Talk:Final Fantasy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Yoshitaka Amano and Final Fantasy IX

I'm worried I may be getting into an edit war with someone over the status of Yoshitaka Amano and Final Fantasy IX. I know all the early publicity material said that he was going to be character designer for the game, but the credits to the game itself do not bear this out (Shukou Murase, Toshiyuki Itahana and Shin Nagasawa are listed as designers). Amano did have a role in the game, but it was "image illustration," not character design. There's more info on this here.

--In response to the above--

  • I was the one to credit Amano with FF IX when I did not see it mentioned the first time. I saw his illustrations in EGM's article and just assumed he was responsible for character designs. Thanks for the corrections.

hi

Lion's comment-

I think that a critical treatment of the universals to Final Fantasy are important. In particular:

  • A treatment of the graphics techniques utilized by Final Fantasy 1-6 (check)
  • A discussion of the principle magic systems and elemental theory, including appropriate links to theories in the world. (Water, Fire, Earth, Air, Spirit)
  • A discussion of the common themes of Final Fantasy: Humanism, Ecologicy, Class Warfare, Spiritualism, and links to the European Enlightenment and & Romantic Era movements, both philisophically and artistically
  • Western and Eastern influence and synthesis.
  • A discussion of the mystical/religious/spiritual assumptions implicit in game scenarios.
I would also be interested in seeing a wiki treatment of the themes connecting the different Final Fantasy Universes. --DropDeadGorgias
Actually, I might have that theme. I am Silverlocke980, a fanfic writer from FF.Net, and it struck me one day that each Final Fantasy has a single theme. In fact, I'd argue that everything- from sidequests involving half-dead men in caves to the way the characters even act- is based on this one theme. If no one objects, I'd actually like to write these themes out.

-Silverlocke980

I'm a bit concerned that might be orginal research. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
JiFish has it right. This sounds interesting and you should definitely put it on the Web somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place for it (primarily because of WP:NOR). Not everything that's a good idea to put up simpliciter is a good idea to put into a Wikipedia article. PurplePlatypus 01:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fulfilled Lion's request on graphical history; i went on to explain the next-gen games as well. i'll do some of ther others another time. I 'checked' the requests filled. Lockeownzj00 22:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see seperate articles on FF concepts, similar to the sub-articles in Ultima, such as Magic in Final Fantasy, Monsters in Final Fantasy, Mythology in Final Fantasy, Character Design of Final Fantasy, Music of Final Fantasy, etc.

The topic's for each version of the series are obsolete. Since each one was only one paragraph in size with no hope of ever becoming significantly larger, I put the text of these articles into the "Final Fantacy" topic directly. All those other articles can be redirected to the main one or (in my opinion) deleted. Rlee0001 06:04 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

--- Pity, because I was looking to expand on each one instead of just a paragraph, (ie discuss themes in each game and whatnot).... Xknight 18:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Some of the individual games now have articles for themselves, such as FF1, FF6, FF7, and a few others. Some of these are long enough to merit their existance, and should remain as seperate articles. I think we should work towards making such detailed articles on the individual games, and thus we will have not only more substantial information on them, but we will also be able to focus the main FF article on the series as a whole (the main article seems a bit cluttered with all the other games talked about in it). -- LGagnon

I agree. I think we should make an article for each seperate game. Although routines are very...well, routine in Wikipedia, several things are not uniform and must be made as such. Each game should have a detailed article; some do not even have links, they simply redirect to this page. If one article has a table with all the game info, so should all the rest. The new Final Fantasy 7 Spin-off starring The Turks should be added somewhere as well. Lockeownzj00 21:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do we still need the "How to Play" section? Except for the (brief) comparison with Dragon Quest, it seems like the remainder of the information is repeated several other places in the article.

Standardization

Alright, people. I've decided to break down and do it because no one else will. I am going to reform and modify every single Final Fantasy article so that there is one standard. Each will have the same basic categories of discussion, along with pictures, discussions, etc. I will fix and make all redirects to make the main pages be the roman numeral of the game. This will take a while, but it has to be done. I'm hopeful of the final result.

What I need from you guys is some Story help. I will gladly absolutely write up the entire storyline a la the [[Final Fantasy IV] article, which includes spoilers (promo-plot paragraphs don't cut it). But for controversial storyline games like Final Fantasy VII or VIII, I know I'll need some experts to help me out. Thanks guys!

Lockeownzj00 23:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article too long

I believe that part of the specific information about the games should be moved their main articles so this could be shortened a bit. Can somebody do it? --xDCDx 09:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI release date for PS2 and PC

It was released first for the PS2, see this links: [1] [2]. --xDCDx 23:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the United States, it was released on the PC first. --I run like a Welshman 22:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Featured Article

What are the odds of getting this made into a featured artical?ZeWrestler 23:51 March 14, 2005 (UTC)

As good as any other Wikipedia article, in the abstract scheme of things. But it needs to be tightened up considerably first. Some of the sections, too, could stand to spun off into related articles. – Seancdaug 23:58, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Well, should we go for getting tighting this artical up then. ZeWrestler 02:13 March 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just a remark, some people were turning down Mega Man as a featured article because of the fan links it had there. It's gotten to the point where people utterly refuse to have any links other than these dull directories... maybe this could either A) show them it's a moot point or B) do the same thing and remove ALL links in favor of official ones and Google directories? --Shadow Hog 04:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. It is simple to say Wikipedia is not a web directory. The number here can easily be said to be excessive. --Henrygb 02:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just a note, it's article, not artical. LordMooCow 01:28, 3 July 2005 (GMT+10)

Game boy final fantasy's

I mentioned this to Seancdaug a couple of days ago, and he recommended that i post about it here. Theres a few final fantasy games that exist for the game boy that havn't been touched on here yet. I was thinking we add them to the Template:FinalFantasy series i created a while back, but i want to get some opinions here about it first before something is done. What do you guys think? -- ZeWrestler 4:16 March 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know Final Fantasy Adventure's just Seiken Densetsu... The other three are up in the air as far as I'm concerned, though. --Shadow Hog 06:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These other games (Final Fantasy Legend) are actually part of the SaGa series, not Final Fantasy games.
Yeah, but given that the majority of Wikipedia's audience are going to be familiar with them as "Final Fantasy Legend," it seems like there's a strong case for putting them in the template. The question, as I see it, is whether or not we should do more than just redirect to the SaGa series page, as is currently done. Although, to be fair, the SaGa page needs a bit more fleshing out, and since we don't seem to have individual entries for the three GB SaGa/Final Fantasy Legend games, it's not clear what else we can do at this stage. – Seancdaug 19:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Update: Articles have been started for the 3 FFL/first 3 SaGa games, although two are still stubs. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I might take a look at these when I get a chance. I'm re-playing SaGa 3 now. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

question about common themes for music

i am just curious about the common themes for music being edited out. i just thought that its also sort of a tradition that FF did follow and pointed out some examples. did i get some facts wrong?

The facts were fine. The problem is that the article is already on something of the lengthy side, and certain elements (such as individual character themes) are not really so unique to the series as to be worthy of note. Music already has its own section under "overview," so I was trying to rein in the section, basically. – Seancdaug 19:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Just another thought: there's really enough information about FF music to warrant another article devoted to it. Something like "Music in the Final Fantasy games" or such. It might be worth looking into something like that, rather than trying to make it all fit into the main article.... – Seancdaug 19:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


Cool... i guess that makes sense. here's my take... XD..... on the topic of common themes, i feel that its actually worth pointing out THE common themes and IMHO, music/art is some great part. especially its there all the time.
As for a section on its own. personally, i wouldn't go that far. or if so, it actually WON'T be something worth mentioning since most people wanting to know about FF music would be composers, music style, sheet music, bands played and perhaps the names of the songs.
Anyways, .... ok great thx for clearing that up!! Mint greentea 08:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added (I guess for the second time) a very small summary about the "themes." It's about three lines, and I believe it is an important testament to the continued power and wide popularity of the leitmotif technique, given that whenever it has been introduced into an art form, it has a very big effect on sales, at least. See the popularity (in their times) of Wagner opera tickets, Star wars movies etc. and now of course Final Fantasy games.

I believe it's a very important part of music history.

The FF Music page is still being developed, but as of now is in the very early stage, disorganized and with no info on this subject. Moreover, on the FF article in general there is nothing about music in 'overview.' I will add some later but I think that this bit of info Is important enough to stay on the main page, at least for now. --Zaorish 21:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Wiki

Final Fantasy Wiki is still in its early stages of development. It does not obviate the need for external links from the main article. The Browse Final Fantasy Wiki page only has category links. Tedius Zanarukando 10 Apr 2005 0:24 (EST).

That's as may be, but the problem is that the links section for this article very quickly gets out of hand. Again, Wikipedia is not a web directory, and most of the additions to the external links section smack of self-promotion. As a more specialized project, Final Fantasy Wiki is more suited to that sort of detail. Rather than cluttering up this article (which is already over the "ideal" page size limit), it would be more logical to edit FF Wiki so that it can be of greater use. – Seancdaug 22:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

woooo... can i join that wiki place and become a member or something? i got like the FF artbook and music albums info to share :D (eventhough you can get that off the net but.... yayayaayyy!!) Mint greentea 06:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: discussion on related page

Just wanted to drop in and alert everyone to a discussion Tedius Zanarukando are having over on the Talk:List of people involved in working on the Final Fantasy series page. It applies to the content of this page (as its my contention that it should be folded back here in some form or another), so if anyone wants to chime in with their two cents, it might be easier to build some sort of consensus. *shrugs* – Seancdaug 20:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

More on common themes

I removed the section on "Rebellion," since it strikes me that this is less of an overall theme of the FF series than of CRPGs in general. It's a convention of the genre, not of the series itself, and it seems like addressing it here is inappropriate and redundant. We could go on almost indefinitely by enumerating a various coincidential similarities between games, but that the idea of "themes" implies something a little more intentional and less circumstantial than that. In short, something a little more solid and specific than "rebellion." It really seems like the tendency, in general, is to let the themes section inflate a little uncontrollably, and I really can't see this as being good for the article, which is already a little too sprawling and haphazard. Anyone else have any thoughts? – Seancdaug 02:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree to a certain point, but Rebellion is intentionally and clearly a running theme in Final Fantasy. I would be like saying that space-battles are not a common theme in the Star Trek movies.
But that's really a genre convention. Honestly: the vast majority of CRPGs would seem to incorporate this as a theme more often than not. As such, I don't agree that it's "intentionally" (or even "clearly") a FF theme: it's not unique to Final Fantasy, and mentioning it specifically here is pointless and redundant. It should be mentioned in the CRPG article, and it can be taken as read that the Final Fantasy series inherits that trait from the genre of which it is a part. – Seancdaug 14:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
It may be a common theme in CRPGs but that doesn't stop it from being one of FF's calling cards. I can think of many, many CRPGs that don't have rebellion as a theme; but almost every FF uses it.
Most of console RPGs I can think of off the top of my head do use it. More do than do not, in any case. I'm not arguing that it's not relatively common in the FF series, I'm just arguing that it's not relevant. There are plenty of other things that "almost every FF" uses that don't deserve mention in the common themes section because they're more appropriately recognize as conventions of the genre. We wouldn't list things like "magic" (as a broad concept, not FF-specific spells) or "random battles" there for just that reason. If it's not a unique trait of the franchise, it should be covered in a broader category, so that a) this page doesn't grow beyond all control, and b) we avoid duplication of effort. It's pretty amorphous for a "theme," anyway (like "conflict"), anyway. – Seancdaug 13:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

PSP

Can someone post a source for the claim that Square-Enix plans to publish a Final Fantasy on the PSP? (Refered to in the opening paragraph.) Thanks. :) --JiFish 19:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII. They've also announced plans to release Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children as a UMD movie disc for the PSP. None of this is new: IIRC, the PSP plans were announced well before the announcement of development for the Nintendo DS, and things continue to proceed apace. – Seancdaug 19:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Crisis Core, of course. Thank you. --JiFish 19:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Spells

I was thinking of creating a category for Category:Final Fantasy magic, and have articles on commonly occuring and distinctive FF spells such as Wall, Flare, Meteo, White, Doom, Break, etc. Do you think that's too crufty? If I create them, what should the naming convention for the articles be? Flare (magic)? Flare (Final Fantasy)? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:37, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's probably a tad too crufty. I've gone ahead and posted the Final Fantasy magic article I've been tinkering with for a week or so now. I think, in general, one single article dealing with Final Fantasy magic is more appropriate, and that's what I tried to do with the linked article. I just can't see many spells being notable enough to deserve their own articles, really. – Seancdaug 07:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning that "summon" type magic shows up in a good deal of games at least from FFIV on, as well as "learned" magical skills from enemies such as Gau's rages and blue magic?BigCow

Where do you mean? A couple of us have been poking away at the aforementioned Final Fantasy magic article, and I've been merging the information scattered around into that, where appropriate (I just merged the old Blue magic article into it). But I think it's kind of tricky to handle: there's a page on summon magic that, in its current form, is probably too long to squeeze into the other article, so it's just included as a "see also" link. The major problem is that an article such as that can very easily get out of control, so I think it's important to establish a notability threshold and not include things that only show up once or twice in the entire series. For example, since Gau's Rages are unique to one character in one game, they would likely be better handled in the Gau article. With regards to this article, maybe a sentence of two relating to overall magic and gameplay mechanics couldn't hurt, but there's not too much point in duplication what exists elsewhere, I would think. – Seancdaug 06:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization and reversion?

I noticed that User:205.188.117.12 had reverted most of reorganization I carried out a day or two ago, but left no explanation why. The reason for my edits, just to expand upon my edit note, were fairly simple: the distinction between subsections under the "Overview" header and distinct sections of their own was pretty much arbitrary. "Music," for instance, was a subsection of "Overview," but "Graphics" was not, which didn't strike me as making a great deal of sense. Also, "game screens" would seem to relate more directly to gameplay (since it is, after all, the primary mode of interaction with the game itself) than it does to "graphics." The other major change I made had to do with the links section: it would seem to make more sense to link to the Final Fantasy music article from the section about "Music" than to just throw it in at the end of the page. People looking for information regarding music in the FF series are more likely to look there than at a somewhat daunting list of links covering, well, pretty much everything under the sun. Also, the "related games" section was almost entirely redundant: there are links to the vast majority of those games elsewhere in the article, and the categorization system should handle the rest (that is why it's there, after all). Anyway, just my thoughts. Any comments? – Seancdaug 22:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer your version. I was going to revert User:205.188.117.12's changes, but didn't in the end. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New images

DarkEvil uploaded several new images to the page: namely Image:Nobuo Uematsu & The Black Mages after a live concert.jpg and Image:Final Fantasy IV JAP Airship.png, and I can't really tell why. While they're not quite identical to the images we had up previously (Image:Tbm12.png and Image:Ffivj 1.PNG, respectively), they're very, very close. Furthermore, the quality of both new images is a bit suspect, IMO: the FF4 image is extremely blurry, and looks like it may have been resized and resampled. As a result, it compresses very poorly in PNG, and is approximately 100x larger than the original image. The Black Mages image isn't a problem in terms of file size, but it has the same poor quality blurring, and again, looks resized/resampled. Also, the thumbnail sizes were all upped to 350px, which seems a bit large for lower resolution displays. I've changed them back, and am going to put the two aforementioned images up for deletion votes unless anyone has any objections. Gotta say, though, that the FFXII logo does look better at the top of the page than the old FF1 US boxart, IMO.... – Seancdaug 02:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

If anyone wants to use these logo's for the page it might be helpfull. Image:Final_fantasy_logo_1-6.jpg Image:Final_fantasy_logo_7-10.jpg

The Spirits Within - concepts and creatures

 * Feature-length, theatrically released computer-generated film featuring
 concepts and creatures from the Final Fantasy games.

I'm not sure this true. Looking at the Common themes section and I can't see any themes that the movie shares with the games. What are peoples thoughts on this? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:38, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's got Cid... sort of. Other than that... not too much, admittedly. – Seancdaug 18:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking this line might need to be revised. I'm almost 100% positive that no famous ff creatures feature. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. If it does (and it's been years since I've last watched it), it's certainly no more than a cameo role, and may not even be worthy of note. Do you want to take a crack at revising it, then? – Seancdaug 22:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Feature-length, theatrically released computer-generated film released under the Final Fantasy brand." But it doesn't read quite right, IMO. I welcome futher revision. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
It's also got the "living planet" theme from FFVII (and to a lesser extent FFIX), and the "alien invasion" plotline resembles the latter portion of the FFVIII plot. It's less like FF than it is like Aliens, but it's misleading to say that it has nothing in common with the rest of the Final Fantasy franchise. -Sean Curtin 23:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Article too long?

The article is actually looking fairly good these days, except that, well, it's pushing 40K now. I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on how to split this up to keep page length down. I was thinking about moving the list of titles into its own article (List of Final Fantasy games, maybe?) and just linking to it from here. Any other suggestions? – Seancdaug 04:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, plus the bottom of the article is cluttered and confusing and might be a lot more helpful if seperated from the main article. List of Final Fantasy games sounds good, but what about the other items in the Final Fantasy series.. and their references? Maybe Final Fantasy series as well as a games list? The box at the bottom is helpful enough for the main FF article, the lists could be seperate articles like you said. – Cuahl 04:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What might help is if most references to the game were cut down to FF instead of Final Fantasy, especially in the character 'names section' in the 'common themes' part. Thaddius 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph of Critics

Is it just me or this this paragraph a bit wierd? Is this "theory" widespead? What's the source? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

It struck me as a bit odd, and potentially even POV-pushing (which is a pretty common problem with such passages). I'd like to see a source on it, as well. – Seancdaug 02:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Without a source, this can be deleted as original research. I have left a message for the contributor of that passage (anonymous user 70.68.23.69.) We'll see if s/he gets back to us with a source. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:36, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have had a reply via e-mail that I replicate here: "Hello,

I am the anonymous editor you contacted regarding the Final Fantasy artile edit. I decided to sign up so I could write you back as I am not a usual contributor to wiki and unfamiliar with its messaging system.

Regarding the addition, I don't think it's a big deal if you or others with to re-edit it out, but I recall reading a much more inclusive write-up on the criticisms leveled against the FF franchise in recent years. The newer edition, before my additions seem to overlook the key complaints to the series in recent years.

As for my sources, there are none really. I base this on memory, talking to other fans like myself who grew up with it and interaction on-line with others. That said, I decided to google up the search them "final fantasy homoerotic heroes" to see if I was imagining things, but I found articles, snippets of blogs and forum discussions converging on this issue in the background.

Here are some sample links, just be warned that the first one is particularly vitriolic.

http://www.segabastard.com/features/ffgay.html

http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2003/12/02/its_time_for_androgyny_its_just_vaan.html

http://www.squareinsider.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13385&st=30

As for the claim about the ages of the character, it is again based on my feel of the direction the series has taken. A good term I could use to describe it is the introduction of j-pop 'idol worship' into the FF character design heirarchy where previously this was not an issue and the characters tended to be dictated more by the story and aethetics of Amano's art design than by the marketing needs of Square and more recently Square-Enix.

As I've mentioned, feel free to edit it, remove it, and tone it down. I'll have a look at it again but I probably wouldn't be interested in a edit fight over it.

Regards, Dex"

It seems that the edit was based mostly on forums posts and the author's feelings. It seems to me to be orginal research. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It's also a bit misleading. I'm not sure Locke really qualifies as the "male lead" of Final Fantasy VI, firstly. And he's the only potential candidate over 21. Firion (Final Fantasy II) and the nameless protagonists from Final Fantasy III are all referred to as "children" in their respective games, and are almost certainly teenagers at most. Cecil Harvey (Final Fantasy IV) and Bartz Klauser (Final Fantasy V) are actually one year younger (20) than Cloud Strife (21). I think the paragraph, as it is currently written, is clearly NPOV. Some of the criticism could be rewritten, possibly as part of the reaction to the changeover from Amano character designs to Nomura character designs, but it does seem inappropriate as it currently stands. – Seancdaug 17:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
The new version is much better. Kudos! --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

External Links

This article seems to be collecting external links. Since Wikipedia is not a repository of links, what shall be done? I'm open to suggestions. It seems a shame to loose them all. For example, the Final Fantasy Wiki is a lot better than the wikicities one. (At least, currently.) But if we keep one or two, the list will contonue to grow. Any suggestions?

I would delete all but the wikis, and then from this point forward delete any added links on sight unless they have consensus approval on the Talk page. Have you seen the list from several months ago? It stretched on and on, as far as the eye could see (or at least as far as the page could scroll). If every link on there had been worth a quarter, Wikimedia could have been funded for years on end just from that list. Naturally, I'm exaggerating, but I think we all prefer to avoid the pain that was that link list.
It seems that the easiest way to manage the list is to forbid the addition of any links except for a couple of the most comprehensive and well-known sites. I'm not sure any sites fit that description for Final Fantasy. (The Mega Man article had this same problem a while ago, but as it turned out, it was pretty easy to agree on two or three sites to use.) Linking to a web directory might also be in order. For example, this one.
I've gone ahead and knocked out the non-wiki sites and added the directory link. Also, a link to Square Enix seemed like a good idea. The only problem is that the Wikiquote and Wikibooks boxes seem to overrun the template box (I'm using Firefox). I've added a couple newlines to alleviate this problem temporarily. Adding a couple more links would help fix it also. Aerion//talk 22:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
This is also might start to be a problem in the Final Fanatsy game articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning the list again. It looks like it's one of those things that needs to be done every few months or so. As for the boxes overrunning, you can always force clear (<br style="clear: both"> or {{-}}). This can leave a lot of unpleasant white space on larger displays, but it's still likely better than having the boxes overlap. – Seancdaug 00:11, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Materia

I seem to be having an edit war. My personal view is that we should call materia from Final Fantasy VII crystals. They are sometimes called materia crystals and look like crystals when shown in the game. i think it should be added under the common plot elements when it is talking about crystals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kralahome (talk • contribs) 03:54, 13 August 2005

But the formal name is materia. See Materia. And please sign your talk page edits. — CuaHL 09:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with CuaHL. You may call them crystals, but as you admited this is your personal viewpoint. (WP:NOR) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Materia sounds cooler anyways ;).Amren (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Materia - The primitive formless base of all matter, according to Aristotle and the Alchemists, given particular manifestation through the influence of Forms. According to the latter Lead could be turned to Gold by reducing it to Prima Materia and imposing the Form of Gold on it. - Seems to be a good choice of name for ffVii to use to me

Title

I think the article should be at Final Fantasy series, and Final Fantasy (video game) at Final Fantasy. --Apostrophe 19:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought about this too, as it is the consensus with many CVG articles. I think that most people that search for "Final Fantasy" will be looking for the series article, not the video game article. — WARPEDmirror 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Battle system

Is the Image:Final_Fantasy_XII_JAP_Battle.jpg a good representation of the series's battle system? Not only is it for a game that hasn't been released, but I'm pretty sure Final Fantasy XII will use a different battle system than the rest of the series (Active Dimension Battle System I think). Wouldn't an ATB or even CTB screenshot be better for the article? I think I'm going to change it to Image:FFx-2screen2.jpg for now, but if anyone has objections, please change it back. — WARPEDmirror 01:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


Support?

I have questions with the segment:

Another major criticism of Square, relating to the Final Fantasy series, is the apparent lack of support for games predating Final Fantasy VII, the game that brought the franchise to its current popularity. Though all of Final Fantasy I through VI (with the exception of III) have been rereleased in one form or another, nearly all spinoffs and inspired games primarily use material from VII and onward. As such, while hardcore fans of the franchise have played most games in one form or another, most newer fans aren't even aware of Final Fantasy games predating the seventh installment.

What kind of "support" is Square supposed to provide for games; it even states that they have been rereleased on modern gaming platforms. Also, I'm pretty sure that "newer fans" are aware of ff games before FF VII... I think the number in the title probably clues them in. As for spinoff/inspiration material, many themes have continued from the first FF (elementals, crystals, professions, spells, etc.). This looks like some weird form of opinion or original research. Can the original contributor back it up or clarify it in some manner? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think what they mean is that whenever Square mixes elements of Final Fantasy into other games, such as sneaking some of the characters in where they don't belong, it's almost always from Final Fantasy VII through Final Fantasy X; although they seem to skip Final Fantasy IX, or is it just me. Add to this their most recent ploy, the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII, a set of prequels and sequels to FFVII is a variety of forms; if you thought FFX-2 was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet. IMO, all this can make some people feel that the only game Square ever produced was Final Fantasy VII, and that no other game in the series ever existed. -- VederJuda 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Although I would agree, such statements should be backed up by appropriate references. Unless such references are found, IMO this should be removed. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Resemblances" should be removed

I'd really like to know who's been going to nearly every FF character page and adding the asinine "Resemblances" section. I edited it out of the Tidus article ([[3]] since I saw it to be fancruft speculation, but now I see it's in damn near every FF character page.

Does anyone else agree that these sections should go? Some of them are so reaching for a connection, it's ludicrous. You can make a connection between any two people or characters. Going by this model, this would make sense on the Michael Moore page: "Interestingly enough, Michael Moore physically resembles Will Smith minus 150 pounds, with a different style and colour of hair, different skin tone, green eyes instead of blue, and a huge gut instead of full muscle definition." Come on. I could maybe, MAYBE see the idea behind putting in resemblances between FF characters (still asinine) but these articles are full of comparisons to friggin' Digimon characters. Obviously the designers at Square aren't looking at Digimon for inspiration, so it's obvious this is just some overeager fan with their own agenda.

With some agreement, we should edit them all out. --Marcg106 06:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly fan cruft. Boring fan cruft at that. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Afd closed as speedy keep

This article was nominated for deletion on October 11, 2005. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Olympics

I keep hearing about music from FF8 being performed in the Olympics, and even on the news, but I don't seem to see anything about it on the International Olympic Committee's website, the U.S. delegation's website; only a couple of news sources. Being that I missed that event (yet I do want to now), I am wondering whether there is any way to get definite information on it, such as a sound/video recording of it or an official source mentioning it on a website or something like that.

There doesn't seem to be a reference to that on any Wiki page--though I hope someone corrects me. I do want to see definite proof on this!

^_^

Cornince 06:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Fire Emblem ripped off from Final Fantasy

Yeah.

Ahem, this appears to be reverse vandalism. ~ Hibana 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This user has appears to also be pushing this on the Fire Emblem page. As far as I am concerned Fire Emblem is no more of a ripoff of Final Fantasy than the Half-Life is of Doom. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Section removed

I removed the following section from the article

The first Five installments of Final Fantasy featured a largely Middle Ages or Fantasy based theme world. Starting with Final Fantasy VI, the series shifted towards featuring more technologically advanced societies and put lesser focus on fantasy elements and non-human characters.

First of all, I don't think it's true. Even leaving aside Final Fantasy XI, you've got quite a number of major non-human characters in Final Fantasy X, and neither do I really accept that post-Final Fantasy VI games placed "lesser focus on fantasy elements." Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy X played around with reincarnation, Final Fantasy VIII featured witches, and so on. "Technology" does not preclude "fantasy" (see Star Wars for more evidence of this), and the mixture of technology and magic is by no means unique to post-Final Fantasy V games (Final Fantasy had the technologically advanced Lufeinians, Final Fantasy IV had space travel, and so on). As a historian, I've also got a bit of problem of lumping all pre-Final Fantasy VI games into a broad medievalist conception, because I'm not sure it really holds up to close scrutiny, and suggests a similarity of style between the games that I'm not convinced is there. And it's a personal pet peeve of mine to conflate fantasy (a broad genre) with Tolkein-esque, medievalist high fantasy (one of many fantasy subgenres).

More importantly, I think we need to be careful about categorizing the specific subgenres of the games. I think it strays dangerously close to original research, and even if when its possible to make a neutral, convincing claim about a particular title, that kind of detail is probably more appropriate to individual game articles. – Seancdaug 07:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Critical acclaim?

I think the section on critical acclaim is skewed towards an opinion; in my awareness VIII is consistently ranked higher than both X and especially IX (which has been given the weakest reviews of any in the series) and the reasoning seems to be flawed (X was given good reviews cos it was a smooth transition to ps2? really?). Anyone think any differently? 131.111.8.103 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)soopadoop

I always thought that X was rated above VIII by the games media. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think X is much better than VIII, and would be surprised to find that critics rate VIII better than X. However, with the wide variety of FF games, and the fact that people like them for different reasons, I very much doubt that you can determine "critical acclaim". wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

I think that having two FF7 pictures on the page may appear to be POV; perhaps one of them (maybe the battle system) should be replaced with an image from FF8 or FF9. Deckiller 03:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have replaced the image with one from FF9. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Airships

I would just like to point out that airships have not appeared in every Final Fantasy as denoted under the picture. Just an example is Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. Although I know that the game is not in the main series, it should be changed accordingly.--Trick man01 08:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No change is needed. They are listed as a major element that has appeared in more than one FF game, and they certainly are that; it doesn't say they've been in all of them. PurplePlatypus 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding Article

In the See Also sub category I added List of Final Fantasy Armor to the list.

True Sephiroth 01:20 am 26, Feb 2006

Gravestones in Elfheim!!

Should be in this order from left to right, two are still unmarked!! Please update ASAP!!

"Here Lies Link" (Having being beaten by Cloud in terms of popularity) "Here Lies Sephiroth" (Having been killed again by Cloud in FF7 Advent Children) "Here Lies Aeris" (Having been killed SO many times by Sephiroth, especially in the Smooth Sephiroth song)

What? I understand what you're talking about: the gravestones in Elfheim in the Final Fantasy I&II: Dawn of Souls version of the first Final Fantasy. But...what? ~ Hibana 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Danmeister has been going around adding nonsense to talk pages, feel free to ignore him. --Pentasyllabic 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentences from the "Design" section

Many of the characters designed by Tetsuya Nomura were modeled after the Japanese pop star Gackt (Squall from Final Fantasy VIII and Tidus' hair from Final Fantasy X, just to name a few). In designing the logo for each game, Nomura continues to turn to Amano.

The first sentence is uncited, contradicts Squall Leonhart, and frankly reeks of speculation. If we've got a verifiable source on this, then we should quote it. Otherwise, it probably doesn't belong here. And I'm not sure what the second sentence means: Amano didn't design the logos for any of the Nomura-designed games. If someone wants to clarify this and put it back in, by all means. – Seancdaug 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the Criticism section

I thought I would take the time to add a Talk section comment regarding the changes I made to the Criticism section. As a long-time fan of the series that feels very disparaged by the direction Square-Enix has taken the series since the merger, I felt obligated to shed more light on other stances people may take toward the series (obviously, my own in particular). I did it as objectively as I could, but bias is unavoidable in some cases. I hope that if nothing else, the points I made can be kept on the front page in some form that allows them to be considered by those who might view the section. -Zoghade

I don't know, a lot of it seems very POV, not to mention unclear, particularly the section where you talk about the FF7 compilation. Also, you should probably cite your sources when making claims that controversial. For instance, you indicate that Final Fantasy lately has centered on sex appeal and fanservice. I'll admit that Final Fantasy X-2 is very much part of this trend, it would be hard to attach it to FFXII or FFX. Unless you can do some major citing for your points, I would consider revising or removing much of your edit. But then, I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, and have only made edits on a handful of articles. Logalot 01:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Zoghade, I agree with most of your points, but they do need sources. I also agree with Logalot on the fan service point: I didn't consider FFX to be heavy on fan service. On the other hand, have you seen the pictures of Ashe from FFXII? Anyway, Zoghade, your points are valid and they're things I've noticed myself and spoken with friends about in the past. I just don't have a source to quote, and we'd really need one. The page would benefit from solid, sourced criticism. TomTheHand 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
After a bit of research, I have to concede that point with Ashe on FFXII. Actually, come to think of it, I really agree with your comment about balanced criticism on this page. I wouldn't mind helping with this effort, and it would certainly make the article look a lot more encyclopedic overall. Logalot 03:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The part about Tetsuya Nomura avoiding stuff he didn't personally create is one spot that would need a source which I no longer have, and I was hoping that someone would later find and post the source for that. If a source can't be found, it could easily be rephrased to something along the lines of:
"Some fans believe that Tetsuya Nomura has been purposely avoiding games with character designs he did not personally create. However, a couple characters not created by Nomura make cameo appearances in the Kingdom Hearts II."
I never mentioned FFX for fanservice and sex appeal because I haven't seen or heard about any overwhelming spots where it occurs until after the Square-Enix merger. There was a three year gap between FFX and FFX-2, and a lot can change in just three years. But if we really needed something from that game, Lulu would be a prime example; even though she's not the character most talked about, her outfit and battle animations are a major tease. I never mentioned FFXII because I don't know enough about it.
As far as I know, most people who criticize about certain games or series don't put it up on a website to be given legitimate source standing. Most big groups (such as Gamespot) never touch on such issues. If just having a website and posting your criticisms is all that was needed, I'd have myself ready as a source in a matter of days :P . But I realize that's not the way it works. Still, wouldn't criticisms just be what fans in general have said and felt about the series over time? Even without sources, there are bound to be some fans who feel that way.
I really hope someone can help balance the criticism. I only added what I could, and unfortunately, I don't have anything I can find to put down for the other side of the proverbial coin. If the Criticism section gets too long, it could be split into its own section. That might not be desired, but it's good to be more thorough and accurate if possible. Sorry for such a long entry, I've tried to cut it down and this is the best I can do while giving a full response. - Zoghade
Having read the criticism section, I personally thought that it came across as a bit biased, although having read what the author has said here I understand why this has had to be so. I have added a couple of sentences in an attempt to balance the arguement out a bit - a little bit on the perceived opinions of the later-games' fans to balance those of the early ones. However, I still think that there is work to be done to make it completely NPOV (although this is just my opinion!) If anyone is unhappy with my edits then please feel free to change them or (as always) raise any issues here! AlextheSuperfly 10th April 2006
It should also be noted that the criticism has been given a major overhaul since I made my contributions. A lot of my stuff is still there, but some of it has also been removed or changed. - Zoghade
I'm the person who did a major reorganization of the criticism section, as mentioned in the section "Criticism" below. As a result, many of the comments in this section no longer apply, and I would recommend using the latter section for any new comments. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eleven?

"As of late 2005, eleven games have been released in North America as part of the main (numbered) series..."

Last I checked, there were ten of the numbered games in North America. Twelve and three aren't out here yet. In any case, this line seems out of place in the article anyway; shouldn't it just count the number of Final Fantasy "numbered" game total? I don't see why it's important to bring up North America at all in this case.

EDIT: Oops--Forgot to sign in... DMAJohnson 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think this number is including the PlayStation rereleases, which would encompass all of the games except for III. However, I do see your point as to why this North American number is relevant. It should probably be removed unless someone has a good reason for it to stay.Logalot 03:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I've already corrected it. It was my mistake. ~ Hibana 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)