Talk:List of PlayStation 3 games (A–C)/Archive 2

Chronology
This is a comprehensive chronology of PlayStation 3 games. Games from any region are included. The initial listing order is based on the game's initial release anywhere in the world, but can be reordered by region.

Bolded dates indicate the earliest release date.

New articles
new ones have been done but this list is such a pain in the ass (i mean the detailed ref link is a nightmare), where can i list newly created PS3 articles to be added by *someone* on the list please? thanks. Synchronicity I (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC) i suggest to complete the list using the japanese PlayStation.com Software Catalog (there tick "PlayStation 3" and "Disc" to get a proper full list). latest articles under chronological order gives:
 * Miyasato Miyoshi Kyoudai Naizou: Sega Golf Club
 * Mist of Chaos
 * Winning Post 7 Maximum 2007
 * Professional Baseball Spirits 4
 * 山佐DigiワールドSPパチスロ戦国無双 (not created yet)
 * G1 Jockey 4 2007
 * Winning Post 7 Maximum 2008
 * Professional Baseball Spirits 5

with the preceding titles, the list of japanese blu-ray releases would be complete as of june 25, 2008.

i think we should use a chronoligical sort with month and year of the original version's release like it was done with the PS1 game list [here]. Synchronicity I (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 山佐DigiワールドSPパチスロ戦国無双 (not created yet) aka Yamasa PachiSlot added to the list Synchronicity I (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

what about Game Archives
is there an existing list with all "Game Archives" which is the name for the PS1 games available on the PS Store (like MGS1, Policenauts, RE2 etc.). Synchronicity I (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

chart
why is europe before usa? japan first ok since the ps3 was released there first but second is usa why is it in third position instead of second? Synchronicity I (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * who cares? this isn't a place where you can field a bias for a particular region. it doesnt need changing. chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  10:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest putting game category (RPG/FIGHTING/ETC) and online functionality in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santavez (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Unecessary sections
Why do people keep adding unecessary sections like resolution, xmb support etc? It makes the page look overcrowded, and techincal information such as this shouldnt be included on a page that is intended to display general information. Keep it in line with the 360 and Wii game lists please. Jericho1337 (talk) 20:18, 2nd July 2008 (UTC)

publisher column
Is there any reason to have it there? I don't really see the point to it, especially as certain developers use different publishers in different territories (Square used to publish EA games in Japan and vice versa for America), or even different publishers for re-releases of the same game (FF9 in the UK was orginally published by Squaresoft themselves, the platinum version was published by Infogrames). Surely if people want to know something as "small" as that, they'd actually visit the games page. I feel that the space 'wasted' by therefore possibly erroneous information could be put to better use... we could use it for an 'first released' column, meaning the chronological page can finally disappear and you can sort from the same list. Example: Opinions? chocobogamer  LOOK AT WHAT I DID  12:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  13:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * cool... now, anyone with a lot of time on their hands wanna do it? at least itl end 2 discussions and probably even make this page (albeit only slightly) smaller.. chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the publisher column in not necessary. The space could be put to much better use. I'm also not sure on even having the developer column for the same reason chocobogamer for the publisher; the reader can drill down into the game's article if they want the information and can then access the developer's article for a list of games from that developer (which most of them seem to have). I'm also not a big fan of the abbreviated 'T' and 'E' column headers. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal but it requires the user to read the introduction which could be irritating if they are just looking for something for quick reference. Removing the Dev column would allow these to be expanded.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 14:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Example:


 * Well that I'm not so sure about, seems like too little information, the developer will be the same with each version of release of the game. And I did adjust (widen) the game title column so it could easily be made smaller to fit the full words Exclusive and Trophy. But obviously everyones opinion counts, so whats everyone think of takin dev from the table? chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  14:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the right way to be looking at it, but my thinking is about what people are likely to use this article for. What I'm thinking is that people who come here would just be looking for a list of PS3 games. If they were after a list of games from a certiain developer, they would look for that developer's article. Again, I'm not sure if that's the way I should be looking at it but that's the rationale behind my suggestion. :)  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing i'm worried about is, if it is just a list with dates and trophy/exclusivity, it could become classified as part of what wikipedia is not, if we're including devs and chronology, its not just a list, its a valuable source of information chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  14:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. And as you said, the full column names can fit anyway. Now, at the risk of sounding like a looser with nothing better to do with a Sunday afternoon, I don't mind making the changes, but does anyone happen to know of any software that makes editing Wikitables not such a pain in the arse!? :)  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not personally, sorry. thats half the reason my examples have only been one line long lol. chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  14:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've made that edit. I think the Exclusive column should be moved to the left of the Trophy Support column. I can't do that now so if anyone fancies doing it, feel free. I came across this tool which looks as if it should be able to do it easily but I couldn't get it to work.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 17:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * definitely better not having the pub list, however, still need a chronological column, and I think still use the and, but maybe a simple extra like C for console exclusive and P for trophy patch, seems like a waste of space otherwise. thanks for that though :) chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think it should stay as it is. The and  are too restrictive and don't really allow for other information to be included in the column. 'C' and 'P' would have to be explained elsewhere on the page which I don't think is very good. There is enough space for the current formatting now that the dev column is gone.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, I'm adding the other info now. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 01:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ "Exclusive" column moved to the left of "Trophy support" column and "First released" column added. There are a few factual errors that will need to be fixed still, but right now, I really have to get to bed. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, commented on your talk page before I saw this. I think the similar work needs to be done to List of PlayStation Network games. Would be a lot easier if I could find some software that works!  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 07:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to start on List of PlayStation Network games. I'm just letting you know so we don't have two people doing hte same thing. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ with that. I ended up removing the info in that article relating to PSOne classics because it is a copy of the info in List of PSOne Classics. If someone else wants to do that article, feel free. Right now, I need to do something else... Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting started on PSOne Classics now  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ and I never want to look at a Wikitable again! Now I think that's everything? Good job everyone. Thanks!  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 20:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys looks great. Wish I'd had the time to help. Still at least its stopped ongoing discussions.. chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

final fantasy versus xiii
is still apparently exclusive to ps3. no mention as yet has been made of a 360 version and according to a final fantasy fansite http://finalfantasyversusxiii.net/ (its a fansite but not console oriented) in an interview with Kitase there are no plans. I'm assuming this interview was after ff13 was announced for xbox360 chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  21:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry i reverted it. My mistake. I'm adding a ref for FF 13 not being exclusive as some people may think it's a mistake.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

coloumn list for co-op play on ps3
read headline..

i think it would be a good idea and is allways ending up with, looking for co-op games for playstation 3 or any other game machine. and it is very hard to find a webpage that do this if there are any on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugblue (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 1080p information
Just thought I ought to say why I removed the column which was added by 202.40.139.168. Firstly, none of the information was sourced. Also, there is not really room for any more columns on this table. On smaller monitors is distorts the table and makes it hard to read. I also, in my humble opinion, don't really think the information is needed here. Obviously, if anyone disagrees, discuss!  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 07:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding GENDER (like FPS, RTS RPG ...) column to the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.253 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean genre? Like I said, i don't really think there's room for any more columns. Especially for something like genre because it could be quite wide with all the diferent genres a game could come under. Also, the information is easily available from the infobox on a game's article  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but if I'm interested in researching FPSs only, should I have to go to each game's article and infobox? Everyone has their own view, of course. Mine is that I think genre information is more useful than exclusivity.  Leave it with you.Heds (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if Genre was added, it wouldn't allow the user to easily filter/sort by each one. As games come under multiple genres, each game's genre column could contain something like FPS, Action while another could be RPG, FPS. There'd be no way of just seeing the FPSes. (Unless there's a way of coding it that I don't know about?) I see where you're coming from though.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should create a wikipage on the various genres of video games, this could then include a list of all the games separated by genre. Dark verdant (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can already do this. For example: Category:Racing video games, Category:Off-road racing video games. But I'm not sure how well these are maintained or how specific the categories get. To add a game to a category, you just add a link to that category at the bottom of the game page eg. . As is done on MotorStorm: Pacific Rift for example.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 14:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII and Versus XIII Not Going to PC
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6195345.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0

Quote from article:

"Nomura and Toriyama also debunked rumors that a PC version of FFXIII is in development. They explained the confusion arose from a misunderstanding when producer Yoshinori Kitase mentioned at E3 that Square Enix is working on a PC project. 'We've always been developing on PCs,' laughed Nomura. 'In fact, I've been doing so since Final Fantasy VI.' "

That quote is directly from the DK Sigma3173 Event that was on August 2nd. Both XII and Versus XIII are NOT coming to PC (as of yet anyway), and therefore Versus XIII is full exclusive, not just console exclusive, so I'm changing that back. 68.161.115.8 (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mention Versus XIII. The only source regarding V13 says it is going onto PC chocobogamer   LOOK AT WHAT I DID  10:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well so much for that eh?... 71.249.144.35 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty Not a Retail Title
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6195261.html?tag=result;title;0

It's a $15 downloadable title coming out on August 21st. It belongs under the PSN list, not the retail list. 68.161.115.8 (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also being released on Blu-Ray in Europe.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 11:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's coming to Blu-Ray in Europe as a $15 disc? Or will it come with the original Ratchet or something? Regardless I wish that would come stateside, since I hate buying things as downloads since they have no value to after that. 71.249.144.35 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the release date to the blu-ray edition, the PSN-verson can been seen on List of PlayStation Network games. --Arthur 2045 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone direct me to where this page says its only retail titles? I cannot seem to find this information. TheUsedVersion (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Trophies: N/A for unreleased games?
I notice that SpindashStudios has changed the trophy status to N/A for unreleased games which haven't been confirmed to have trophies. For trophies, don't think there's a difference between released and unreleased games. If trophies haven't been confirmed we can assume that the game doesn't feature trophies. I think it was more accurate as it was. Not Applicable (because the game hasn't been released yet) isn't true because some unreleased games show "yes". If the rule was that a game should show "N/A" until it has been confirmed either way, then most of the already released games should show "N/A" aswell. Thoughts?  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Spindash, in your recent edit, you added "Please note: majority of the unreleased games listed have not yet been confirmed to have trophies and are therefore left blank." The majority of released games have not been confirmed either way either but they are assumed not to have trophies until it is confirmed otherwise. Currently, as most games being released do not have trophies it is fair to keep this assumption. Please disuss here.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to make it clear for people that future titles haven't been recognized whe:ther or not Trophies would be included and that it doesn't flat out mean "no" just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpindashStudios (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to leave them blank until the game is confirmed from media/consumers that Trophies have or have not been included? Saying that it doesn't for titles yet to be released is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpindashStudios (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally engaging in this discussion. You appear to be fairly new, so you may not know that in situations like this, if there is a disagreement on a certain edit, it should be discussed on the article's talk page.
 * I have edited the column heading in an attempt to clarify what the column shows. The fact is, if an announcement has not been made as to whether a game has trophies, or if trophies have not been implemented, the game does not have trophies. Like I said, under the same logic as your edits, you would have to remove "no" from all the already release games as, like the unreleased ones, no announcement has been made either way.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Titling the column "Trophies (Confirmed)" is much better and clearer. That'll do it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpindashStudios (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's a good way to present the info. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "exclusive" column
I reverted an edit which removed the "Exclusive" column from the table. I don't see how this information could be perceived as "trivia". I could understand if it was "Number of celebrities who own this game" or something ridicules like that but exclusivity is a big deal and has a major influence on the game and the console that it's released on.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary clutter that just makes the huge game lists even larger. Large articles = a problem. The exclusive column has been removed from nearly all video game lists with little to no problems. PlayStation 3 should be no different. If you want to know the exclusives: search the category or go to a video game site. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games for a discussion I made on this matter. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

All Games or Retail Games?
Is this list for all PS3 games or retail games only? The title of the page suggests that this is all Playstation 3 games and not just ones that are released via retail. Either the list needs to include all PS3 games or the title needs to be changed to reflect that this is only retail games. It would seem better that a list is available for all PS3 games. It would also improve the credibility of the site to have all the games in this list since the title of the article reflects as much. I know that there is a separate list for "PSN only" games and thats an appropriate list to have. Maybe a new list should be created that has only retail releases on it. It would be quite simple to do since you would only need to copy this list over to a new one. TheUsedVersion (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see List of PlayStation Network games. Thanks. Thingg &#8853; &#8855;  23:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I know that there is a list for PSN games. The average person who comes to the site and sees that there is a list called, "List of Playstation 3 games" would expect to find all Playstation 3 games in the list, correct? A lot of people would not even know what PSN is. TheUsedVersion (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to specify exactly what this list is supposed to include, with proper sources if applicable. Until we come up with inclusion criteria per WP:LIST, we should only include games that have their own Wikipedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, the inclusion criteria appears to be games listed by independent sources. In most (all?) cases, the source is ps3.ign.com.  These sourcing links need to be formatted as references. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Single source for trophies
I reverted a good faith edit which used a single source for all of the games' trophy flags. It's my understanding that it is always best to use an announcement directly from the a company involved where possible, in this case the games developer/publisher. This edit removed many of these refs. Also, ps3trophies.co.uk (the website used) has not been established as a reliable source and on the page provided, does not provide it's sources for the information. I see also that the TheSixthAxis's trophy list has been used as a source for some time however this page provides sources for games which have not yet been released or for patched that have not yet launched. It might be a good idea to replace these refs with direct sources anyway.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 09:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Play Factory
This game has been removed from the developer's site and they are ignoring enquiries about it. I think it has been dropped. It was even supposed to be released in 2007! 86.7.209.199 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "exclusive" and "trophies" column
I don't believe this information is trivial. Exclusivity is very important for both the games and the consoles that they are exclusive to and as such, game exclusivity is reported widely in the gaming media. Having it in a list povides quick reference to the number and percentage of games which have only been released on this console. Trophies may be less important but are still widely reported in the gaming media, making them notable. I understand that the page is very big and something needs to be done, but simply removing valuable information without discussion doesn't seem like the way to go. One suggestion would be to maybe break the list down by year to create List of PlayStation 3 games first released in 2006, List of PlayStation 3 games first released in 2007, etc?  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 09:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Trophies are a trivial feature that people can find out in the game's respective article, and could be converted into a Category. Why do we need to list what PS3 games are exclusive when we have Category:PlayStation 3-only games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does/should Wikipedia be long winded and confusing? If I wanted to read a list of all the games and whether they are exclusive or have trophies this list makes it very easy. However what you propose is that I click on each of the links for each game to find out if they are exclusive or have trophies. That would take me ages to do when the information is quite easily available in the list on this page. I don't believe that the information is trivial as it is quite important to some readers of the page that require that information. Surely by your reasoning the PS3 only games page should be removed; as in your eyes that is trivial information. Dark verdant (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the basis that it's not necessary because there are already categories that provide the same information, surely that makes the whole page redundant as there is already a 'PlayStation 3 games' category? Having the information in this form (helped by the colour-coding) provides an overview of the percentage of exclusive games and the percentage of games offering trophies, at a glance.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I proposed is "find this information by means of a category". You are trying to twist logic to say "well if being a category means this information is unnecessary THEN WE HAVE TO DELETE EVERYTHING LOLOL". The PS3 games category doesn't adequately replace the list, but the PS3-only category adequately replaces that column, as should a category of games with trophies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove the Trophies section, I will add them back in. They stay or you will constantly be removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Virginian (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is what I think we should do with the list in the article:

Example:

And make it into:

I think some of you are familiar with that table below that I brought into List of WiiWare games (with the exception of the extra column of Wii Points). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The three columns are unnecessary. Just have one column with NA, JP, PAL. And like I said, the list of trophies could easily be converted into a category with no loss of information. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What three columns are you refering to, and why do we need trophies? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The regional columns. And I assumed that the T = Trophies. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT: My bad, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought your first template was the one you proposed. Yeah, the template you propose is good, though we shouldn't use flagicons. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the Japanese release date column necessary or appropriate on en.wikipedia? I think the trophy and exclusivity columns are far more useful than this. If this was removed would it adequately reduce the size of the table? To be honest, I'm not a fan of the layout suggested above.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 08:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the difference of four characters - "(JP)", while with Trophies and Exclusives you've got to put either the X or Check template or Yes/No every time. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the 3 release columns are necessary. The only release column we should have is the the First Available column (the time when the game(s) first hit the market anywhere in the world. The exclusive and trophies definately must go, as it's not appropriate to have in a video game list. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Trophies can be made into a category of "PlayStation 3 games which feature trophies". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about removing the Japanese release date from the existing layout - the difference is of more than four characters! Removing the Japanese release date would save a significant number of characters. In any case, I oppose the use of the check template. There's no point removing the flagicons only to slow down the page again with more graphics.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 08:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really care who developed what, to me that is trivial information, therefore I propose we remove the developer column. It also probably takes up more space than exclusive and trophies put together. Just because something is trivial to one person does not mean it is to everyone else. Developer info can be found on each of the games pages just like exclusivity and trophies. As can the release dates so what are we left with on our list of playstation 3 games, the game names. Which quite frankly can be found on each of the game pages so whats the point of having this list? In order for people to find the information they want quickly and easily without trawling through hundreds of pages. I think the table the way it is right now should stay. Dark verdant (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When someone brings up the argument of "well EVERYTHING can be found on the game page, so we shouldn't even have lists!", it indicates a failing argument. No one has ever argued that trophies and exclusive status are necessary, only useful - and when we deal in articles slowly growing in size, we can't afford to add extras. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the games publisher not listed? The publisher is more important than the developer, especially since it's the publisher who usually finances and controls a game. Also, trophies don't need to be mentioned, especially since starting in January Sony will require every PS3 game to feature them.  TJ   Spyke   23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea. It certainly should be listed over developer. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If all PS3 games have to have trophies after January then sure may as well get rid of that column. Is this going to be retroactive though? What about games that don't currently have trophies? Wouldn't know what is more important between developer and publisher though to be honest. Wouldn't the people who make the game be more important than the ones publishing it. Surely authors of books are more important than the company publishing it would this not be the same for games? Dark verdant (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because publishers of books are not as famous as publishers of video games. If we went by developer for games like, say, Drawn to Life, we'd get the relatively unknown 5th Cell, rather than THQ, or if we did The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons, we'd get Flagship over Nintendo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The publisher column was removed some time ago because publishers are different in different regions and it proved impractical to list all of them in the table. A consensus was made that the developer was more important because they actually make the game.
 * Trophies being compulsory from January only applies to games sent for certification after December 31. It does not apply to games already released. In the future (six months or so), I'm sure this column will become redundant, but for the time being I still think it should stay.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 09:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Split the page?
The recent vandalism fest pointed out to me that it takes a looooong time to load this page into Firefox (on Mac with WikEd and other javascript gadgets turned on). How do people feel about splitting it up into A-L, M-Z sub-lists? &mdash;Noah 22:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about this for a while but I couldn't think of a good way to do it. Would splitting by year of first release be better? 'List of PlayStation 3 games released in 2007', 'List of PlayStation 3 games released in 2008', etc  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Trim the size. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how we trim the size without removing games. As far as "year vs alphabetical" I think you have to go with alphabetical because people think about games based on their name, not the year they were released. That is, most people are going to use the table to find out things like "is game X an exclusive?" and that is hard to do if you don't know what page on which to find game X. &mdash;Noah 04:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true. Alpha seems like the way to go.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 23:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously? This article, which consistently:
 * Repeats the same dates for the same game
 * Uses URLs which could be modified into a handful of references
 * Uses Flagicons
 * Has two extraneous columns
 * etc.
 * It can't be trimmed? You can drop the release dates, you can drop a ton of stuff - the way people act is that once content is added, it damages the article to remove it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

installs
i was just wondering if this should have a sperate coloum to tell what games have installs and how big they are with some ps3 only haveing 20gb or 40gb HDD this may be of intrest to people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.103.7 (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a situation where that type of information would really be useful en masse, personally, I think it would be just more trivia. People wonder a lot about the numbers of exclusives, and trophy support, but I don't think they care about install size. Bridger.anderson (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
Should I add custom soundtrack lists for all games? I know it might seem irrelevant, but I myself have games that has custom sountracks and it is important to let players know whether or not the games has custom soundtracks. That, and the same goes for the downloadable PS3 games, like Wipeout HD with custom soundtrack feature. Though I can't afford risk of having the PS3 game boards to end up stretching the page, let alone breaking it. In conlusion, should I add it for both PS3 games and PS3 downloadable games? JMBZ-12 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be great but I have a feeling the Wiki-heads in here will not. I'd like to see the list expand to show number of offline players as well, but I doubt that would be "acceptable" either. It might be a better idea to make a new page "List of Playstation 3 games that support custom soundtracks" but I'm sure some wiki-lawyer will say "Wikipedia is not a list!" 198.6.46.11 (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a great idea to add PS3 games list with custom soundtracks. However, I'll have to ask one of the users if this is ok for me to add them. JMBZ-12 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding a 'Platinum' column to show which games award the Platinum trophy. This is an important aspect of a game for trophy hunters. There might also be a way to incorporate it into the already existing Trophies column, allowing for a Platinum option in addition to just Yes/No. I believe that this is a reliable list of the games that award Platinum trophies: http://www.ps3trophies.org/forum/games/16914-project-platinum.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.30.10 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary as all of the games in this list (with trophies) have a platinum trophy. Only downloadable games don't have them.  Chimpanzee  - User | Talk | Contribs 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All downloadable games (excluding Wipeout HD) has no Platinum trophy. The main games does contain Platinum trophies. Back on topic; custom soundtracks won't be added to the list of PS3 games. It should be noted that customers should look at the back of the game cover. When it reads "Custom Soundtrack", that would be possible. However, it is unclear if custom soundtracks can be played via XMB or through the Options menu, so it best to know that some games can't play custom music tracks via XMB. JMBZ-12 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Three columns for release dates in different countries is a bit much. There is more interesting information to be had such as game genre, subject ratings (sex, violence, language, etc.) and a short game summary. Right now this page is just a list of games without much other usefulness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.167.2 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of the article is to provide a chronological list of games, therefore the dates are the most important columns. Not sure the Japanese dates are necessary on en.wikipedia though. I think they should be removed.  Chimpanzee  - User | Talk | Contribs 10:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Game not on the list
Man vs Wild with Bear Grylls. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/041/041588.html Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/097/097267.html The Sims 3: Pets. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/110/110374.html Ferrari: The Race Experience. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/084/084522.html {UNPLANNED VERSION?} The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. http://ps3.ign.com/objects/037/037653.html Kricsek (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove trophy information?
Anyone else think the Trophy column is unnecessary now? It's been about a year since they were made compulsory so I'm not sure that the information is as valuable as it was when we created the column. I've got a feeling this is going to be an unpopular suggestion but the page is enormous - we need to find some way of trimming it down. Maybe the creation of Comparison of PlayStation 3 games' features would be an option?  Chimpanzee  - User | Talk | Contribs 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, creating that is the only option, since we do need to split the games that have and does not have trophies. Go ahead and create the Comparison of PlayStation 3 games' features. JMBZ-12 (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exclusivity column

 * was: Console exclusivity

Can we please get rid of this "console exclusivity" thing? This is marketing nonsense that we shouldn't be propagating on Wikipedia - a game is either exclusive to a particular platform, or it isn't. If it's on PC too, then it's not an exclusive. Also proposed on List of Xbox 360 games.  Mi re ma re   13:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please participate in the central discussion here which has evolved into a proposal to remove the "Exclusive" column altogether. –xeno<sup style="color:black;">talk 13:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Total Number of Exclusives Reference ?
I just sorted by exclusives, and copy/pasted all exclusives into Excel, and see 115 exclusives, not 159. I understand that this page is an incomplete list, but what reference states the tally is at 159 and not 115? I just think it's odd that there's no reference and that some titles in the list aren't released yet. If we are getting 159 from a reference, we should list it. Or I just screwed up cutting/pasting and there actually is 159 in the table. Bridger.anderson (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 482 (exclusive: 0; multi-platform: 482; console exclusive: 0; trophy support: 385) games on this list.

Rofl. Fanboys will be fanboys. 90.192.164.124 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why?
If the title of the article is "List of PlayStation 3 games, it means list of released games and I think this list doesn't have to have unreleased yet games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.52.61.244 (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you asking? There are loads of upcoming (unreleased) games on the list.  Chimpanzee  - User | Talk | Contribs 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I ask to remove the upcoming games as the title of the article says "list of (existing) ps3 games" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.50.36.168 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be fine by me if upcoming titles had their own section, or even their own page. --Kamasutra (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreleased
When should "Unreleased" be used? I am not seeing an obvious distinction between when it and "N/A" or "TBA" are used. I'd like to see some consistent usage if any are interchangeable, or at least correct usage otherwise. --Kamasutra (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

DC universe
DC universe online has a release date listed as April 21rst. Well it's April 29th and there was no DC universe at the store.

Edit request from JAK-Boy, 25 May 2010
Assassins Creed Brother Hood release October 1st 2010 or November 11, 2010

JAK-Boy (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I only see possible release of Q4 2010. Please provide source with confirmed release date. Spigot Map  16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

COME HERE
Why isn't there any publishers? I'm doing a project and I REALLY need to know the publishers. (Usually, I'll just go on Google since I already know this Wiki sucks, but since there's no scources, I decided to be here) (No SineBot, no IP this time! ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.216.184 (talk • contribs)

This ongoing vandalism has to stop
The IP users' constant vandalism on this article is going too far. This page needs to be protected indefinetly in order to prevent IP users from performing further vandalism to the page. If it's not protected, then this page would be nothing more than a huge vandal-fest. JMBZ-12 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the List of PlayStation 3 games article needs to be protected for an indefinite of time, due to constant vandalism caused by anonymous IP users. Since the article is not protected to protect it from vandal users, then it would turn out to be a vandalism spree. JMBZ-12 (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JMBZ-12. Apparently, it seems that no one is willing to permanently protect the page from constant vandalism, other than simply protecting the page temporarily. While I may be an anonymous IP user, I am not like the rest of the IP users who enjoys vandalizing the List of PlayStation 3 games page, so like JMBZ-12 said, the continous vandalism has to stop. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GTA V
I have doubts about the information off GTA V since it's not officially confirmed. Jillids (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sortable Date Format
The date format should be changed to ISO date format (e.g., 2011-03-05). Not only is this shorter, but the date columns then sort in a sensible way. Cjs (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 17 October 2011
Infamous 2 has been released in EU, on June 10, 2011.

Vodzurk (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to give a reliable source - if you can, please re-request.  Chzz  ► 00:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon Network Punch Time Explosion
That game has a new name: Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion XL, new release date in NA: 8 November 2011, and will be trophies in the game: 13:23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.189.67 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Trophy references
I believe the references for trophy support are unnecessary since as of January 2009 so is trophy support mandatory for all PS3 games submitted to Sony for certification (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Network#Trophies). Some of the references are dead links as well. I will remove the trophy references, please undo my change if you don't agree with me. Ragowit (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Split this list apart?
There are too many titles and too many kilobytes to load quickly. I'm thinking either alphabetical or exclusivity order. --George Ho (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2012
"Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light" developed by Crystal Dynamics, release Unknown excklusive no and Trophies yes.

78.94.49.91 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: not until they release it!!  Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012 - NHL 13 (unknown to Unreleased)

 * NHL 13
 * EA Canada
 * Unreleased
 * Unreleased
 * Unreleased
 * Unreleased
 * No
 * Yes

Lewis (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm not exactly sure what you want changed and where it is in the article. However you are autoconfirmed so you should be able to edit the article yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 August 2012 - update first release dates to match other columns
fix column "first release dates" to match dates in other columns. release dates have been added without updating the first release date column.

Lewis (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done I think I got all of them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Question/Suggestion
Hey. I'm here to ask on why are you guys temporarily protecting the page numerous times if you guys know that once it expires, the IP users will resume creating chaos by vandalizing this page once more? I know this might sound crazy, but it'll be a lot easier if you guys have protected the page indefinitely so this way, it'll remedy the constant vandalism concerns from IP users, or sockpuppeters, who would cause trouble by tampering the templates, blank the pages, or even add vulgar texts to the page. This is also the suggestion I'm giving you for admninistrator users, considering as how temporarily protecting the page, even if you extend the months in order to prevent ongoing vandalism, which almost guarantees not to work, that doesn't mean its a permanent solution. Even I'm an IP user, but I'm nothing like them in any way. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.27.105 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly agree with you. The number of temporary protections to the page doesn't seem to have any POVs in solving the vandalism problems, considering as how once it expires, the anonymous IP users are free to create problems to the page once again, thus affecting the overall quality of the page without first permanenetly protecting the page. I also second in me, being an anonymous IP user myself, although I refrain from degrading the pages unless if I do have an idea to add for the pages, otherwise I would leave it alone. It would be a good idea to prtect the page permanently in order to reduce a number of anonymous IP users who would vandalize the page any further in the near future. 63.245.95.2 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we try and notify the administrators on Wikipedia, they'll most likely decline, because even though the page was plagued by past incidents created by IP vandals, they don't get the fact that the indefinite protection to this page to minimize further vandalization can ultimately reduce the chance for the page to be edited wrongfully. I myself am an IP user, but I make good contributions like any normal users would do, unlike IP vandals and sockpuppeters. Admins, if you're reading these, I would kindly ask if you would protect the page indefinitely to prevent anymore IP users from creating chaos to this page in the near future. 70.45.61.60 (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really tell on when that protection page would expire... also fourthed. Am an anon myself, never would I vandalize any pages I would see in any way at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.17.240 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Sherlock Holmes
The Testament of Sherlock Holmes was released on 20 September 2012 in Europe and the 25th in North America. It is not exclusive and it has trophies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.1.162 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012
Need For Speed Most Wanted // Dirt Showdown // Ratchet & Clank Full Frontal assault // Ratchet & Clank Collection //

70.29.86.61 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012
In the game list you can write: Ratchet & Clank: Q-Force

78.70.220.24 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2012
50 Cent: Blood on the Sand is not the list?

89.168.80.191 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Salvidrim!   11:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done list updated with this source article link:50 Cent: Blood on the Sand.
 * Rudolf sonora (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 February 2013
Include "LEGO Batman 2: DC Super Heroes" in the list. Appears in Wikipedia.

190.220.150.170 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please provide reliable sources that support the change you would like to make.
 * ✔️ Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 08:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2013
Include "LEGO Batman 2: DC Super Heroes" in the list. Appears in Wikipedia., here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Batman_2:_DC_Super_Heroes. I think Wikipedia is a reliable source, or not? It´s crazy if it is in Wikipedia but not in the list of games for PS3 that Wikipedia has.

190.220.150.170 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done List updated Rudolf sonora (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2013
Please add this title:

Video Game	                 Developer(s)	First released	Japan  Europe	North America

World of Outlaws: Sprint Cars   Big Ant Studios  May 11, 2010    - June 17, 2010 May 11, 2010

This is the source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Outlaws:_Sprint_Cars

Tomerko (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia itself is not reliable, but you may use references provided in that article. TBrandley (what's up) 05:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ with references to IGN. Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 09:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2013
Include "THe Orange Box" in the list. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Box

190.220.150.170 (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done This game is already listed (did you check under "O"?). BryanG (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2013
Include Crysis. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis

201.213.191.30 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. However, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, although references from that article are fine to use (which is what I just did). BryanG (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013
Include Injustice: God amogn US. Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injustice:_Gods_Among_Us

190.210.82.189 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done: Looks like another editor already took care of this request but forgot to close it. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, although references from that article are fine to use (which is what was done in this case). Thanks! -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 May 2013
Injustice: Gods Among Us with source "277" is partly wrong. It says "yes" it is PS3 exclusive but that is wrong. It is also available on xbox 360 and the Wii. Source: https://www.injustice.com/en

Jjkkbb007 (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅! Thanks. JguyTalkDone 17:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Updates needed
Games such "DmC: Devil May Cry", "Dishonored" and "Aliens: Colonial Marines" among others have not been updated even after their release. Can anyone pls updated these among other games by reviewing the whole article and updating these to avoid any errors. One may use sites like these to help:

http://us.gamespot.com/games.html?platform=1028&mode=top http://www.ign.com/games/reviews?platformSlug=ps3 http://www.metacritic.com/browse/games/release-date/available/ps3/date?view=detailed&hardware=all&page=0

This will help improve this list. I apologize for i am not qualified to edit and not good at it. Thanks. Pls update this list soon. "Watchers" you can also ask help from the PlayStation Task Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Latik (talk • contribs) 09:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Latik (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

24.43.49.250 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Robert, I think you meant to do this: I dream of horses (T) @ 04:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC) (corrected template at 04:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Probably they did. However, since no request for a specific change has been made, I'm marking this as answered. Perhaps someone who'd care to update the article will see the thread and find the links useful. Rivertorch (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Crysis 3
Crysis 3 is listed as first-released Feb. 21 2011 (NA) and unreleased in other columns. Crysis 3 is first-released Feb 19, 2013 (NA), Feb 21 (EU) and March 7 (JP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.229.79 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Papo & Yo
Pop & Yo is not a PS3 exclusive and is incorrectly labelled. Needs a console tag as it is now on PC.

178.76.154.107 (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC) The article is 1194 kb, it was hella difficult to get that edit to save. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2
the dates for castlevania are way off, they do not even come out in 2013, it's core wiki page shows the proper date to be around February 25, 2014.

174.20.243.179 (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: The Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 article lists release dates of "TBA", but it references this source, which says it's due in "Winter 2013". Can you give us links to reliable sources with a proper date, please? --Stfg (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

One Piece: Pirate Warriors 1 and 2 notes
I know for a fact that One Piece: Pirate Warriors is available in Europe as a disc (9/21/2012) and in North America as a download only title (9/25/2012). In addition, there is a sequel: One Piece: Pirate Warriors 2. It is available in Japan (3/20/2013) and Europe (8/30/13), and download only in North America (9/3/13). I don't have a more legitimate source at the moment, but I do own both of these games because I downloaded them on my PS3.

68.108.5.58 (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Although you may be correct, having a source is crucial, as a reputable, supporting reference serves as a stable point of verifiability. Please find sources backing your claim. Thanks. --JustBerry (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Child of Eden Not on list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_of_Eden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.192.153 (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 08:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2014
This game should be on the list. I've tried to copy the formatting of an existing one. Hope it's OK:

JP: November 21, 2013
 * Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII
 * Square Enix


 * November 21 2013
 * February 14 2014
 * February 11 2014
 * No
 * Yes

195.234.39.220 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ as requested.diff Sorry for the wait! Zhaofeng Li [ talk... contribs... ] 08:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)