Talk:Final Fantasy/Archive 3

Cultural refrences
Can the image of the "three overworld sprites" of Culex be taken out? Perhaps if it were just one image of the sprite, that'd be fine, but to have three sprites that look exactly the same... it seems odd. Also, the placement of the image is a bit distracting in contrast to the text. Quietchild 05:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is currently only one cultural refrence, to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and the section needs to be expanded.Taric25 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because the section was just added. Frankly, I would rather see the section deleted than expanded. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Insert Key
For some reason, when Final Fantasy is typed in on Search, it redirects you to a page linking to "Insert Key," or at least on my computer. I managed to change this (I think, anyway) but I was wondering how it happened.80.229.151.116 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)(Chocobo Knight)

Common themes and motifs
I did a major cleanup of this section. I didn't delete much, but I did move a lot of stuff into footnotes. I would have no problem if somebody else went through and deleted a lot of the notes, but as I have said in the past, the details will just creep back in over time. Comments? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Beautiful job, looks much cleaner. I am a little concerned about "Wings" however.  What you did to clean it up is fine, but it moves 95% of the content into a reference note.  Shouldn't a reference note be used to supplement the content, not contain it?  --Daedalus 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Nimrand 04:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about deleting the wings section, but decided to wait and see what others thought. As for the lengthy footnotes, I would like to see that information moved into the detailed articles or eliminated from this article.  I guess I wasn't as bold as I could have been. ;^)
 * I'm really busy right now, but hope to trim down the footnotes once I verify that the information is in the detailed article (and/or move the text of the notes there. If somebody wants to do that before I get a chance, that is fine by me. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should be deleted, it is most certainly a common theme among many FF's, and therefore should be mentioned. It isn't mere coincidence that so many characters are given wings in some real or symbolic way.  --Daedalus 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved most of the footnotes into the detailed articles. I also deleted the wings item. If somebody feels strongly that it should be included, I suggest you create an article and then link to it from the list. Personally, I think the common theme is more feathers than wings, but I haven't thought about it that much.

I would like to see many of the other details in this article moved to more detailed articles. IMHO, this article should provide a broad overview to acquaint the reader with the series, with links to articles where they can read about the details. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 05:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"More feathers than wings"? I would like an example of a game where the symbology is feathers and not wings. Every instance I can think of has displayed full sets of wings. I do feel strongly that wings should be mentioned alongside the other Themes and Motifs. Wings have appeared as a symbol in FF VI thru X (that I know of off the top of my head at least). --Daedalus 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Summons in the Final Fantasy series
Is anyone aware of this page's creation? To my understanding this page should not exist, and I haven't seen any discussion for it's creation. It was also inserted into the FF Navbox without discussion. --Daedalus 20:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fights while flying
In the article it states that there are no random monster encounters while flying. However, in the re-released version of Final Fantasy III, it is possible to have encounters while flying, they are just very rare. And, also, I am fairly ceertian that in Final Fantasy VI, there may be encounters while flying (or perhaps that was just a boss?). Please confirm this. RHSB Scipio 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)RHSB Scipio


 * It's a mistake indeed. There were random encounters in the original FFIII on NES too (the last airship even helps you by bombing the enemies at the start of each aerial encounter). In FFVI, there's the boss Doomgaze which appears randomly until you defeat him. Kariteh 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of games in the series
How about this sentence: As of Winter 2006, twelve games have been released as part of the main (numbered) series. - Has the person who wrote this actually taken Final Fantasy X-2 into account ? Kwyxz 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * X-2 is considered a sequal/spin-off and not part of the main (numbered) series. Similar in concept to Dirge of Cerberus being a sequal, yet not part of the main series.  --Daedalus 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Source? Is considered by who? Kariteh 20:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The main NUMBERED series is the wording, is it not? As in, those with the original numbering system, currently one through twelve. It should be pretty obvious. Nique talk 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only obvious because you use your definition of the term. It could be absolutely acceptable to say that FFX-2 is a numbered title. FFT is not a numbered title; FFXII Revenant Wings is technically numbered but yeah it's not a main numbered title; FFX-2 on the other hand is an ambiguous case. Kariteh 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However, "main (numbered) series" refers to the main (numbered) games. X-2 is not part of the main series, it is a sequel to one of the games. It should no more be counted in the main, numbered series than Dirge of Cerberus or any of the other handful of games that Final Fantasy VII has spawned. Nique talk 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me out here, because I'm confused about every point you have made: --Daedalus 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Why I would need a source to compare one sequal to another (X-2 to DoC).
 * 2) What other definitions of the term "main numbered series" could there possibly be?
 * 3) How can it be acceptable to say "FFX-2 is a numbered title" when it doesn't have its own number?
 * 4) How is FFX-2 any different than FFXII Revenant wings or DOC:FFVII?
 * 5) What makes FFX-2 an ambiguous case?


 * I tend to consider X-2 as a piece of the main series, but DoC or CC (for example) as gaidens. I agree this is POV, though. Kwyxz 00:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whole matter is POV dependent. But there's a reason why DoC is not named "FFVII-2" for instance while FFX-2 is named like that. Kariteh 09:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About Daedalus' points: FFX-2 does have its own number. It's simple logic: X, and 2. See? It even has TWO numbers. FFX-2 is different from RW and DoC simply because of its title. RW is not named "FFXII-2" and DoC not "FFVII-2". It's just a matter of naming. As a not-so-unrelated example, let's take Vagrant Story: that game takes place in Valendia in FFXII's world, it's definitely a game taking place in Ivalice, yet we all agree that it's not an FF game. As for FFX-2 and FFXII RW, they are both sequels to a main numbered title of the series, but the fact that FFX-2 is called X-2 and not FFX:Subtitle makes its classification ambiguous. Kariteh 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's just a matter of naming." Sorry if I'm taking this too far out of context, but if this is your opinion, then they're all just sequels/companions, and they aren't part of the main series. Either way, X-2's number only comes from X, it doesn't have one of the main numbers. There are only twelve games released under the main numbers, hence the article's statement to that effect, and thus it should stay that way until XIII is released. Nique talk 11:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, you wanna play the name game, I can do that too. The main numbered series refers to the games that are denoted with numerals.  FFVII has its own numeral.  FFX has its own numeral.  FFX-2 does not have its own numeral.  See?  My point is "a rose by any other name smells as sweet".  It may be titled FFX-2 and have a "2" instead of a subtitle, but it's still a sequal.  Same thing.  It can only be counted as part of the main numbered series if you choose to inclued DoC:FFVII and FFXII:RW as well, and we're already agreed that they can't be part of the "main numbered series", so by precedent we should all be in agreement that neither can FFX-2.  --Daedalus 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Not many places where a debate like this would actually be relevant. :-) But, I have to agree with both authors here.  There is clearly a distinction between the games that Nicholas refers to as the "main numbered games" and spin-offs and true sequels of those games.  Square Soft clearly meant to make such a distinction when they named FFX-2 the way they did.  On the other hand, the wording being debated here is questionable, as it is not necessarily clear what is meant by "main numbered series" and it isn't a term you generally see from any primary or secondary sources.  I'm not sure what a good wording would be, though.  Maybe something like, "Currently the series includes twelve games titled Final Fantasy I through Final Fantasy XII.  The series also includes a number of sequels and spin-offs of those twelve games, such as Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy : RW."  Nimrand 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be perfectly fine to solve this dispute by just removing that sentence? I see no reason in telling the readers how many numbered games there are, people can see for themselves in a list down there.  We have no information loss in the article by taking it out, and the sentence itself disputive.  If people insist on having something similar, why not use "As of March 2007, the latest numbered title is Final Fantasy XII."? MythSearchertalk 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, primarily because I see the issue of which games to count as what some philosophers call an "empty question", i.e. one where people could (and do!) agree on all the relevant facts, and yet still come up with different answers. This means there is no fact of the matter. So there's no point in including a statement that suggests there is. PurplePlatypus 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this as well. Thanks :-) Kwyxz 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, but I am worried that the issue will reappear when someone in the future wishes to insert a similar setence. --Daedalus 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Point him/her to the talk page(which means here). Let him/her read this discussion himself/herself. MythSearchertalk 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the debate over what "counts" as part of the series is an empty and mostly pointless question. But, I see nothing wrong with saying that among the final fantasy games in the series, there are 12 games numbered FFI-FFXII.  Can we not jus assert that the series includes those 12 games, while avoiding the question of what other games "count"?  Nimrand 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the motion, this prevents us from using POV and impossible to back claims, while still asserting the facts about the numerals I-XII. How about:  "There are currently 12 numbered iterations of the series, as well as various sequals and spin-offs."  This includes FFX-2 as part of the sequals and not necessarily discluded from the numbered iterations, and it does not specify anything about a "main series" let alone what is and isn't part of it.  --Daedalus 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a stab at this. As always, tweaks are expected. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good! I made a few tweaks, but I'm not sure if I went too far or not.  Should the overview mention iterations of the franchise beyond video games, or limit itself to just video games?  --Daedalus 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I love it this way. Nicely done guys.--Kwyxz 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Hi, I'm thinking about copyediting this article as I know about the series, so please help me out here if I'm doing anything seriously objectionable. Stuff I intend to work on: Does anyone have any other suggestions? If not, I'll get to it tomorrow or the day after. (by the way, apart from the stuff I've mentioned, it's a really good article! Well done the people who wrote it!)- Froglet42 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The introduction - it needs to be shortened and summarised, and I think that there are a bit too many blue links.
 * The 'Music' section - again, summarised and shortened, there is too much information there as the section has its own article.
 * Gameplay - pretty much the same as what I said for the music section.
 * and a general rewording, spelling and grammar (although it looks pretty good, it could do with a few minor tweaks).


 * Considering how long it has taken to get the intro down to this level, I'm concerned that if you trim too much, we will get everything added back over the next few weeks and then some. If by blue links, you mean things like "North America", I would have no problems with that.


 * As for the other sections, what I have been trying to do is remove details from this article and move them to the specific article. Another trick I have used is to move some of the expansive detail into footnotes, but not everybody has agreed with this approach. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:LEAD and experience, the intro is perfect for an article this size, and a LOT shorter than others covering this range of topics. A Gameplay of Final Fantasy subarticle is in the works. &mdash; Deckiller 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1.8 gb catridge?

 * Final Fantasy VII would have required a very expensive, and thus impractical, large capacity cartridge to work on the Nintendo 64. A cartridge holding the game's three CD-ROM's worth of data and full-motion video would have been nearly impossible to market at a price that most people could afford

This seems to request that it would be possible in 1997 to produce a catridge that could hold 1.8gb or whatever the size of the FF7 was. I'm somewhat doubtful and the Nintendo 64 article appears to suggest so as well. At the very least, multiple catridges would probably have been necessary (if this was possible) Nil Einne 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember hearing while we were all waiting for FFVII to come out that the reason Square switched from Nintendo to Playstation was that they couldn't fit the game into a cartridge. They told Nintendo that if the N64 didn't use a CD-ROM, they would have to go over to Sony.  I heard that from several sources, and it was the generally accepted reason.


 * As to if they could handle multiple cartridges, that is an interesting question that I've never heard addressed. It should have been possible, since the N64 had a memory card that you could save data to that was separate from the game cartridge.  You couldn't easily have multiple cartridges on SNES, for example, because all the data (including the game save data) was on the cartridge.  You would need some other device that sat between the console and the cartridge, similar to the Game Genie. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely possible to make something that would have plugged into a cartridge port and held 1+ GB of data, see the Jaz drive of the era for one thing, it held as much as 2 gigabytes on a cartridge-sized medium. But this would have made for a more expensive console and a much more expensive cartridge. I doubt such a thing would have worked with the N64 as shipped though, it would have needed extra capabilities on the console. This wouldn't really have been prohibitively expensive, it would have just been more expensive (and needed more careful handling, had slower read times, etc.) and Nintendo didn't pursue it. Nintendo gambled that people didn't want video that much, basically. --W.marsh 01:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Throughput would also be a consideration. I'm not sure if cartridges could be read as fast as CDs back then.Nimrand 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nintendo's argument for cartridges was that they were much faster than CDs, especially when moving between screens. If you use a cartridge, the entire game is basically always in memory.  The advantage of CDs was the volume of data that a CD could store compared to how much a cartridge of that size would cost. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural references"
This needs to be nipped in the bud before it turns into a huge cruft list. One sentence is fine, stating "The series has been featured in popular culture and other games", and maybe a mention of kingdom hearts. A link to a site listing all instances of the series in popular culture is also good here. But nip it in the bud, please. &mdash; Deckiller 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire section was originally created for the sole purpose of talking about the Mario RPG thing. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing this entire section just get deleted outright.  I don't see what an indiscriminate list like this adds to the article, anyway.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash; Deckiller 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations, Take Two
Someone removed the citations template several days ago, claiming that the information in the article is "common knowledge" and didn't need citations. Clearly, however, the aricle needs more citations for many reasons. Here are just a few:
 * At best, the information is common knowledge only to those who play the games. However, Wikipedia articles should be verifiable by anyone who reads the article.  See WP:Citing sources.
 * There are many statements in the article that, while probably accurate, are uncited and that are not common knowledge at all.
 * What may seem like common knowledge to those who regularly contribute to or edit the article may in fact be bias or Original Research.
 * There are currently entire sections of the article that have no references whatsoever.
 * Many of the articles on the individual games already have more than twice the number of references of this article, not that the quantity of the citations is the only thing that matters.
 * Even when it seems unecessary, citing sources adds credibility to the article, and refers the reader to additional information.

Also, as I've said many times before, a Footnote is not necessarily a citation. So, please don't just count the number of footnotes at the bottom of the article and say that we have plenty of citations. As far as I could tell, we only have five citations.

The article is better now than it was a few months ago, but it still needs work in this area. We will most likely need to address this issue before this article could attain A or GA status.

Also, if you would like the template to be less obtrusive, we may want to move it to the bottom of the article. Nimrand 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would love to see more citations in this article also. However, it isn't as easy as one might think.  For example, the comment that the articles on individual games have more citations illustrate the problem.  While it is fairly easy to find a review of any version of Final Fantasy, it is much harder to find an article on the entire series.  If one is found, it would only be valid if it were written after the latest release of the series.  For example, any article on FF before FF XII might mention that all versions of the game have a separate battle screen, but that statement is not correct any more.


 * One of the things I love about the series is that each game is different, but the same. And while it is frustrating, the lack of citations is partly because of this trend.  If there are any claims that you think are not valid, flag them and/or mention them here on the talk page.  Hopefully we can reach a consensus about what is accurate common knowledge and what isn't.  We have had a number of questionable claims introduced that, after discussion, were later removed.  IMHO this approach has been working fairly well, but I would also love to find more citations. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)

Music
The main theme is not Prelude, as it is not in every Final Fantasy, do some research. The main theme is actually called FINAL FANTASY(yes all capitals), and DOES appear in every game including spin offs, whether it is the intro, during the game, or in the credits it is the only song to appear in every final fantasy game and movie. Signed, Annonymous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.110.31.215 (talk • contribs).


 * Can you produce a citation for that claim? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, soon at least, i'm at school, i will cite some sources once i get home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.20.32.173 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Uh, I don't see anywhere in the article saying main theme is the Prelude. BTW, it's in every FF, numbered as far as I'm concerned, all during the opening, VIII in the Game Over screen, X in the Opening Scene as a modern synth version, and there's even a short one in FF:Unlimited. Edit: The FINAL FANTASY main theme, well, FFT, FFTA, FF Movie and FFX-2 seems doubtful, so good luck finding source =D Bluerです. なにか? 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding directory category to external links
I noticed that you have an external link to the Open Directory project's Final Fantasy category.

The category at BOTW is as comprehensive - http://botw.org/top/Games/Video_Games/Roleplaying/Final_Fantasy_Series/

I was going to place the following in the external links section, but saw the discussion message:


 * Final Fantasy Sites at the BOTW Directory

Thanks for the consideration.

MisterCharlie 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like a reasonable site that could be added. And welcome back to Wikipedia! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Result was withdrawn, no consensus to move

Requested move
Final Fantasy (series) → Final Fantasy — Final Fantasy redirects here. Common usage with anything else already disambig. Simply south 10:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can someone close? I withdraw per consensus. Simply south 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Oppose

 * 1) Final Fantasy (series) is meant to disambiguate from Final Fantasy (video game). --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose If anything, the first game should be at Final Fantasy. TJ Spyke 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Presently, it's easily distinguishes the series from the first game. Bluerです. なにか? 20:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, it is common practice to dab the series article with "(series)". On the other hand, I'm sort of conflicted with support or opposition to moving "Final Fantasy (video game)" to simply "Final Fantasy", but that's another debate for another day. Axem Titanium 14:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, I moved the article in February from Final Fantasy to Final Fantasy (series) because of the discussion that took place here: Talk:Final Fantasy/Archive 2. I see no reason to revert the change. Kariteh 14:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) See my comment below wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:


 * I'm not particularly against this change, but this was gone over quite recently and moved the other direction on February 15. There is some discussion at the end of archive 2, and I think there is also relevant talk on some other pages from the series. I remember the discussion being a bit more far-reaching. Dekimasu よ! 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this has been discussed several times before. Part of the problem is that the common usage of "Final Fantasy" refers to the series, even though it is actually the name of the first game. Currently, FF redirects to FF (series), which seems a bit silly. If we do this, I would hope that FF (series) would redirect to the new page.
 * "Final Fantasy" should be the name of the article on the first game, not on the series in general. TJ Spyke 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would still lead to confusion. Anyone looking for the Series would type in "Final Fantasy" and get the wrong article.  It is far more common for people to read the article about Final Fantasy in general than about the first game.  I like both article names just the way they are, it's more clear.  --&mdash; Δαίδαλος  Σ  Σ  15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remakes
Should it be added that recently Square stated that they are planning on re-releasing remakes of old games and creating sequels to them?--67.174.128.249 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)