games, but they're certainly not androgynous or effeminate either. You have to keep in mind what those words really mean - they are not equal to adolescent, skinny men. Besides, Final Fantasy is no different from any other JRPG in the sense of having young, teenage main characters in it, so pointing that out is pointless in itself.

The issue isn't about positive and negative perspectives, but of what's an objective truth and what's a biased opinion. Using such strong words as these is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. SamSandy (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of reliable sources and blogs calling certain male characters (and even entire casts!) "feminine": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]...I could list dozens more, perhaps hundreds if I widen the search parameters. It's simply a commonly accepted fact. In that FFXII interview, the designers even admit that they change characters' looks based on "trends" -- that "rugged...wasn't hip". "Effeminate" seems like a perfect word to use in this context (as many of these sources state); it means "having traits that are more often associated with traditional feminine gender roles rather than masculine roles". Long hair, melodramatic characterization, feminine figures (Kuja, for instance), crying, etc. are all considered non-masculine traits by many people, as these sites point out. Most of them just mention it in passing, which is why this page denotes only a sentence to it — and only as a "common element" to boot. Note that it's not considered a positive or negative thing; it's just reporting a common aspect of the characters as mentioned in numerous sources. — Deckiller 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sam, a few things-
  • We're talking about a single sentence, not a large chunk of text or chapter.
  • While you may not think the articles' writers are credible, they meet the Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source.
  • The fact that it is such a "controversial" (for lack of a better word) statement is the reason three sources were given in the first place. The multiple sources demonstrate that it is not a minority opinion.
  • We are well aware that "androgynous" and "effeminate" do not mean scrawny teenager. Those words are the original authors' words and were used because it adequately and concisely described the intended idea.
  • Though some of this information may seem obvious to you and other gamers, we are writing this article for those that have no knowledge of the topic. Mentioning common elements, even if they are shared by other games, is the point of the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." When writing articles, we are meant to provide a information in a neutral presentation. That includes "objective truth" and "biased opinions". So long as we keep things in proper proportion–like using a single sentence instead of a giant heading called "Girly characters"–neutrality is achieved.
I understand we'rewhere you're coming from. I think most of the FF characters are awesome; Tidus won me over despite his squeaky voice, silly outfit, and over-moused hair. But I can't deny the fact that some of them possess certain androgynous/effeminate qualities. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
I hate to say this, but it is kinda true, even if you bring out the WP:V statement, hoping it supports that verifiability does not mean truth. Sadly, it is a trend of ACG in Japan as a whole since this really attracts females nowadays, and video games, shonen manga and anime usually don't in the past and they really need the boost right now with all the economical depression and overthrowing merchandises. I must add the instance in FF VII where Cloud dressed like a women to seduce someone to get through a main plot, and he can actually beat 2 female team members at the time to do so if you do everything right.(or wrong, if you are in a negative perspective). MythSearchertalk 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
But why isn't the sentence "main characters possess effeminate qualities" instead of "main characters are androgynous and effeminate, and increasingly so"? It just sounds so... unencyclopedic, to me. And I still wouldn't count a reviewer's word as a reliable source when it comes to character design. As an example, I'm quite sure that in many FF X-2 reviews Yuna is described as "skanky" and whatnot, yet her article here doesn't say "Yuna is a skank". Can you see the difference here? SamSandy (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there's definitely room for a copy-edit, to avoid too much hyperbole, and avoid a judgmental tone. But we just don't remove verifiable information because one person finds it controversial. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to reflect this discussion. — Deckiller 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, while all the sources are western views, I will have to say that these characters are actually quite similar to the average body build of Asians male. Asians are possibly genetically harder to build up visible muscles or simply less people are interested in building them. The sad thing is, it is almost impossible to get a counter view from the eastern side since it is very not likely that anyone would comment on things they think are normal, and the neutrality could never be achieved simply because of that. So to a certain level, this part would be of western bias no matter how much reliable source is found. FF series compared to the large shoujo manga market is quite normal, actually. MythSearchertalk 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, this whole situation is absurd! Sam's right, the sentence is altogether ridiculous, and I'm sure whoever wrote it there was a troll or vandal. I'm not saying it should be outright removed, but it can at least be changed to sound more... educated? To me, calling the characters "androgynous" seems like more of an insult to the creators of the characters. It also represents a very Western view, as Mythsearcher pointed out. The average Asian build usually does not compensate for a muscular body, so the sentence may also be seen as sort of a racial stereotype. I'm erasing the sentence from the article until a consensus can be reached. Anonymous reader (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the trolls/vandals here- Rather than delete a statement that has been sourced by several sources independent of the creators, how about you suggest the more "educated" wording. This can be discussed; constant removal and reverting is not needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
I deleted the sentence again, on my first time visiting this wiki, I feel that such a statement contributes nothing to the overall value of the article, and is akin to stating things like "several Final Fantasy games feature characters" Or more accurately "There are often both male and female characters with varying characteristics" The fact that effeminate characters are present in the series, is not up for debate, we know there are very feminine male characters in final fantasy, but every game also features the typical "manly men" and I feel that presence of these feminine characters should not define the game, and that people without an in depth knowledge of final fantasy would be misinformed with the presence of such information in this section of the article.
Um... it's backed up with reliable sources. It's a common element. It adds to the article. Consensus is to keep it. No one is saying that androgynous characters define the game. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend deleting the word 'androgynous' for two reasons. First, I know it's sourced but the article only makes mention of it in passing. It's reviewing a completely different game and simply makes a passing reference. I'm not sure that's enough to build on. Besides, none of the other sources utilize 'androgynous'. They use the term 'effeminate'. Secondly, and much more importantly, 'androgynous' can have several different meanings. According to dictionary.com, it can mean 1)being both male and female; hermaphroditic; 2)having both masculine and feminine characteristics; or 3)having an ambiguous sexual identity. I think the source was using 'androgynous' in the 2nd sense, but unfortunately the article doesn't clarify. Will the average reader see that word and think that the main characters are hermaphrodites? Or that you can't really be sure whether they're men or women? Androgynous does carry those meanings so I think it could be confusing. Plus, if all that's meant is "having both male and female characteristics", then isn't it redundant to say both effeminate and androgynous? Thus, because "androgynous" is only used in passing in a single source and would either be confusing or redundant, I believe it should be removed.Ultimahero (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well... I seen the sense in that. That means Project Sylpheed ref should be removed as well. The other two sources already deal with the effeminate-ness well enough, and, like you said, that ref doesn't exactly cover the topic at hand very much. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, the other two sources make the point sufficiently. The Project Sylpheed, while it meeting Wikipedia standards, doesn't really add anything. It just makes it potentially more confusing.Ultimahero (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
And it's done. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure refs with videos like GameTrailers can be archived. Can videos be loaded when they are archived? T.R.Elven (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia entry on WebCite says that all web content can be, but I didn't find such a statement one way or the other at www.webcitation.org. I'm not that familiar with the service, but I'm sure there those that are at WT:VG. You'll probably find an answer there. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

I will try there, thanks. T.R.Elven (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Some parts are not showing up in the article, and some are not showing up when editing

Sequels and spin-offs part isn't showing anywhere in the main article, but it shows up when I try to edit the article. On the other hand, there's a spam message ("PPPPPPPPPPPPPRRRRRREEEEEEPPPPPPAAAARRRRREEEE TTTOOO DIIIIIIIE"---meta knight"I AM WARIO I CHARGE THROUGH MY ENEMIES AND SYRUP STOLE MY COINS SO I HAVE TO GET THEM BACK BEFORE SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM) which is in the article page, and it doesn't show up when I try to edit it out. I've tried loading the page in the latest versions of Opera and Firefox, and no dice. 93.87.135.120 (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now, thanks. SG2090 20:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Returners RPG

There is a tabletop version of Final Fantasy, available for free with a bit of digging. If someone could start at least a brief mention of it. There are actually two: one is caled ZODIAC, and is much simpler than the one by Returners. Both are fan-made, with no affiliation with or approval from Square Enix. In my opinion, the Returners version (which goes by the simple moniker The Returners Final Fantasy RPG) is worth an honorable mention: it is incredibly well-made, includes races and jobs from just about every core entry in the series and executes an amazing translation from console to tabletop. To be honest, the workmanship of the core rulebook, which is 411 pages long, trumps that of the Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks, as do the width and diversity of the mechanics.Daganolson (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy is not a role playing game

It's a turn-based third-person shooter with cut scenes. Players are not playing "roles" in this game any more than if they were playing as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider. In fact, we're a long way from role-playing in video games altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.116 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourceless and biased and untrue accusation. Computer RPGs, especially JRPGs are mostly like FF and DQ(being the two most profilic JRPGs) and when you call FF a TPS, and turn based, obviously you have little understanding to those terms as well.(given that most ATB early FFs are NOT turn based at all anyway). I've seen your not RPG argument in the RPG article as well, its simply a POV highly biased towards a specific meaning of role playing and either tries to push the term role playing to both extremes to either a very limited meaning, or a too general meaning. Yes, you take a role as the protagonist in an RPG, and no matter how you say you always take a role in all games including FPS, ACT games, those games don't label themselves as RPGs, and earlier games when they establish the genre names don't have as much plot in those as RPGs, and in most of those, you can even have different characters facing the same plot as the same character. The difference from ADV games is that most RPGs you get something equivalent to leveling, which you, as the specific role, can choose to face challenges without leveling up, or you can choose to level up to boringly high level before continuing. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Game genres have already been defined, you can't re-write history. Why don't you re-name Classicism, Romanticism and Utilitarianism while you're at it. Jainsworth16 (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In reference to video games, an RPG is not a game where you play a role. It is a game in which character development is based on the acquisition of Experience Points (or, in examples such as Final Fantasy XIII, advancement on a skill tree in place of a leveling system). The initial argument is completely invalid.Daganolson (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Role playing is a term that came long before video game publishers redefined it for their own purposes. I suppose I should say that it is only in video game RPGs where you could call it role playing. It's not role playing in the strictest sense at all. Not the least bit. But since companies can simply decide to redefine terms for marketing and hyping, then they have the unusual authority to change our language and enjoy support from their loyal fans. But it will only ever be "role playing" in a video game RPG carrying a different meaning and sense. Role playing, before RPG video games screwed up the term, does not exist in Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy's version of "role playing" does. But that version has no historical support or basis. At all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.116 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Somebody's creating (literally) fan fiction articles, removing my speedy delete tags

Like at Final Fantasy Pair: Cloud and Lightning. --Niemti (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of release years

I think it would look nice if the Timeline of release years had a border. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues with info box

I am worried about the user called G-Zay. He has been putting in large amounts of detail in this article's info box that does not really have a proper place there and makes the article look untidy and a little clumsy. The edits seem to be done in good faith, but they are too much info for the sections they are being put in. Here are a couple of examples:this one and this one here. I was wondering if this issue, together with others on various Final Fantasy articles involving this user, could be resolved here without dragging it into the Wikipedia:VG talk area or causing an edit war. Try to avoid another Neimti incident (but I am not suggesting that G-Zay is anything like Neimti. Far from it). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your concern. I can agree that my initial edit for the info box of this page had too much information. However, you pointed that out to me and I took your advice and made a far more streamlined edit. I believe this version of the edit is very important as it portrays who was the main creator/designer of each game in the FF series. Sure, Hironobu Sakaguchi created the series, but he was not the main creator/designer of every game in the series. I think the info box needs to portray this important distinction. Also, the composers are irrelevant to the info box so I have removed them. What's most important is the main creator/designer of each of the FF games. If people want to know who composed then they should visit the specific page of the FF game in question. I hope I have addressed your concern. Warm regards. --G-Zay (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have seen your latest edit, and taken in conjunction with the reasons you gave, I think it can be left how it is right now (that is with your current edits in the info box), unless another editor decides otherwise, but that's another issue. It actually looks alright, though it may get a little tricky when we have to put in the creator/game designer for Final Fantasy XX, but that's another story far in the future. Thank you for this, it's been good to see how you do your work, and it helps me understand the Wikipedia workings better. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is confusing/avoiding this issue at all, so just WHO were the creators of the various characters?

Besides the two cases where actually there was a creator line. --Niemti (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see people agreeing with creating categories for all the people who have designed so-and-so character(s) in Final Fantasy games. They can be put into the articles or sections concerning the characters, unless one designer who has an article on Wikipedia has created more than one character, such as the two you have mentioned. If they are missed out, that can easily be rectified. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Layout (2)

Most of this article is quite nicely laid out. There is plenty of info and it's relatively easy to find as it's is all neatly organized into sections, sub-sections and sub-categories. All except... "Other Media". For some reason, another editor insists that multiple media types be lumped together into one paragraph. Though an attempt was made to organize this, is was quickly reverted. While considering another way to approach this, I see that this editor has now made more edits... adding back the reverted edits under his own name. How nice. For that, I don't really care but... this section still needs to be divided into sub-cats to make content easier to find. As almost ALL the other sections on this page are divided as such so, I'm at a loss to understand why this editor insists this section remain anonymously congested. I'm sure this has all been done in good faith, so perhaps together we can work something out so as to improve the article for everyone. - thewolfchild 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess I was a little hasty. The thing that had struck me was that the section was divided up even more than it is now, and the sentence about Advent Children and Last Order was just split in half, without the needed restructure and repair (or references, but that problem was there already). I guess I could have done the alterations and added the references without grouping who section together again. My mistake. Sorry if I seemed to be lording it over this page: it was quite unintentional and I was doing it in good faith, however misguided that faith was. I was tired and I was... well, not in the best state to be editing on Wikipedia. Plus, I had a proper look at the rest of the article, and it is divided up in a similar way: yeah, I was a real dingbat. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Localization

I was thinking through this in hte aftermath about this piece of news about a game in the series, and I think there should be some kind of section about the history of the series' localization (if the information can be found, that is). Any thoughts about what it would say? --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wii

The article's infobox mentions the series also being available on Wii, however the article doesn't mention anything else regarding any games on Wii. 84.104.16.217 (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Several of the older games have been on the Wii Virtual Console. and while not part of the main series Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers was on the system as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Regarding some of the new references put in. Ref 36 looks to be a blog, and probably shouldn't be used as a reference. Ref 37 and 38 are fine, but the full book information using a citation template would be best.
Here's the info and template needed: {{cite book| year = | title = | publisher = | language = Japanese| isbn= }}.
Just put that info in between the ref tags and that should take care of it. This is a minor detail, but it is best to nitpick to keep FAs from falling into disrepair. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

It is not a blog, but a website. It is also the largest square-enix fan site in China, original name of the site is actually square.cn. They released the url address to the official square-enix company after the merge of square and enix. MythSearchertalk 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, when I clicked on the link it brought up an error page. So I tried www.ffsky.com.cn and it redirected to www.ffsky.com.cn/blog. Either way, if it's a fan site, it we probably can't use it either. Do you happen to know of a gaming network review, or a printed source that would mention the content? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Well, it is a secondary source, stating that the books talked about it and having 3 walkthroughs on how to finish the FFV with low level characters. One even calculated the total EXP gained in game that is a must to have. And sorry, I placed a wrong site, it is [www.ffsky.com ffsky.com], not .com.cn(the .com site got a .cn news mirror and I got confused...) MythSearchertalk 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note:fixed wrong link. Again, sorry for using the wrong url. MythSearchertalk 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.... the fact that it is a fan site kind of discredits it. Let me see what I can find in some reviews. Thanks for adding the Ultimania reference info. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
As long as it is a source with editorial oversight, it should have its credits, they seems to be a registered company anyway, their register number is 05003107. And citations? The more the merrier :) It would be best to be able to find a English citation, that would help a lot. MythSearchertalk

The new tweaking is good, but the problem is that it looked like only the two referenced titles have such feature, while V, VI, VIII, IX, X-2 and XII also having such feature(I am not sure about X). It is almost a common element of the series by now. MythSearchertalk 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We can always use more Ultimania books to cite it. I've got a few strategy guides at home I can check too. Besides, since it's only a general statement, the references need not be that in depth. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Well, as I recall, the Ultimania guides started in the PS generation(i.e. VII), thus V and VI need other sources. I got a set of two books that is a collection of I to VI, it should have the info, but it will take probably quite some time before I can find them. Usually Japanese game guides got a list of enemies with EXP, I guess any guide will do in this situation then. MythSearchertalk 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've got the FF Anthology guide at home, even though it is for the PS release, it should still cover V and VI. I'll take care of it once I get home later today. Like you said, the more citations, the merrier. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
famitsu interview i'm just putting this here so i can remember. Lucia Black (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added it to a refideas template at the top, if it helps. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Topic put up for removal

Resolved

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles has been put up for removal here. Zginder 2008-06-10T18:20Z (UTC)

Question about the timeline

How was the timeline on this article originally created? —017Bluefield (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Update Needed

The ratings table in the reception section needs updating for Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, which was rated as a different game because it basically is to much greater reception than the original: 79% from Gamerankings and an 83 Metacritic. Gamerankings Metacritic I'd do it myself but I took one look at the syntax in there and went "naaaah, I don't have that kind of time."50.46.146.127 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Fandom

Why isn't there a section in the article about how blind, stupid, and rabid the Final Fantasy fanbase is? It's a pretty prominent issue that affects a lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.179.47 (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Because calling people 'blind, stupid and rabid' is A) extremely POV, B) not in any way encyclopedic, and C) entirely original research. Not to mention it's just nasty name-calling, which has no place on Wikipedia. 24.108.102.4 (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Fantasy. 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:

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

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) 23:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Final Fantasy. 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:

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) 05:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts should not be classified as a Final Fantasy spin-off

Kingdom Hearts should not be classified as a Final Fantasy spinoff. Not only is Kingdom Hearts under the ownership of The Walt Disney Company as opposed to Square Enix, but the Final Fantasy elements in Kingdom Hearts are served as re-imagined Easter eggs and cameos as oppose to elements that directly link to the Final Fantasy franchise. Plus, with games like Dream Drop Distance and 0.2 Birth by Sleep, Final Fantasy elements are non-existent. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources treat it as a spin-off. Quickly googled up a few but there are many more: [18][19][20]. There's no doubt that its a related series, even if direct Final Fantasy references have become less. -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I see. But from a legal standpoint, is it still considered a spin-off if the spin-off is owned by a different company from the primary franchise? For example, Langrisser is owned by Extreme Games, whilst its "spin-off", Growlanser is owned by Atlus. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Being a spinoff has nothing to do with legal ownership. It's still based (at least in part) on the original work regardless of who owns it. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Bravely Default as a Final Fantasy Spin-off

I personally think it qualifies, but was wondering what others thought. Development started as a sequel to a Final Fantasy game, it heavily borrows from the classic Final Fantasy games, and its characters even appear in the mobile game Final Fantasy: Brave Exvius. Though, if it did qualify, it would be already included in the article by now, right? 2602:304:CE75:7580:18FB:DDD2:7C74:F934 (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You need sources that refer to it specifically as a spin off. If the sources don't see it as such, we can't include it, even if it seems to make sense. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
A good point. This interview with Tomoya Asano [21] goes into its origins as a Final Fantasy title, which is a good place to begin. I'll try to find some more sources though, unless that is enough. 2602:304:CE75:7580:18FB:DDD2:7C74:F934 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Could this be considered a suitable source? [22] With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's a single person's opinion, not an industry-held accepted fact. You would need to find at least more than this to have it re-added. Its origins as a FF title doesn't make it a spin-off by default either. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
See GameSpot interview with Tomoya Asano describing it as a sequel to FF: The 4 Heroes of Light. Also, it should be noted that the game uses the same assets as in the final fantasy series, (items, some classes and such). Also US Gamer discussing the simularities. Even if it's never been described as a full spin-off, there is enough information for it to be labelled in the prose. I will leave it to you, however, as I realize this is already a high-quality article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 08:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  
Asano stated that it was "originally envisioned as a sequel", but changed course during development. Sure, that's a way more weighted claim than some critic's opinion in a review, but is this still enough to consider it a spin-off in the way the SaGa or Kingdom Hearts series are, which have numerous direct ties and crossovers with the series? Some discarded plot and design elements from Final Fantasy VII ended up being used in Parasite Eve and Xenogears, so could they be considered spinoffs too using the same logic? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth IGN also compare it as a spin off as do kotaku Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The IGN link directly mentions it as a spin-off, but the Kotaku one is yet another review that just compares it to it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"introduced many concepts"

It is mentioned several times that the games introduced many concepts common to rpg's. Some examples would be nice. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 10:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree, it's probably better to say that it popularized certain concepts in RPGs, as franchises such as Dragon Quest predate it and already had most examples you could come up with. Turn-based gameplay? Strong use of thematic music? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Always better placed to say: popularized many RPG concepts, than to say they introduced them. Maybe ATB? Summons? You'd need actual proof they were the first ever games to use a particular system to say they have introduced them, rather than popularize. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I would have said ATB, but I can't even think of another non-Square RPG series that uses this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Thank you for rewording it to "popularized". It would still be nice to give some examples. You seem to have a good grasp of the subject, can you name a few? As far as i'm concerned, this is a small but interesting detail and the popularity of the franchise and how it popularized (j)rpg's is pretty clear, so no extensive references are needed. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 12:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd actually make the argument, that it popularized JPRPGs in general, so anything involved with that. It certainly popularized the magic triangle, and certainly enemy specific scores. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it popularized the genre as a whole, rather than specific concepts. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone put more images into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katy Park (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

PSA: Capitalization

I don't feel like hunting through every FF article on Wikipedia to apply grammar fixes, so let me drop a quick note for future consideration: The names of species are not proper nouns and are thus not subject to capitalization. A species is just a species, be it a human, a cat, a dog or even a moogle. So please refrain from capitalizing such terms as moogle, elf, dwarf, chocobo and especially human. (Indeed, as curious as it may seem, some editors have taken it upon themselves to capitalize all instances of human within some articles.)

A couple of exceptions to this is the names of ethnic designations and formally established tribes, as these would very much register as proper nouns. For instance, the names of the four tribes of playable characters in Crystal Chronicles. (But note that non-tribal species such as moogles are still not proper nouns.)

And for absolute clarity, I should probably point out that the classifications of any and all monster species are most definitely not proper nouns either. (e.g. A lamia is no more a proper noun than a gargoyle or a giant.)

Thank you. 75.63.209.97 (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FFVIIInavigation.png

File:FFVIIInavigation.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

There are some inconsistencies between what appear to be the intended "rules of inclusion", if you will, and what is actually included in the Timeline chart. There isn't really a set of rules, so I'm going to propose them here as I understand them based on commented sections of the timeline that say not to include sequels such as "All direct sequels are omitted from this list."

  1. Only include main series games.
  2. Do not include direct sequels or expansion packs (e.g. X-2).
  3. Do not include redirects or red links(similar to Navbox Template guidelines in WP:NAV) — wait for page to exist before inclusion.
  4. Use the first publication of the game, and omit any remakes, re-releases, remasters, overhauls, etc. (e.g. FF:I&II and FF:XIV).

I removed entries that conflict with the commented notes: XI expanions (all are redirects to XI anyway), I&II Dawn of Souls, XII: Skateboarding, XII Advent Children, XIII: Zodiac Age.
Alternatively, if we want to include direct sequels, we need to add X-2, XIII-2, and Lightning Returns. Those that were present (VII games, XII: Revenant Wings) have only been commented out for easy restoration if decided here. (I'd still recommend keeping remasters, redirects, and expansion packs out.) -2pou (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Final Fantasy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Final Fantasy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Final Fantasy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

KH is not a spin-off.

Discussion has ended. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Kingdom Hearts is not a Final Fantasy spin-off: they are two separate universes. Even the characters of FF present in the series are in fact modified to accommodate a new and different role in the plot, like Squall, who in KH calls himself Leon and for example in II has the purpose of reconstructing his native world, or the radiant Garden . Yiucjb50 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed and reliable secondary sources refer to it as a spin off. That's all there is to it. Stop removing it. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written according to what reliable sources say on the matter, not your personal perceptions on how the universes are constructed. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Ferret--do you mind if I jump in, since, you know, I had dessert and did the dishes already? Yiucjb50, you are this close to being blocked. You're fighting over something against consensus on a website that has very specific rules, and that you don't exactly know what those rules are means we'll cut you some slack, but it also means you should maybe LISTEN to what others say.

    Now, ferret protected the article; in my view this is unnecessary since there is disruption coming from only one editor: you. Ordinarily, I'd say that if you do that one more time I will block you--but of course you can't do it because the article is protected. There is conversation here, and that's great, and that's where you should talk this out: and if you don't "win" this debate, then, well, what you want won't be happening. If it were up to me, I'd unprotect the article so you can show that you are willing to abide by our rules, by not editing the article, but that's alright. Anyway--I read this line of yours, on Ferret's talk page, "let's play your game": this is not a game. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have read, and if it is really so then in practice sometimes in your pages you have nothing 100% secure. If this is your policy I am sorry for you and for Wikipedia.

Anyway,these are some sources that do not define KH as a spin-off:

https://www.einerd.com.br/top-10-spin-offs-de-final-fantasy/

https://twinfinite.net/gallery/the-best-final-fantasy-spin-offs-all-ranked/20/

https://www.thegamer.com/final-fantasy-franchise-spin-offs-greatest-worst-ever-square-enix/

https://www.gamespot.com/videos/the-history-of-the-kingdom-hearts-franchise/2300-6448075/

The birth of KH has nothing to do with FF. It is understandable that they may be wrong because it is not always easy to define a spin-off, especially in this case where you can misunderstand and make some confusion. 

Yiucjb50 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What you say is strange because it seems to me that the FF page is no longer protected. However it should not be because I have never "lied". I had sent a message on my discussion page and no one answered me. Then if the message was actually this (as maybe I'm noticing) I can't do anything about it because no notification has ever arrived. Yiucjb50 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What I do is explain things with logic, which you are not doing. However I repeat: If this is your policy I am sorry for you and Wikipedia. Yiucjb50 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, you need to start learning Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or you’re going to be perpetually stuck in this state of being angry and persuading no one. You can be sad all day long that no one cares for your ”logic and reasoning”, but it’s still not going to get you a WP:CONSENSUS to move forward with your edits. First off, you need to learn what a reliable source is in the Wikipedia context. None of your above would qualify as usable at all except Gamespot. If you don’t understand, a lot of examples are at WP:VG/S. Secondly, the sources are useless unless they literally say something like “KH is not a spinoff”. The absence of mention of it being a spinoff off is not enough. Just because I find a review that doesn’t mention the words “kart racer” doesn’t mean we stop calling Mario Kart a kart racer. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

1) First of all, I prefer not to learn the laws. Because in any case after this discussion I don't want to change anymore.

2) "My logic" as you say it is not only mine because I am not the only one to think that KH is not a spin-off. And thank goodness there is someone who relies on reality not on anything.

3) You should calm down. You see that compared to Ferret you are more aggressive. I'm certainly not the sad one here. Perhaps someone else saw the behavior. More than anything else, I'm sorry that Wikipedia works like this.

4) These "sources" I have already explained why they are not reliable, unlike other sources. But you are free to think as you wish. 

Yiucjb50 (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I don’t need to “calm down”, I’m not upset in the least. There’s no reason to be. This is a small detail that you are making zero progress in advancing. I was merely another person chiming in that your reasoning isn’t valid in the context of Wikipedia policy/guidelines. If you’re not willing to listen or learn, then I’ll just stop now, as there’s little left to say. As is, you’re never going to persuade people into a consensus, and you’re just going to get your account blocked or the page locked if you try to move forward without a consensus. You are completely halted by your own approach to this. Sergecross73 msg me 11:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, you wrote that "I could be sad all day", it seems an exaggerated and above all out of place statement. And I noticed this difference in your way of writing compared to that of ferret. That's all. After all, from what a person writes, one can sense his state, no? And to think that you are an administrator. You should be more friendly with newcomers. But I don't care too much, I'm not here to judge the behavior of others. On the fact of the block I wanted to tell you that it is useless for me to continue to threaten, because it seems to me that I am not breaking any rules. We are simply having a conversation in the regulations of Wikipedia. I already told you that after this conversation I don't want to change anymore.

I simply expressed my opinion based on reality and it is not difficult to understand. After all, the world goes on with logic and not with nothing. In an article you should know what you are reading otherwise it seems to me quite inconclusive. It would be like having the bike but without the gasoline. But if you work like this, well, what can I say? Wow Yiucjb50 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Saying you don't want to learn the policies isn't helpful. Our community, and the site in general is based on local consensus. Your point of view hasn't got a consensus, so continuing to argue isn't going to win anyone over. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you not see the irony of complaining that people aren’t nicer when you barge in and make demands without even trying to learn how the website works? And again, you can give it a rest with all the “well I’m just very sad if this is how Wikipedia works” stuff. It is, and it’s understood by everyone here but you, so get over. Adapt or stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

1) I don't need to learn the laws since after this conversation I have no intention of dealing with Wikipedia. I just wanted to try to clear things up and then leave. That's all.

2) I didn't break in. I simply expressed my opinions as everyone has done. And I was never ordered to interrupt the conversation.

3) Well, my dear, I remind you that this thing of sadness is something you invented yourself. I never said anything like that. Also because I have no reason to be one, since I am 100% convinced of the opinions I have expressed. Where is the irony?

4) Unfortunately I have already understood how your website works and your laws have not convinced me to change my mind.

Continuing for me would be a waste of time. I've already said mine and I'm convinced of this. As far as I am concerned we can also end it here. Yiucjb50 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Question on Notability of Legacy Addition

For once, I actually come with the intention of adding something to the Legacy action.

I just beat Planescape: Torment and in the credits, "Ken L." thanks FFVII and FFVIII for inspiration. I'm assuming that Ken L. is Kenneth Lee.

Is this notable enough to put in the Legacy section, specifically the last paragraph? I'll admit that it's not the most notable citation of the series' inspirations, but considering that Planescape: Torment is [Planescape:_Torment#Awards_and_accolades|considered one of the greatest video games of all time] and that Ken's contributions were significant enough to get him a "special thanks" section, I think it's a worthwhile addition.--GamerAim (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the question here would be how much Ken's being inspired by FFVII and FVIII influenced Planescape. I believe he was producer on the game, so I don't know how much direct impact on design and story he had. -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Final_Fantasy/Archive_4&oldid=1251629937"