Talk:Final Fantasy Type-0/Archive 1

On PSP and Iphone
Source here: http://www.games4all.it/articolo/final-fantasy-agito-xiii-su-iphone/8179/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.122.189 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Weapon List
There are listed up twelve weapons (with fists and magical items) And its 12 people, but its listed up with longsword And katana, while guns are missing. (Do'h whats the guy at the top holding?). I'm not changing it since I cant say if its a longsword or katana from only the handle. I think its a longsword, but can someone agree with me that it is? --83.109.102.106 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I change it then, I remove katana and add Handgun.--83.109.102.106 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture
Are you sure that picture belongs to FF13 Agito? I have never seen it and although it looks like square's art, I wanna see some links and verfication.


 * then get off your ass and actually do some research. who cares if YOU've never seen it, youre not the foremost expert on final fantasy... don't just come here and make demands... but because im soooo friendly, here: clearly shows the picture with the Agito logo at the top...


 * ps, i just hate it when people demand, dont take it TOO personally... just add a "please" next time and we'll be good... -Xornok 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * haha im sorry, ill add a please then lol


 * He's well within his rights to ask for verification and it is not *his* job to do extra research on what you've researched. If you're adding something to Wikipedia you should be able to provide facts and links to what you're adding, that's the way it works; so the onus is on you to back up your additions. SynergyBlades 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st off, i didnt add it... 2nd off, it wasnt the fact he asked for verification, it was HOW he asked.... -Xornok 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ahhh it doesn't matter who added it and who wants it, as long as its provided eh? -ScotchMB 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agito/Agitate
Since Latin is a 'dead' language, and much of english comes from latin roots, shouldn't it be "The english word agitate derives from agito"? 130.95.106.154 01:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the name "agito" will stay in all releases, they will not change the name just because theres an english word that derives from the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Agito"
I changed the translation of the Latin "agito" given here. "To engage in motion" is right in its essentials, but its the wrong part of speech---"agito" is the present first-person singular, the "I" form, not the infinitive, which would be "agitare". --Corbmobile 22:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt agito mean darkness aswell in japanese?
 * Nope, though it does mean "chin".24.13.125.86 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Platform?
Is there any info on WHICH mobile phone platform will this game support? Is it the Japan's MOAP(S) or MOAP(L) or J2ME or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.217.205.206 (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Character
Alright, someone changed the picture's caption so it says the charcter wiht the tarot cards is female. If you had a reason change it, fel free to change it back, but explain why. It's an academy, it has a dress code. It's a guy.--Onion Cloth (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No phone version
It's been canceled, but there was still some info on the phone version. Now there isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.48.182 (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Revamped section so that info on the cell phone version is in the past tense. Someone should go through and decide what details about its development as a cell phone game are necessary (though it should still be mentioned in some fashion). 138.238.92.196 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible new info about battle systems/summons
Here's a link to some info about Agito. I don't know if it's in the article or not, and to tell the truth don't really have the time to check so have fun. :] --Adunian Prophet (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This is bit of a hassle
i don't know how to say it, but whenever i go to this article, its always hassle using roman numerals.

i find it much easier typing in final fantasy agito "13" than final fantasy agito "XIII"

can someone make it so that when u type in final fantasy agito 13 it would redirect to this page? they did it for final fantasy 13 and final fantasy versus 13, so why not this article?Haseo445 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and it does. Amimizunofan22 (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Plot
the plot says that a women wielding a whip sword puts a flag on the ground and her allies come in,

what i found strange about this is that you separated the hooded allies and her with the actual students.

the trailer continues on and shows the weapons of the hooded characters and they all have the same weapons the students had.

so really shouldn't you guys say that the hooded figures are the 12 students themselves?

You also say, one of them wields a whip sword but the description of the 12 students doesn't say that one of them actually wields a whip sword even though the one at the bottom right clearly shows wielding a whip sword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I adressed this issue some time ago, so it should be no problem now! --GamerGrammerEditor  —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

fal'Cie in Agito?
Found this interesting, I'm not sure how reliable but if it is the last paragraph of this acticle could be interesting. This would also apply to any other game in Fabula Nova Crystalis then?

http://www.pushsquare.com/12157/final-fantasy-versus-xiii-to-focus-on-story-driven-gameplay/

203.164.130.154 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Second PSP release with 2 UMDs
Surely this statement is incorrect. I know for a fact the PSP version of Clannad is on 2 UMDs, so it would at least be the third. 157.203.43.103 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll change it to mention that it's rare to be on 2 UMD's, rather than actually keeping a count as to how many. That way it doesn't need to be constantly calculated or changed anyways... Sergecross73   msg me   12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it will however be the first PSP multi-UMD to release outside of japan. Also may i add, that Clannad is a visual novel.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PS Vita release
Regarding this revert, I quote directly from the 1UP.com article:


 * We have it on good authority that Square Enix will be bringing the game to the U.S. as a Vita release, which should relieve some of the game's technical issues and work around the fact that the PSP market is moribund in the west.

And given that 1UP.com is fairly reliable, I don't understand the level of vitriol behind the latest reverts. --MuZemike 23:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the IP is so worked up about either. 1up.com is considered a reliable source by Wikiproject Video Games at WP:VG/S, the source and the wikipedia article both clearly articulate that it's a rumor, it's not like it's a false confirmation, nor is there any misrepresentation, and it's a pretty common sentiment, I'm pretty sure I could find a number of other reliable sources that would say the same thing.
 * Also, for the record, I'm certainly not POV-pushing either; I'd personally prefer they didnt release it on Vita, as I own a PSP, and don't plan on owning a Vita any time soon. I'm writing it according to the sources, not my personal feelings. Sergecross73   msg me   13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to make that clarification. Regardless, its not a big deal. just revert and tell the IP it's a relaible source. or provde more sources for PS vita speculation from relaible sources as it could help ake t less trivial.Lucia Black (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that's what we're been doing, as the IP has nothing in the way of policy on it's side. This discussion was really only started because of the IP's irrate edit summaries, comments on my talk page, and now, a very puzzling attempt to report Salvidrim to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, of all places... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Final_Fantasy_Type-0 ) Sergecross73   msg me   18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I am not working for Square-Enix or Sony... though I'd certainly like to! ;)  Salvidrim!   07:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP is back to removing the information repeatedly again, with no further explanation other than he doesn't think it's happening. I've asked him to discuss here again, but he seems to have yet again ignore that request so far.

I've attempted a new approach, making a "Localization" subsection in development and rewording some parts. Input/corrections are welcome. I think it's better this way actually, as before an awful lot of new information was being mentioned in the lead/intro paragraph without being discussed anywhere else in the article. Sergecross73  msg me   16:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've found some more sources supporting what 1UP.com was saying. Feel free to discuss or reword if you feel I haven't portrayed it accurately, but I still feel that the information that these sources have are necessary to have in the article. Any thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me   18:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * if it does release on ps vita, then im not sure how it will fit. If it doesnt, then it can be kept because said predictions have not happened.Lucia Black (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is released on Vita, then it can just be reworked into saying that those sources expected it before it was announced. I see no problem with having a sentence or two stating that for a time, it's status for localization was in question. Or, conversely, removed outright, too, probably depending on what happens, consensus when it happens, undue weight issues, etc. Sergecross73   msg me   23:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"English" vs "english"
As far as I know, the IP in this right that "English" is capitalized. I fail to understand this silly and pointless edit war over this. --MuZemike 21:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on the IP's talk page], my opposition wasn't the capitalization, but rather the terrible wording the IP changed it to. I can't speak for Lucia, but I think she mis-read it Sergecross73  msg me   22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * yep. Misread it. IP shouldve been clearer. But shouldve saw differences between edits.Lucia Black (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No More Bulls**t
In recent light of the Versus XIII cancellation rumors, I've decided to elimate all sections regarding the Vita rumor on the Type-0 page. Why, you ask? Because you all are eliminating anything the Versus XIII cancellation story. It's plain and fucking obvious you all are only keeping and editing what you PERSONALLY want, and not what is factual. It's been practically SIX MONTHS since the 1Up story - which, by the way, has not been elaborated on even remotely outside a single paragraph on that single article. Compared to the Kotaku article, which went into massive detail, and is even somewhat backed up by related matters reported by Andriasang, has CONSIDERABLY more merit than 1Up's hatchet-job. But, wait, no. There's no room for speculation, amirite? In fact, let's go through some of the quotes found on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy_Versus_XIII&action=history

"The cancellation issue has not been confirmed by Square Enix, and is only a rumor." "For the moment, it's rumour and speculation." "Wikipedia is not a rumor site."

Do I even have to point out how utterly hypocritical you all are being on here - how blatantly, brazenly selective you all are being? It's fucking disgraceful, is what it is. And people are starting to get wind of it. In case you've forgotten the wee bit of history, let me jog your memory: Type-0 on Vita is a rumor, but it's perfectly fine because (1Up) is a verifiable source, even though the article itself went through absolutely ZERO detail. However, Versus XIII's cancellation is unacceptable, because it's a rumor....ALSO posted by a verifiable source that went into great detail, both from development-side and business-side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VG/S

You people are so full of shit, that I can only hope you've realized that just now. Longer short of it...you really have an ultimatum: Remove both on accounts of rumor and speculation, or ADD both on accounts of verifiable sources. There won't be any bullshit where you keep one and not the other over blatant fanboyism. This isn't a forum or fansite, it's an encyclopedia. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't make changes that are against WP:CONSENSUS. There's a clear consensus against removing the information. Until that changes, you are not to remove this information.
 * For the millionth time, reliably sourced speculation is allowed as long as it is accurrately portrayed. And it is here. It's clearly labeled as "Reliable site X thinks idea Y". It's not shown as fact.
 * The outright cancellation of Final Fantasy Versus XIII, or what is happening at that article, has no bearing on this title's localization, or the information in this article.
 * Stop with the personal attacks. Sergecross73   msg me   13:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you even comprehend at what I'm getting at? Do you understand basic human language? --68.230.252.5 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to address any of the issues I've raised above? Or on your talk page? You seem to misunderstand a lot of Wikipedia policy. I'm not interesting in squabbling or taking cheap shots at each other. Discuss the issue at hand or don't bother. Sergecross73   msg me   16:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Reishiki?
Does Reishiki mean Type 0? If not, please add the translation. Thanks. --MK (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It means "Zero Type", literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.68.31 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Operation Suzaku" fansite
IP's keep on adding commentary about this fansite that is pushing for its localization. As much as I'd love an English version of the game, the typical approach to this sort of thing is to only mention such a fansite if its getting coverage in reliable, third party sources. I could be wrong, but I don't think this one is. Until its getting lots of coverage, like something like Operation Rainfall, I don't think it belongs in the article. Without it, it comes off as promotional, which is not acceptable. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me   14:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2014
Change the release date of the PAL release (March 20, 2014) of it too March 20, 2015

Greatersphere (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

✅ - by another - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Product Advertisement
The 'Reception' portion is totally biased. All the great reviews are from biased websites. This game was not received well in america by users or critics. This is total product advertisement. And this also is basically an exhibit of good cover-art, while everyone pretends the actual gameplay was not lacking. Good job advertising this game, Wikipedia. I really hope moments like this are not someday used to define any possible commercial interest the Wikimedia Foundation could possibly have.Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reliable sources that were less positive about the game? And the content from them that you'd want to add? You've got to be more specific on what you'd want to change, or your complaints will fall on deaf ears... Sergecross73   msg me  02:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The video game journalism field is a huge mess of paid advertisment and biased reviews, but there are still some sources which remain truthfull and accurate. One of these sources are Steam User reviews. Which are genuine reviews by gamers who are not being paid. Ontop of the low review score this game has on steam, it is also filled with many, hand written negative reviews from users such as this: http://steamcommunity.com/id/faerly/recommended/340170/ Please do not advertise video games on Wikipedia. Yes, once again, the cover art of this video game may look cool, but the gameplay is total crap. And if wikipedia is going to become an advertisement platform, at least do it with games which were created by actual skilled artists. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:USERG - basically, Wikipedia does not document user reviews, except for the case that they are so noteworthy that reliable sources write an article about said user reviews. Unless you can prove that happened, it is correct that the steam reviews were not covered. (Full disclosure - this is from someone who did not enjoy the game, so I'm not "defending the game" or anything. Just explaining policy.) Sergecross73   msg me  03:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * bro you are policy shopping. i can pull many other "super legitimate" sources from the web which all say this game sucks.
 * I asked you to provide sources, and you respond with criticisms of me while mentioning how you could provide sources? How about just providing some reliable sources? Sergecross73   msg me  03:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Criticisms of you? LOL get real. You are such a liar that you are now making up things which never happened. Cool story bro. Keep policy shopping, maybe one day someone will believe you. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what I'm lying about, or what "policy shopping" even means, but you seem to be way off base in your understanding of Wikipedia policy. Ignore me if you like, but your info will never stick with the explanations you've given so far... Sergecross73   msg me  03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are lying about me criticizing you. Because I didn't. That is a total lie, which makes you a liar bro :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I assumed "policy shopping" was a criticism of sorts, tthough it's true, I can't be sure, considering it's not really a phrase I've seen people use, nor have you defined it. Also not sure why we're still discussing this instead of you proposing constructive changes or reliable sources. Sergecross73   msg me  03:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you now claiming you do not understand the English language or something? Accusing someone of policy shopping can no way be perceived as a personal insult. The word policy, and shopping do not come together to form an insult. There is no possible way you can be serious right now. I am really surprised at the length you will go to excuse yourself. Here, let me give you an example of a personal insult. Suppose I, or anyone else were to call you a little rat. Then of course you could claim someone insulted you, and it wouldn't be a total delusional lie, such as the one you just gave. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fine lecture on the concept of an insult, but I said "criticism", which is different. Not following policy could be a criticism. Whatever "policy shopping" is, could be construed as a criticism. Which is what I was talking about. Now, do you have a point to make that can currently be implemented into the article, or are you just here to play bizarre word games? Sergecross73   msg me  03:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake, you are correct here. But the 'reception' portion of this article is total BS Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * actually i'm still having trouble understanding how accusing somone of policy shopping could be considered legit criticism. But I really don't care at this point. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

But the real honest truth about these video games can actually be found in user reviews. They are actually a credible source. Wikipedia obviously needs to review some of its policy on source material.Andiar.rohnds (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to overturn WP:USERG, that's much bigger of an issue than can be discussed or decided at this talk page. You need to have that conversation elsewhere, get a consensus for it, and then return to this talk page. Sergecross73   msg me  03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Japan is really pretentious and has lost its touch with video games. Japan hasn't produced a solid video game in 10 years. Some people pretend games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne are not mediocre and uninteresting garbage. But these games are actually perfect examples of the pretentious nature of biased video game critics. Of course, this may be considered opinion, but I honestly don't care anymore. Because this article is totally biased and not remaining factual. What are you going to do about it?Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've presented nothing actionable, so probably nothing, at this rate. Sergecross73   msg me  03:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

FYi - in case anyone is interested, there actually was a huge video game journalism scandal recently, which does actually discredit many so called "legitimate" sources and generally prove how biased the journalism field for video games can be. This all goes to show why wikipedia needs to update its policy on some creditable sources such as Steam. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great. Go change consensus and policy, then return here and start up these discussions. Sergecross73   msg me  03:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're forgetting about the fact there are tons of legitimate commercial game review sites which all consider this game to suck. Go to metacritic or anywhere which is not a pretentious Jap site or affiliated with Sony. The only reason I dont post them here is because I don't have to. Because that Steam review I posted actually is good enough. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Steam reviews are not usable under current policy. I wrote little to none of the current reception section, so redirect your raging elsewhere. I've only asked you to prove your own points. Sergecross73   msg me  03:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please excuse my hostile nature. One of the reasons why the video game journalism field is so corrupt right now, more so than it has ever been, is because of Sony. They are really the driving force behind tide of online deception. This is one claim that is difficult to prove, but trust me, I assure it is accurate. And this also why I feel passionate about the subject. In my view, technically this article is using Wikipedia to promote such corruption. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:RGW. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that Wikipedia is not the medium for this battle of yours. Sergecross73   msg me  03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, you must have missed the example I gave on someone calling you a little rat. Because I am totally right on this subject. This article actually is product advertisement, and this example of you being a little rat is really showing right now. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you have no proposed sources for changes, and are resorting to "hypothetically calling me a rat" or whatever it is you're doing right now, then we're done here. You've been given your options - propose changes with sources currently considered reliable, or work on your project of redefining how the website defines usable sources, and once you've got consensus on that, then provide sources. What you're proposing so far is simply not do-able. Sergecross73   msg me  04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * still trying to eek-out a final word in this matter? a tiny little morsel? a crumb? fickle-fink :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Andiar, while you make some good points about the status of the video game industry, the video game review press system and their intermingling, it has, as things stand, nothing to do whatsoever with this Wikipedia page. As Wikipedia policy stands, this page is fine : it collates, and edits together reliable, published information on its subject. What makes something reliable is a point where, it seems for now, we'll have to agree to disagree. Valmoer (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not advertising the game: the page is not saying "This game is good.", it is saying, "this publication, this publication and this publication say that the game is good." If you don't trust these publications, you're completely allowed to - for now, Wikipedia does.
 * If you can reliably prove your claims as to a source's untrustworthyness, I'd suggest you take it to Reliable sources' Noticeboard so that wider action can be taken.
 * Even if we took in account the Steam user reviews, for this page it wouldn't quite matter, as it is a page for the original, japan-only, PSP-exclusive game. Any Steam user review would be for its HD remaster, which was published internationally and on PCs.
 * I'd make you note, incidentally, that the Critical Reception section of the Final_Fantasy_Type-0_HD article involves more sources, and that it is, on the whole, more critical, if still somewhat positive.
 * "As Wikipedia policy stands" -- woo, that is some official sounding drama. Too bad this article still is being deceiving for the purpose of self promotion. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Had nobody taken the time to put up any criticism of this game, which actually *IS* the overwhelming consensus for this (regardless of platform, although the quality of some games do vary across platforms, this game certainly does not, excuse me for this minor mistake, policy shoppers). Focusing on Japanese sales is picking and choosing what information should be displayed, obviously for the purpose of self advertisement. It's extremely obvious and I really shouldn't have explain this much. How about we just keep this article non-biased and factual instead? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I see this particular release is Japanese-only. My mistake. Such a pathetic technicality. Well, enjoy the free advertisement boys. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, this actually is a pathetic technicality. This game really does suck ass, and the entire workings of this article, including the effort made to make it featured article, actually does have commercial interests and self promotion in mind. And this biased self promotion is succeeding, especially when being included on the front page of Wikipedia. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are aware of that there are two articles for this game, yes? This is the original PSP release that was only in Japan. Much of your complaints (such as referring to Steam user reviews) seem to focus on the HD remake, Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. The reception section for the HD remake is considerably different and includes the North American based reviews you are looking for... -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that typing "final fantasy type 0" in google brings up this page, as if it's the definite source for this game, and mentions nothing of other versions, right? There is a lot wrong with the workings behind this article and its FA status. I am positive these are made from commercial interest. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why the very first line of the article points the reader to the HD version with a hatnote, and the last sentence of the lead specifically discusses the high definition remaster. And the synposis section again hat notes it. And the Legacy section discusses it several more times. If you truly believe there's a conflict of interest at this article from a particular editor and have proof, you should visit WP:COIN. I would strongly recommend you not go to COIN without very strong proof however. Otherwise, it's probably time to drop the stick. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this EN wiki or JP wiki? More sales of the HD version on PC have been sold in America and europe than anywhere else, even more than japan PSP version (which i can prove). Now tell me why the hell english american google is bringing up the japan-only version of this game as the definitive source? Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the product names are different? The North American release is literally (and officially) named Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. Even in Square Enix promotional materials. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No liar, the product names are not different. Not as far as google is concerned. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rat


 * No, it's because this page is what square enix wants users to see. The search engine result is all that matters here. This game has no relevance here in America, Europe or Australia. You need to try harder. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember, it's the search engine result is what these failing pathetic japanese companies are looking for. They cant make good games anymore so they will literally just shit all over wikipedia instead :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * REMEMBER. Typing the name of this game in google brings up this page as the first result in google. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if you did have proof that Square has somehow influenced the naming of the two articles, it's very unlikely whatever change you want (For the two articles to merge? Be swapped somehow name wise?) will happen, when reliable secondary sources (JP and EN) treat them as separate topics. Wikipedia doesn't care what the search engine results ultimately are or in what order, that's why the hatnotes exist and the repeated mentions of the HD Remaster. I'd recommend dropping the stick unless you can argue for a specific change based around Wikipedia policy. It's unclear exactly what you want changed, other than for negative reception to somehow be added. Again, that's the other release. -- ferret (talk)
 * True, but I really doubt something like this will ever happen again. Where an obvious product advertisement is placed on the front page of Wikipedia. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You really need to explain why the JP version is more relevant here on English Wikipedia. Especially when more copies have sold in the English speaking world, than anywhere else. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I really hope this is all just coincidence and has nothing to do with the upcoming final fantasy game for Playstation 4 A lot of money is put into this, and Sony and square enix have really been doing poorly. This is why Wikipedia should really not be used here. Because you really can begin to question the Wikimedia Foundation and speculate if they have any real connection with this, weather if someone is 'donating' to them or if things are generally being overlooked in favor of these so called editors to have their article included as FA and on the front page at this convenient timing, and which have also manipulated google search results in favor of an irrelevant product. One of the people within this topic is also a wiki admin, and his biased intentions are obvious. Some people may think technicalities and policy-shopping can allow them to do whatever they wish, but I assure you there are real consequences for this. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Andiar.rohnds, I wasn't involved in writing this page and know little about video games; I noticed this conversation just because I was one of the reviewers at FAC. Can you give a URL to a negative review that you feel should have been incorporated in the article?  Not including Steam, which doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than provide another URL which proves this game obviously sucks, I am definitely going to provide you with the next major, upcoming, multi-multi million dollar Final Fantasy game, which is the focal point of the series and the main product which has the most money and development put into it. Final Fantasy XV Enjoy. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your choice, but I'm not going to be able to correct any bias there might be in this article without sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me also reiterate that the personal motivation I have behind this is how Japan as an entire nation has really been failing at video game design for the past 10 years. And it's literally the biased journalism which keeps them alive at this point. It's quite annoying because their bad games have been just poring in and they are always trying to influence gaming market, more so than anyone else. And more so than in any other point in history. This is not typical for market shenanigans. The balance is quite off, it's really just a pot hole of shitty games and corporate lies now. And you still have these annoying people who are trying to convince users that Japan is special mystical pretentious Asians, and their games are super deep. It's really nice to see this on the front page of Wikipedia, it really is. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wish to learn more about how Today's Featured Article works, please visit WP:TFA. If you have complaints about this article being chosen, you might find a better venue there. This talk page is for discussing improvements to this specific article, and has no bearing or control over the TFA process. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL such generic irrelevant response. Who are you trying to fool here? You really think you know what you're doing, and I find this humorous. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Andiar, as you, very vocally, made your distate for generic answers and policy drama, so I'll aim to be as factual, specific, and blunt - yet civil - as I can, and try to answer your concerns.
 * 1) Frontpaging this now, in 2016, the year where FF XV will be published, is suspicious
 * 2) * It so happens that at Wikipedia, we love putting things on the front page at significant dates (rather than random ones), and it just so happens that this date is the first anniversary of (speaking of the devil) the HD remaster. Surely, that decade-old community custom is part of SE's Evil Plan (TM).
 * 3) * Also, if this is really a promotion effort from SE, I'd fire their marketing guys. I'm sure having this game frontpaged on Wikipedia is making Sega, Nintendo, along with SE's competing studios quaking in fear.
 * 4) Everyone knows this game is shit.
 * 5) * Going by your standard - i.e. Steam User reviews - it stands at Mixed, with a 59% approval. Nothing stellar for an AAA release, and, I'll freely admit, it would, if I was interested in buying it raise a few redflags as to its bang-for-buck ratio. But it's nothing terrible either.
 * 'Mixed' is practically the lowest score any game will receive on Steam. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) * You're gonna say that the positive opinions are morons/SE fanboys/paid reviews/any other. That could be true. (And that could be false.) And the inverse could be true as well : negative opinions could be just as ill-informed, emotionally-motivated and/or self-interested. And that's why we don't use user reviews in WP : we most certainly can't nitpick singular opinions among a pile of anonymous contributions. We need people and/or organisations that have stood the test of time as fair and even reviewers.
 * 2) ** Which publication are truely fair-and-even -is- a point of contention, I'll admit. But again, without hard proof, such concerns (even if valid!) are nothing but dust in the stellar wind.
 * 3) ** As an aside, I'll also underline that some negative opinions are contradictory with each other in their criticism. To each his own...
 * Overall consensus is what matters here. Even Steam has some bias, because practically no video game will ever dip below 50%, this can be proven with official published Steam metrics. The user reviews are where most the factual weight is here, but one only needs to be slightly realistic when looking at a 'mixed' rated score on Steam, and instantly understand how this is a very low score. Even the letters of 'mixed' turn out to be red, to make it simple for the user to understand this is a bad score. Not even Steam takes their percentage rating seriously, because these numbers at the moment are still easy to manipulate. Plus some people would argue that human feces would taste delicious. What exactly is your point here? Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) * Which means that, all things being said, you're asking that the page change... to reflect your opinion.
 * 2) ** You've been offered, multiple times, to link to one negative review, so that we can consider its inclusion. You refused, in mocking terms.
 * I really don't need to draw this out on a map for you. Because the evidence is very simple to figure on your own. Just look at Steam. And I already posted a perfect example of a genuine, honest, user review which is near the top of this entire section.

I can see you're passionate about this subject, and, as I said earlier, you're maybe even right! There might be something deeply problematic with videogaming reviewing, SquarEnix might be the corporate vanguard of the Antechrist, and Type-0 might be the largest videoludic turd we've ever seen this past decade. Yet, the point still stands that Wikipedia, in the end, isn't (directly) about truth, it's about due process (Of course, it's our fondest wish and our daily labor that said process leads back to truthful statements) : your (potentially right) assertion isn't worth a damn if you can't back it up by reliable publications. And, as to what is or isn't a reliable publication... it has been discussed at length. If you think you can prove a source we've used isn't reliable and/or trustworthy, go to the noticeboards we linked, and make your case. Valmoer (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) ** In the end, Wikipedia pages just doesn't change on anyone's simple say-so. Not mine. And, I'm sorry to say, not yours.
 * Yes, and I certainly wouldn't be taking the time to assert anything if I couldn't back it up with the truth. Believe me, I make it clear when I state something as opinion. Literally all the key points I raise can be backed up with solid evidence. Don't assume that because I haven't posted it here in this worthless chat, that evidence simply doesn not exist. You would be very foolish to assume so. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Last chance, put up or shut up. Provide sources for constructive change, or this conversation will be closed and archived. Call anyone "foolish" or "pathetic" (as you did here before you revised your comment]) or any other personal attack again, and you're blocked. Last chance.   Sergecross73   msg me  01:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Last Chance" Don't make me laugh. This article is the one with dishonest intent, not I. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)