Talk:List of Final Fantasy titles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star List of Final Fantasy titles is the main article of the Final Fantasy titles series, a featured topic, which means it has been identified as part of one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.
Featured list star List of Final Fantasy titles is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.
Image:FF project logo.png This article or template is part of WikiProject Final Fantasy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Final Fantasy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Square Enix, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Square Enix related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This is a selected article of WikiProject Computer and video games.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Unoffical Logo

Is it appropriate to use an unoffical Final Fantasy III logo? I already marked it as unoffical on it's own page a while ago. But I've been thinking maybe it should be removed at least until we get the offical logo when it is released on the Nintendo DS. Anyone's thoughts? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Is it really the unofficial logo? I didn't know (being the one who organised the page). I suppose there's little harm in using it for now. Do you know where it comes from? — Cuahl 21:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I changed the logos. — Cuahl 21:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Final Fantasy III Logo.jpg -> Image:Final Fantasy III Official Logo.jpg
Cheers for the changeover. I have done a great deal of research into the logos, being a fan of Amano. I have a webpage about them [here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sean.d.fowler/ffl/]. I'm not sure of the source of the logo, but I can say for sure it's unoffical. I've been waiting for the offical logo for some time now. But I'm sure we won't be waiting much longer. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that logo with the sword the US logo for FF6? It seems like as of now the only known official FF3 logo is the one for the 1990 Famicom version. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 00:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I don't know very much about the early FFs. Maybe we should have a blank image after all? — Cuahl 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Certainly not. I know there was a Japanese FF3 logo for the Famicom version, that should be used until an official redesigned FF3 logo is revealed. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 02:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
It's definitely the North American Final Fantasy VI logo. It's even on the box, and the Japanese games never used that particular font style. The only logo for the game is the one in the upper left corner of the game box: there's no in-game logo. I've uploaded the best quality copy I could find here. I suggest we use this for this page, but I think the main Final Fantasy III page should use the box art in the infobox, if only because that's the general standard for CVG infoboxes, and there's no legitimate reason to buck that trend in this particular case (since there was only ever the one box). – Seancdaug 02:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
If you are really talking about putting the game box on the infobox, the problem is that all Final Fantasy pages seem to have a standard being putting the logo in the infobox. I tried in some of my first contributions to place the box art in some Final Fantasy pages, but it was ultimately reverted to the logo. Note that the WikiProject Final Fantasy had not been started at that particular moment. – DarkEvil 04:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm the guy who first started putting the game logos in the infobox instead of the box art, and it was purely a matter of convenience: most Final Fantasy games have been released in multiple regions, and many for multiple systems, and each has a different box design. Since it wasn't practical to put every cover image into the infobox, I threw the logo in there and created a new cover gallery section as part of the article itself. Final Fantasy III, on the other hand, has only the one box, and therefore there's no good reason to violate the standards set by the CVG WikiProject in this case. – Seancdaug 12:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the logo on the Final Fantasy III article to the Japanese one too. I really don't think it's appropriate to use a fan-designed logo in any context. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Fan-translation dates

I believe that the fan translation dates should be removed. This is only going to be of intrest the the hard-core of Final Fantasy fans that probabily downloaded the patches. As well as confusing the uninitiated, this could be considered so called fancruft. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree: they are well-known, extremely common among FF fans and for a long time served as the only way English gamers could get their hands on 2, 3, 4 Hardtype and 5. As such, I'd consider them notable. --Kizor 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm of two minds. On one hand, I do feel that the information itself is notable enough to include somewhere. I am not convinced, however, that it deserves to be mentioned here. I wouldn't argue that we should purge the information from the individual game articles, but I don't believe it's notable enough as a "takeaway" point to deserve special mention on this list. – Seancdaug 22:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I also just think this information is fine in the game articles. But I think this list should restrict itself to offical releases. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd agree: if I was to come looking for info on a fan-translation, I'd go to the game's main article, not here. Gamemaker 23:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this isn't exactly a consensus, but I'm going to go ahead and remove them. They can always be re-added later. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PC titles

Ive noticed that on the internet that the PC ports of Final Fantasy are scarce and hard to come by. Does anyone know why they might be out of print while the original playstation titles are still in print (though you cant wiew them on the store for some reason). --Psi edit

  • Probably because of the changes in operating systems for PC over the years. There are many old PC games that don't work on windows XP for various reasons whereas the Playstation versions work on all versions of the Playstation because they are backwards compatible. That's why you see most old PC games being rereleased by companies such as sold out etc. The games are reencoded to become up to date with modern drivers etc. I don't know why Final Fantasy on the PC has never been rereleased. Ajplmr 17:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Itadaki Streets

Wouldn't Itadaki Street go under the list as well? Granted, it's a spin-off and does feature characters from other Square Enix games... Deiaemeth 04:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, since later versions do have Final Fantasy characters in it. It was originally created by Enix though. ~ Hibana 12:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario RPG

I added it to the list. It doesn't have Final Fantasy characters, but it features Final Fantasy music, elements, and Bahamut. Crazyswordsman 04:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is Bahamut in the game? ~ Hibana 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Bahamut (actually mispelled "Bahamutt") is a boss in Bowser's Keep. Czar Dragon, Zombone, and the Crystals also make appearances. Crazyswordsman 16:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Should we add the game's article toCategory:Final Fantasy spin-offs? There's a pretty good description of some Final Fantasy related material in article's Cultural references section, but nothing on the monsters you just described. ~ Hibana 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think so. It's more of a Final Fantasy game than Ehrgeiz is. Crazyswordsman 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Bahamut and some music tracks does not a Final Fantasy make. In fact I feel that all spin-offs, that are not themselves Final Fantasy games, should be removed. This is a List of Final Fantasy titles, not List of Final Fantasy related titles. This includes: The Chocobo series; Super Mario RPG; Ehrgeiz; Kingdom Hearts and possibly even the SaGa games. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it's "more of a Final Fantasy game" than Ehrgeiz. Ehrgeiz features multiple characters from the series in playable, non-cameo roles. Super Mario RPG features a song and an oblique reference to a mythological figure that isn't unique to the Final Fantasy series, anyway (and bears almost no resemblance to that figure's representation in the actual series, anyway). I think strongly related series should be kept in the list, because it's the sort of thing that people are likely to look up. They should be properly labelled and identified, and I don't think we should go overboard in the list (the presence of one or two minor cameos is probably not all that notable), but I think the information itself is worthwhile. – Seancdaug 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
SMRPG is more well known and more popular, though. Crazyswordsman 03:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Er... so? Grand Theft Auto is more popular than any of the games we're talking about, but that doesn't make it a Final Fantasy-related title. Several playable characters from the Final Fantasy series (one of whom is displayed very prominently on the box art, no less) makes a game notable in the context of the series. The references in SMRPG aren't much more than injokes, if that (I don't really buy, for instance, that "Bahamutt" is a direct reference to the series). They might deserve a footnote reference in the SMRPG article, but to overemphasize that connection is to give a fundamentally misleading impression of the game, IMO. Besides, popularity is a pretty lousy criteria for inclusion, since it really doesn't say anything about the game itself. – Seancdaug 02:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't seem to be getting anywhere. Should we bring this up at WP:WPFF? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Doesnt belong for reasons above. I'm removing and if someone beyond the contributor wants to add it back in they can start a new discussion here or otherwise. Consensus is that it is not noteworthy to the list. Neither are SAGA or SD as far as I'm concerned (see below) - but I'd like to hear other opinions on it first. Deusfaux 00:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I said, it's more like an FF game than some games on the list. KH is also a game that references Final Fantasy, but it's a series unto itself. I could argue that, due to its gameplay, it could be considered a spinnoff of a Mana game. Crazyswordsman 14:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In this case, I've gotta agree with Deusfaux that it doesn't belong. It has very little to connect it to the series, save for a few minor musical motifs, and a monster drawn from mythology (who doesn't very closely resemble anything he's looked like in the Final Fantasy series). By that same logic, Square's Bahamut Lagoon (Bahamut, natch) or Vagrant Story (for the Final Fantasy Tactics connections) would go here, and I think most of us would agree that it shouldn't. Besides which, as it was never marketed as a Final Fantasy title, the chances of a researcher coming here looking for it are fairly insignificant. – Seancdaug 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think Kingdom Hearts and Ergheiz were marketed as FF titles either. Anyway, Secret of Evermore is an FF game in that sense as Terra, Locke, Strago, Mog, Umaro, and Cecil all made an appearance. Crazyswordsman 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
      • There are two criteria at play here: first, does it bear the Final Fantasy title, in any form or region? This covers most of what we've got. Second, if the first does not apply, does it feature a major appearance by characters or settings strongly associated with the Final Fantasy series. Kingdom Hearts does, since about half of the major NPCs are from the series. Ehrgeiz does, since it has several playable characters (one of whom is actually on the cover of the game) from Final Fantasy VII. Secret of Evermore might, as well: I was under the impression that the appearances were more along the lines of brief cameos that integral roles, but if someone wants to argue otherwise, I'm listening. Super Mario RPG does not fit under either of these categories: it was never called Final Fantasy: Super Mario RPG (or whatever), and it has but one piece of music to connect it to the series. – Seancdaug 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
        • SoE has a whole town named after Cecil. I'll add it if you don't object. Crazyswordsman 02:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I strongly object. There are no more game currently released that should be added to the list. Only future titles. Deusfaux 10:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I really see no reason why Super Mario RPG should be added to the list. This is a list of Final Fantasy games, not a list of games made by Square Enix. A cameo appearance doesn't make something a Final Fantasy game, and many Square Enix games have similar themes simply because they had similar development teams. Think of all the cameos that Mario has made, but few people would say that all of those are Mario games. Link even makes an appearance in Super Mario RPG, but no one is saying that it is a Legend of Zelda game. While I agree that Kingdom Hearts, Ehrgeiz, Final Fantasy Legend, and Final Fantasy Adventure are not Final Fantasy games, they do either prominently feature Final Fantasy characters or have the name Final Fantasy, making them easily mistakeable for Final Fantasy games. I doubt that could be said of Super Mario RPG. --Cswrye 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format and Logo Use

The list if a featured list and was accepted with the use of logos in it. I realise the need to conform to fair use guidelines but such drastic changes to the format of this article (such as the boxes ect) should be discussed as I feel the recent changes would cause the list to be delisted as a featured list -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 05:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured or not, the rules are the same for all articles. ed g2s • talk 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This page just looks nasty without the game logos. I don't see what was wrong with them in the first place... Ultimate77 18 July 2006
Fair use images should be used as a last resort on Wikipedia, where our primary goal is to provide free content. Decorating a list (i.e. the images themselves are not the subject of the discussion) is not one of the cases where we allow unfree content. For further information you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. ed g2s • talk 18:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Tricky question: what about replacing the logos with home-made pictures of FF cartridges? Will that be Fair use for showing the logo, or free as we are talking about the game and not the logo? -- ReyBrujo 18:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This page looks god-awful now. especially the formatting of the table of contents and stuff. gah, the whole thing is disappointing it had to go this way. Deusfaux 02:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what happens when you rely of unfree media for page appearance... ed g2s • talk 14:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Ed, I understand why the images were removed, and I'm not arguing that it's in accordance with Wikipedia policy. But the images were put there for identification purposes, not "page appearance." User:OSP has pointed this out before on your talk page. And some of us are rather frustrated that you decided to jump in and unilaterally make these changes without discussion, even after being invited to do so, necessitating a quick, dirty, and not-entirely-elegant redesign. There were ways to address this problem without creating such a mess. Your intentions may have been good, but your tone and attitude have not been helpful. To put it more bluntly, we've accepted that your actions were sufficiently justified. No one has reverted your edits. I think we would appreciate it if you'd not lecture to us, particularly when you have not shown much of a willingness to acknowledge our differing viewpoints. – Seancdaug 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone redo some of the formating in relation to the table of contents? The headers are all messed up and the entries that have multiple titles (FF:T etc) get a link while other titles (like FFX-2) do not even though they have equal billing as far as the organization of the article goes. Deusfaux 12:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
eh, I figured it out. Deusfaux 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAGA / Seiken Desetsu

Barring some persuasive reasoning by someone else, I want to remove these entries as they are in no way Final Fantasy games apart from a marketing approach (their US names) from a long time ago. This is a list of Final Fantasy titles. They are neither spin offs nor are they related in any significant way. They do not belong on the page. If anything, a small text entry can be added explaining their absence, but they don't deserve the mentions they currently have. Deusfaux 00:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Removed. Deusfaux 11:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • A case can be made that the first Seiken Densetsu game is indeed a legitimate spin-off, even if it doesn't bear the series title, given the number of elements it borrows from the series. But that's beside the point, anyway: the simple fact of the matter is that a significant number of people (most English speakers, for example) are going to know Seiken Densetsu, SaGa, SaGa II, and SaGa III as Final Fantasy games. As such, I really don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the "marketing approach" aspect so cavalierly. Indeed, "marketing" is really the only valid criteria: if it bears the Final Fantasy moniker, it should get a mention here, IMO. It's certainly not our place to judge whether or not they "deserve" it or not. I would prefer that the entries be restored, honestly. – Seancdaug 07:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not serve the US alone. In Europe SD was known as Mystic Quest, with no reference to Final Fantasy at all. The game has also been since remade and restored with it's proper name in the US (Mana Series). A substantial time ago some executive decided to apply a namesake to the game that fans were familiar with to help it sell. This an FF game it does not make. It was also a project started and cancelled before the first FF. Also I take issue with your suggestion "most" English speakers know these games as Final Fantasy games. Do you have some reference on that? Wikipedia should be serving people with the correct referenced infos, not reinforcing once-upon-a-time perceptions a select group of people had that were never true in the first place. Even other sites like http://www.ffcompendium.com/h/release.shtml do not include these titles as spin offs or related games, as they simply are not. Like I suggested before, at BEST a footnote somewhere can be made explaining their absence, but as they are not Final Fantasy titles, they do not belong as entries in a list of them. Deusfaux 21:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The "correct" info is that these games were marketed to a significant portion of the world as Final Fantasy titles, regardless of whether or not they were initially developed with that intention. Anything beyond that is editorializing: as writers of an encyclopedia, we don't have the authority determine at what level a game can be considered a "legitimate" part of the series. Obviously, we shouldn't try to cover up the fact that a game was originally released under a different title, but no one's suggesting that. As for "reinforcing once-upon-a-time perceptions"? If, "once-upon-a-time," these games were marketed to a large audience as Final Fantasy titles, then it's our responsibility to record and report that fact. I can try and find you a reference, but I'm a bit mystified that you'd try and dispute this: they were released in the largest English-speaking video game market as Final Fantasy titles, and they've not (with the Sword of Mana remake exception) been rereleased in that market as anything other than Final Fantasy titles. It's not a state secret that they were released originally in Japan as part of a seperate series, of course, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a large segment of its audience has never done the outside research necessary to know this. Add to this the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to give preference to names that the "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions), and it's likely that a fair number of researchers will look for information regarding those games here. The simple fact of the matter is that they are Final Fantasy titles, going by the very simple and relatively uncontroversial metric that they are titles that bear the Final Fantasy name. That they may have come about the name differently from other games in the franchise is worthy of note, but that basic fact remains. In bearing that name, they belong here, and in the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view we should not be applying any other sort of criteria. Again, I strongly ask that the information be restored. – Seancdaug 22:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We need the input of others at this point, I had the original discussion up for nearly a full month with no response, 2 people with opposing viewpoints isnt going to get us anywhere. I think there are other wikipedia procedures for handling this fairly as well. Deusfaux 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, consensus at this point would be meeting halfway, which at least I was prepared to accept as much as I think they do not belong at all. That is, to mention them on the page (including that they are not part or or spin offs of the series proper) and not giving them full blow entries with logos and such. But again, there needs to be other voices on the matter. Deusfaux 04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. And, to be sure, I don't think you did anything improper with the deletion, and I appreciate that you did a good job of looking for other opinions before making the edit. I disagree with your reasoning, sure, and if I'd been active on Wikipedia at the time you'd first brought it up, I'd have said so then, but I wasn't, so I can't very blame you for not knowing my reaction before I did :-) – Seancdaug 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Has the Final Fantasy WikiProject developed a policy about whether or not these games are considered part of the series for encyclopedic purposes? If it has, I think that's what the list should go by. I'll be willing to express my own opinion. I very much disagree with Seancdaug in that I do not think that having the Final Fantasy name automatically makes a game part of the series. A franchise is more than just its name, and it is possible for a product to have the name but not be part of the franchise, and it is likewise possible for a game to be part of the franchise while going by a different name. I think that Square Enix makes it pretty clear that it does not consider these games to be part of the series, and most Final Fantasy web sites generally state that these are not Final Fantasy games if they mention these games at all. Although I cannot confirm this, I suspect that most people currently familiar with these games would not consider them Final Fantasy games. That being said, I actually support (though not strongly) Deusfaux's compromise of putting them on the page but making it clear that they are neither part of the Final Fantasy series nor true spin-offs of it. I'm thinking of putting them in the "Related games" section and giving them the same treatment as the other related games; that is, providing less detail than we do for the actual Final Fantasy games. (For the record, I would also advocate putting Chrono Trigger in this section as well since it was part of Final Fantasy Chronicles. Even though it is clearly not part of the Final Fantasy series, being part of a compilation that bore the Final Fantasy provides it just as much of a relationship to the series as SaGa or Seiken Desetsu.) Have I thoroughly succeeded in ticking off people on both sides? :-) --Cswrye 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The project oversees the articles, yes, but I'm not sure that's really relevant. Just because they fall under our general oversight doesn't mean that we need to put them here. Personally, my problem remains that the argument for removing them is based on editorial perception: we don't feel that they "belong" as part of the franchise. That's a highly subjective reasoning, and its one held by a bunch of people who are generally deeply steeped in the history and lore of the series. The problem is, we're not the intended audience of an article like this. I maintain that we should be writing this for people who aren't that familiar with the series, and whose knowledge of the series's canon may be limited to seeing a particular game on the shelf of Toys 'R Us a decade ago. Those are the kind of people who are going to know of Final Fantasy Legend II, not SaGa II, and they're the sort of people who are going to come looking for that kind of information here. That said, putting them in the "related games" section probably does make more sense that putting them anywhere else, and if that's less controversial, I say go for it. – Seancdaug 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • People who arent familiar with the series and come here will immediately be able to see what is part of it and what is not. It's best then to inform them right off the bat with the proper information, not perpetuate a confusion that should have ended a long time ago. People who saw the game on a shelf are not going to come to this list trying to find the game, they're going to search straight up for "Final Fantasy Legend" and get directed to that game's page - which will also have a mention that the game is actually NOT part of the Final Fantasy series despite it's name at the time. These titles were in the related games section which is where they were removed from, and yes if anything the note should go there behind the other truly related games - but I strongly feel they should not have the same kind of entry (graphic and all) as the other games. Just an italicized note saying "Despite their names, Final Fantasy Adventure and Final Fantasy Legend (I-III), are not part of the Final Fantasy series and are thus absent from this list, but can be found on the Seiken Densetsu and SaGa series pages, respectively." <-- where the titles would link to the wiki entries for those games, and people can get all the info on them they want. Would appreciate more input as well from others. Deusfaux 06:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we're once again back to editorializing. We do not have the authority to determine what defines a Final Fantasy game. If Squaresoft saw to release the games as Final Fantasy titles, who are we to say that they were wrong to do so? Particularly when, by any reasonable metric, they have a lot more authority to make these kind of decisions than we do. We're not keepers of the canon, and it's our responsibility to document the series in the broadest sense. By economic fluke, these games have a connection to the series, and it really shouldn't be any more complicated than that. Indeed, for 75% of the games in question, they have never been released to an English speaking audience as anything other than Final Fantasy games. And the remaining 25% would qualify for inclusion on entirely different grounds, anyway: the Chocobo series, Kingdom Hearts, and Ehrgeiz are included because they feature characters and creatures from the series, as does Seiken Densetsu. No one has suggested providing "improper" information, merely reflecting the reality of the way these games were marketed. – Seancdaug 07:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Stepping back for a moment, I've actually taken a moment to do some actual research. As it happens, the original Seiken Densetsu was, as it happens, marketed in Japan as a gaiden to the Final Fantasy series, and is actually listed as an example of the gaiden concept in that article. Evidence of this can be found by comparing Image:Seiken Densetsu logo.jpg with, for instance, Image:FFX-2 logo.jpg: the katakana for Fainaru Fantajī (ファイナルファンタジ) appears at the bottom of both logos. So while we may continue to fight tooth and nail over whether or not the SaGa games should be included, Adventure is a textbook example of a spin-off, and as such I'm going to restore it (though obviously not its sequels) to the article tomorrow unless somewhere yells at me not to Template:Grin. – Seancdaug 07:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the Seiken Densetsu entry, since it seemed to be a fairly clear-cut case. I've also taken a potentially more controversial step and put the SaGa entry back, albeit in greatly reduced form, and under the "related games" heading. Deusfaux: I tried to keep the entry to minimum, and redirect the reader to the main SaGa article for further information. Is this acceptable to you? I apologize if I acted out-of-turn, and I will remove the entries if you'd prefer, but I thought it might help to have something a little more concrete to refer to. As an aside, I've also posted a message to the wikiproject discussion page soliciting other opinions, in the hope that we can get this mess sorted out. – Seancdaug 08:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I should probably mention that there are Moogles in all the Mana games. Crazyswordsman 14:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that the SaGa games should be included, whatever they were marketed as in international releases (I typically go by the original Japanese titles), but Seiken Densetsu most definitely should be in there. Until Square decided that it was going to begin its own series, it was considered a Final Fantasy every bit as much as Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles or Final Fantasy Tactics is now. At the very least, it deserves entry on the grounds that it had the name "Final Fantasy," was intended to be and originally marketed as a Final Fantasy side story (thus, the title "Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden"). So, personally, I'd include Seiken Densetsu and leave the SaGa games out. We wouldn't label Final Fantasy IV as "Final Fantasy II" based on a North American title release after all. Ryu Kaze 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but neither we would fail to mention the fact that Final Fantasy IV was originally released in North America as Final Fantasy II. We have a big section explaining the inconsistency at the top of the page, and mention the different names as the first bullet point in the two affected games. The reason for doing this, of course, is that it's still quite conceivable that someone might only be aware of this game as Final Fantasy II, and would not realize that that it has another title. Furthermore, it's a part of the series, insofar as the way these games were released and marketed to North American gamers is an important part of the information we should convey. And, frankly, this is even more vital with the SaGa games: at the very least, both Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy VI were subsequently rereleased with the proper numbering. None of the three SaGa games have ever made it outside of Japan as anything other than Final Fantasy Legend, and I think it's hardly unreasonable to think that many of our readers are only going to be aware of them as Final Fantasy titles. I agree that they shouldn't get the same level of coverage as the other titles, but I feel strongly that we should have a short paragraph in the "related games" section by way of explanation, as they are related to the series, even if it's not in the same way that, say, the Kingdom Hearts games are. – Seancdaug 03:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. Ryu Kaze 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maro 3 on 3 Hoops has Cactuars, Moogles, Black Mages, and White Mages

It also has a Final Fantasy based world. The game was originally going to be a Squeenix game, but they asked Nintendo if it was okay to include Nintendo characters. I wonder if this is suitable for the list. Crazyswordsman 02:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Again no, we already have inclusions which are pushing some people's buttons - such distant titles like this just simply do not belong here, IMO. Deusfaux 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that it doesn't belong, but at the very least, wait until the game is released before deciding to add it. If it's still in development, the Final Fantasy elements could be removed before the game is finalized. From looking at the article, it looks like Dragon Quest elements were originally in the game, but they have been taken out. --Cswrye 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a stronger case for it than most of the other titles that have been bandied about, but it's still kind of borderline. I'm not averse to giving it the same sort of brief treatment that we give Ehrgeiz, but it may be more reasonable to just stick it in as a "see also" at the bottom of the article, if only to avoid the controversy. – – Sean Daugherty (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why people want to keep making this a "List of media that contains elements of the Final Fantasy brand". It's called "List of Final Fantasy titles". There are already some games that do not fit in regards to that article name, pretty much all under the "related games" subsection. How many games could be "related" to FF? Why not slap in old [Legend of Dragoon]? That game borrows from FF far more heavily than FF Legend, or Ehrgeiz. Deusfaux 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Because, quite simply, it has the potential to be relevant information, provided we present it in the proper context and don't try to advertise it as something it isn't. It illustrates the reach and importance of the franchise to Square Enix, and its recognition among the public, among other things. More to the point, those are the terms under which the article was created, and the terms under which it was elevated to featured status, so it's not being "made" into something that it wasn't already conceived as. – – Sean Daugherty (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Or, we could just remove all indirect spinnoffs, including the Chocobo series, so it only contains FF titles. I mean, we have categories for this kind of thing anyway, so what's the point of redundancy? (Well, it is to be funny, but that's about it, heh). Sir Crazyswordsman 01:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
We could, but I would strongly advise against it. On one hand, it's easy to imagine a situation where people would want to search for information about related titles. The list serves as a quick reference: it offers something between the context-less category listing, and the comprehensive article itself. There's no compelling reason to slice out that information just because we editors are being fannishly pedantic about what is and isn't a legitimate Final Fantasy title. And the second problem is that this is a featured list. It was built, edited, and developed to the point where it was deemed one of the better examples of the form on all of Wikipedia. This is a solution in search of a problem: we're not claiming anything about these games that isn't made abundantly clear by their position and presentation in the list. To this point, the major complaint has been that it might possibly be confusing to the uninitiated. These arguments have so far been entirely conjectural: "well, I'm not fooled, but what about others?" Honestly, this isn't rocket science, and I still think we're not giving our readers enough credit, and seeing problems where none exist. This isn't some neophyte article: it's a well-established page that has already been through a comprehensive review process. I really can't see the purpose of taking it apart and tinkering with it on the basis of a hypothetical argument with no solid grounding in fact. In my opinion, of course. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "IBM PC Compatible" changed to "Microsoft Windows"

Keeping with current issues in the PC Community (namely the expansion of the Linux Operating System, and Mac's decision to move to Intel CPUs), i have changed all occurences of "IBM PC Compatible" which, adherent to the List of Operating Systems that run on the IBM PC Compatible Platform, is no longer accurate nor specific enough. The term has also fallen into general disuse in recent times. They have been changed to a more accurate "Microsoft Windows." Yes, i understand Windows runs on mobile platforms, and those aren't supported, i felt, however, that since there are more Operating Systems that run on "IBM PC Compatible" Machines than there are CPU Architectures which Windows runs on, Windows would thus be more specific and accurate. --Pandora Xero 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures or logos?

Is it just me, or does the article look a little bare? Would it be a good idea to include some box art, or if that's too much, just the logos of each game underneath their names? Axem Titanium 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They were previously removed due to Fair Use restrictions. It looked much better before, but rules are rules. See conversations above. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That's unfortunate because User:Seancdaug's argument ("But the images were put there for identification purposes, not "page appearance."") seems to have no rebuttal. Perhaps it's time to review that unilateral decision. Axem Titanium 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Final_Fantasy_titles_8f3d.html"