Talk:Final Fantasy XVI

Awakening sub title

Should we add the Awakening sub title since that’s what Square calls it? Megamaster64 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think Awekening was just for the trailer.91.117.150.133 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

Please change the sentence “Other prominent characters include Barnabas Tharmr, King of Waloed and Dominant of Bahamut” to the sentence “Other prominent characters include Barnabas Tharmr, King of Waloed and Dominant of Odin.” The original information is incorrect. 97.83.53.21 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. My mistake. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

Clive Rosfield is a silent protagonist (the first one in a non-MMO mainline FF game ever since FF1). Should we edit the page to say he is? 2.44.66.193 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This information is incorrect. Clive isn't a silent protagonist as confirmed in multiple trailers and his voice actor. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Ben Starr interview

Ben Starr has recently caught up with Kinda Funny about the inspiration on the game protagonist.[1] He was also appeared on Friends Per Second podcast about his casting as well.[2] These would definitely need to be featured on this article. VernardoLau (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverting edits for no valid reason?

Why are you reverting all my edits about the game announced by Yoshida as being historically accurate to the Medieval Europe's ethnic demographic despite using reliable sources to confirm it? Plus, who's ref spamming? What's wrong with using the same sources when the same topic is repeated in the article? I'm putting time and energy in all this and unless you don't have a valid reason to revert all my edits other than discussing in the talk page something that doesn't need to be discussed about because it doesn't violate anything, please let me work alone and in peace, thank you. 151.82.145.26 (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Restored 👍 King of the Donkeys (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not how you correctly "restore"... ภץאคгöร 14:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the critique regarding the lack of representation, and Yoshi's comments on it, was more of a pre-release discussion. While I don't think it should be removed entirely, I'm not sure how to feel about including it on the same area in the article lead describing the game's reception based on launch reviews. The last part also reads as somewhat defensive and not very neutral. (EDIT: said part has since been removed.) Rakewater (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What last part? And how it is non-neutral? It was just Yoshida's words. I sounded non-neutral and defensive just because I wanted to add his and the creators' own statements and intentioned vision? Doesn't make sense. 151.18.195.122 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

it's Wikipedia. These people will do anything they can to push their whiny race narrative nonsense. 172.110.93.28 (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

My recommendation is to keep a general statement about medieval Europe being a major inspiration for the setting in the design section. And then moving the diversity debate from the design section (which seems to be responding to questions from some journalists) to the reception section. The design section as written feels like it is responding to a debate. 49.182.130.25 (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I've protected the page while this is hashed out. I'm not a participant in the discussion, but I will remind editors that we need to write according to what reliable sources say, and we need to write in encyclopedic tone, not an editorial or a personal essay. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If people don't start discussing on the talk page instead of edit warring back and forth I'm going to lock the article down further. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lack of diversity is not a valid criticism of a videogame

Frankly, it shouldn't even be mentioned in the article. 172.110.93.28 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

We mention whatever reliable sources cover. Feel free to contact them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source, and what body makes that determination? Appliedintensity (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely — it isn't a valid criticism! Appliedintensity (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

You can find a curated, vetted list of reliable sources used for video game articles here: WP:VG/RS. You too are free to contact them and let them know how you feel. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

One more time. What constitutes a credible source? Also, thank you for your pleasant response. Appliedintensity (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RS for an explanation. Wikipedia articles are based upon reliable sources. If reliable sources are critical over a lack of diversity in a video game, we'll mention it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So ultimately decisions are made on the grounds of common sense and some vague definition of 'consensus' — wonderful….. Appliedintensity (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"We'll mention it." I wasn't aware you were in a position of power for Wikipedia. Appliedintensity (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Were you aware of me before? And I'm not in any "position of power", what gave you that idea? Do you think I refer to myself as we? The royal we? I'm talking about the Wikipedia community. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

A miscommunication perhaps, but you certainly used "we'll" in a manner that would lead one to believe that you are a moderator or an administrator etc. Appliedintensity (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It really is wonderful. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

Incorrect reference--comment about Eurogamer review cites Game Informer review by mistake; fixed below.

CURRENT VERSION: Eurogamer's Edwin Evans-Thirlwell gave praise to the handling of Clive's storyline and the narrative's examination of common series themes, though noted a tone of "wanton backstabbing and ambient misogyny" among the supporting cast and faulted the lack of minority representation.

CORRECTED VERSION: Eurogamer's Edwin Evans-Thirlwell gave praise to the handling of Clive's storyline and the narrative's examination of common series themes, though noted a tone of "wanton backstabbing and ambient misogyny" among the supporting cast and faulted the lack of minority representation. Ehwuhruh (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023 (2)

Under the plot section the second paragraph, the second sentence reads, "After Cid and Jill see the full oppression inflicted on magic users and their sympathizers in the occupied Rosaria, they join Cid in a quest to destroy the nations' Mothercrystals, which he sees as draining aether from the land and causing the Blight." "After Cid and Jill" should be changed to "After Clive and Jill." Clive and Jill join Cid. BaronVonSwabbie (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Joshua’s fate

Can we stop changing the plot details to say Clive revives/resurrects Joshua in the final chapter. This is fan speculation and Joshua is never shown to be living and breathing after the scene in question. Until this is confirmed by devs or hypothetical DLC or expansions this is false information. 2A02:C7C:709F:AB00:600E:8F08:808D:DA89 (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The DualSense actually has a faint heartbeat in its haptic feedback shortly after Clive uses the Flames of Rebirth on Joshua, seemingly an indicator that he was indeed resurrected by the spell under the enhancement of Ultima's power. It's worth noting Ultima had the power to create life on a large scale, and Clive comments on it after he absorbs it, remarking the toll it is taking on his physical form. I also don't see how his book was completed otherwise, unless we are to believe the Undying published his works, a conclusion which has even less ground to stand on. 2603:6080:A900:C1:392D:7A6F:AAB7:9E53 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments on the strength of the power, sorry, Clive makes no comment at all on any specific abilities. 2603:6080:A900:C1:392D:7A6F:AAB7:9E53 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

16th main installment

isnt that actually inaccurate tho, e.g. ff13 having three games. this is at least the 18th gameMuur (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Expand lack of diversity controversy

The coverage of this controversy is bare bones, with practically zero mention of the criticism Yoshida received for his problematic explanation. plenty of reliable sources devoted multiple articles to this topic and it needs to be expanded, as well as included in the lede. 46.97.170.235 (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy XVI/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the peer review of Hotline Miami 2, I'll take a look at this one after I review Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors. Give me a couple of days to review that, and I should have this reviewed by or during the weekend. NegativeMP1 18:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get it done this weekend, I still intend on reviewing this but haven't gotten to it just yet. Hopefully it's not too much longer, thanks for being patient. NegativeMP1 18:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

General criteria

• There are no signs of copyright violations present within the article. Earwigs did turn up a 41% likeliness of copyvio, but based on what it detected I assume this to be a false positive.
• The article has no cleanup banners.
• No edit warring.
• No past GAN to note.

Review

Prose review

• I did a prose review for this article off and on yesterday and today and surprisingly found near zero issues with the prose that would need to be fixed. I went through and tweaked one minor thing (and might tweak more if I find them after submitting this), but other than that this is a solid article.

Media review

• All non-free content in this article falls under fair use.
• I'd add alt text to the gameplay screenshot.

Source review

• I spot checked sources 1, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 25, 31, 33, 36, 41, 47, 56 and 57, 58, 59, 61 62, 72 and 73, 74, 76, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, and 93 all passed verification. None of these were Japanese sources, which I assume good faith on as I can't check them due to the fact I do not speak that language.
  • There's a trans-title parameter for citations, maybe use these for the Japanese sources? Just a suggestion though in the event this article possibly goes beyond GAN, as I don't even have an idea what the Japanese sources are supposed to be.

Final comment

My only suggestions are to add alt text to the gameplay screenshot and possibly use trans-title, the latter of which is completely up to you. I'll put this on hold for now (nevermind the GAN review tool broke, hopefully you see the watchlist) NegativeMP1 05:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: I've added trans-titles, and hopefully adequate alt text for the images. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Alright that looks good, passing this now. NegativeMP1 19:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review scores incorrect

someone edited the review scores are they are incorrect. Ign shows 3/10 when it should be 9. Rpgfan shows 50/100 when should be 93 and there might be others 66.164.169.97 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)