Talk:Final Fantasy magic/archive1

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

I hope this make sense...

This article, frankly, is long overdue. That being said, I'm not sure what I put together is all that useful. First of all, it's incomplete (I need to add another subsection about time/space magic), and second of all, I'm not sure I described the whole ra/ga suffix naming system very well. I hope, if nothing else, the formatting suits. But, y'know, have at it, and tear it to shreds if you think it needs it, or whatever.... – Seancdaug 07:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ultima

Is Ultima missing from this list, or is it entered under another name? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's just not there yet. There's quite a bit that can (and should) be added, but that I (or anybody else, for that matter) haven't gotten around to yet. Feel free to add it yourself, if you'd like. Otherwise, I'll try to cobble something together soon. – Seancdaug 17:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Aero?

So... someone went ahead and entered "Aero" in under blue magic. Certainly, it is an important spell and should be mentioned somewhere, but where would it fit best? In Final Fantasy III it was white magic; in Final Fantasy V it was blue magic, and in Final Fantasy VIII it was black magic (possibly also Final Fantasy VII?). This is a slightly more severe version of the issues raised by the time/space magic section. Anyone have any thoughts on where this particular spell should go, or, more generally, on how we handle spells that cross magical types from game to game? – Seancdaug June 29, 2005 20:27 (UTC)

An idea: Rather than sectioning the article into black/timespace/blue/white/whatever, we divide it by offensive/borderline/defensive capabilities or vice versa. Also incorporate which types of magic a spell can be classified as in the description. It would allow a reader to judge its general use in battle and what it can be classified as magic-wise. A problem could be that many spells can be used for both (zombie defends against death spells, cure harms the undead; slow encumbers speed but slows poison), creating an overly large "borderline" section which IMO should be reserved to things like Drain. JustSomeKid 29 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)

What about classifying magic in the way JustSomeKid suggested, but based on how the game originally intended the magic to be used? Eg. The ingame description of Cure might read "recovers some HP", we put it into defensive. Just an idea. Valhallia 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think catagories of Offensive and Supportive covers every magic - they can all be sorted into either of these. Then maybe some subcatagories underneath those. To show you what I mean, Drain is offensive. I know it sometimes heals a party member, but this isn't always, and the usual intent is to simply drain enemy HP making it offensive. Cure is supportive, no matter what. It just so happens that zombies, being the undead, curative magic has an undesired effect (much like when player is in zombie status). This doesn't make it offensive — Cuahl 14:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It makes a certain degree of sense, but part of me feels that the games themselves more often categorize based on white/black/time/whatever, so it's important to preserve that distinction. I dunno, though. – Seancdaug 17:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
When I have more time I'll list them into the two styles of catagories and then we can see what's a better format. Watch this space — Cuahl 16:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Several of the games allow the magic menu to be organised in Attack, Restore, and Indirect classifications. How about using that? This would not only help categorisation, but is also a distinction used by the games themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.32.238.130 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 August 2005.
(I'm aware that this topic is old, but no action seems to have been taken yet...) I support the usage of categories "Attack", "Restore", and "Indirect" over all others because as the author of the comment above said, "[This] is also a distinction used by the games themselves." At the top of my head, I can remember that Final Fantasy VII and VIII have this sorting scheme for materia (VII) and magic. --70.25.168.90 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Marlboro? Malboro?

Erm, exactly what _is_ that guy's proper name? I've looked all over the web and found a lot of sites that uses either of them. I'll check ingame later. Valhallia 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well...
Hope that helps some — Cuahl 14:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Holy

There is something wrong with the holy section of this article. It says holy plays an important part in FFVII, but then it goes into how characters could not use it because sensorship from Nintendo of America. FFVII was on the PS1. It could not have been on regulated by Nintendo. I am not exactly sure what is being refered to in that section, so would someone who knows FFVII well, fix that part of the article up?--ZeWrestler Talk 12:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it says it was censored by nintendo until the release of FFVII. In FFVII it cannot be used by the main characters not because of censorship, but because it can only be cast by a cetra, which happens during the story. So, nothing needs fixing. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
JiFish is right, but if the line is going to cause confusion it should be changed. how about the shuffle round I made? — CuaHL 13:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Looks better, thanks for fixing it Cuahl.--ZeWrestler Talk 13:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Always a pleasure — CuaHL 13:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Blue Magic

Can someone complete that list on acquiring Blue Magic? I don't know too much about the earlier Final Fantasies, so I can use some help on that. Thanks! Valhallia 08:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Esuna

I thought the information on the naming of Esuna was relevant and interesting. Is there a reason it was removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArrowmanCoder (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 August 2005.

Ask the person who made the edit.. he could tell you. I think it's a good mention to be honest. — CuaHL 04:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Erk, I didn't remove it, I moved it to the bottom in a place named "Trivia". The information is interesting, but I personally feel that it crammed up the place a little bit. Any thoughts? Valhallia 07:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this unconfirmed theory should be in the article at all. It looks awfully like original research to me. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This isn't permissable in this case. — CuaHL 11:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought this had actually been removed. But I notcied it had just been moved back from Triva and to the 'Esuna' heading. I have removed it as original research. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.ffcompendium.com/h/interview.shtml is the source for the Dia info, just so you know it's not...'original'. --Made2Fade 15:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI Magic

The Final Fantasy XI magic consists of more catergories: Ninjitsu, Summoning, and Songs. Although Summoning has its own section elsewhere on Wikipedia, should we give a section to Ninjitsu and Songs?

I wouldn't know about that, most of the Magic in this article are spells that have appeared several times throughout the series. I think we should hear what the others have to say on this. Also, next time you should probably sign your post by placing four tildes(~~~~) after your edit. :) Valhallia 11:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Songs and ninjutsu spells are not true magic spells. They do not use MP nor do they attract attention to magically-aggressive enemies (elementals, arcana, full-grown wamoura, soulflayers, and maybe a few other monster I can't think of right now). Maybe a "Para-Magic" section or something to that effect? --Jopasopa 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ninjutsu uses MP in Final Fantasy IV...but I'm all for a "Para-Magic" section. We could also add Mystic Quest's "Wizard magic" to that list.--Claude 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for ra/ga suffix naming system?

Is there any place on the net that explains why they used this system for the fire, water, etc. spells? 216.199.4.212 10:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

FF8 Reflect weirdness

The article mentions that spells can be bounced back and forth between parties if both have Reflect status... I'm almost positive this isn't true - can anyone confirm or deny? Gamemaker 13:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember reflect acting like that in some game, but I checked GameFAQs and can't find any mention of it being in FF8. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 01:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
In FF8, if both you and the enemy have reflect, a spell cast will only Reflect once. So if you cast it on an enemy and you also have Reflect, it will bounce off the enemy and hit you, ignoring your spell. I distinctly remember this happening to me in the battles against the monsters prior to Bahamut and Ultima Weapon- if I cast Reflect on my party to protect against the monster's magic, it would immediately cast Reflect on itself and then cast its spells on itself, so that they would be bounced back to successfully hit my party members. I can't remember any other games as concretely, but I'm pretty sure that a given spell can only be Reflected once, regardless of whether or not all parties have it cast on themselves. --ACDragonMaster 09:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well that's two to one that the information is false =) I'm gonna take it out for now, but I'll probably be playing FF8 again soon so if it turns out we're wrong, I'll put it back.
In my version of the game, North American, both on PC and PlayStation, it doesn't do anything like that, it's just like ACDragonMaster said, the spell bounces back only one time. It's the same for all Final Fantasy games in the series as far as I know. This could have been a problem with the japanese or the Pal release? DarkEvil 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This definitely does not occur in Final Fantasy VIII, but I'm almost certain that it does in Final Fantasy VII (I own the North American version, for what it's worth) through fairly clear memories. Any objections? --70.25.168.90 14:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Must admit I don't remember it happenning in the PAL VII, nor any Final Fantasy, that's why the initial claim stood out. Its hard to see how this perpetual reflection would work in practice anyway: whatever the battle engine, events tend to display a title somewhere while the camera focuses on their effect in some way, but more importantly they happen sequentially. A perpetually reflecting spell would effectively stop any other battle event from happening. >Gamemaker 15:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've just investigated this in-game, and my memories are about* correct. After using a variety of spells, I see that not every spell is reflected back and forth between the target and the caster (*not simply between the parties). The reflect system is strange because, as far as I know, some spells don't reflect (e.g. Comet, Berserk), some reflect only once (e.g. Sleepel), and some reflect until the reflect status has expired (e.g. Cure, Fire, Slow, Poisona) without any apparent system. "[...] whatever the battle engine, events tend to display a title somewhere while the camera focuses on their effect in some way, [...>" In FF7, the title and the camera are only active during the initial cast; once the spell is cast, the captions will disappear, and the camera will return to its normal, passive position because the reflection of a spell does not effect the captions nor does it effect the camera. "<...] but more importantly they happen sequentially. A perpetually reflecting spell would effectively stop any other battle event from happening." Yes, this is true – no actions can be performed until the reflections have finished. If there are any further questions regarding this FF7 phenomenon, I'd be glad to answer them with the best of my ability. --70.25.168.90 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Time for a split?

This article is pretty large now, and for the reasons discussed above, doesn't yet have a complete list of spells. I was wondering if we could kill two birds with one stone by splitting the page similarly to we split lists of characters and locations from their primary game pages? Ie, I suggest creating List of Final Fantasy white magic, List of Final Fantasy black magic, etc, using the information on this page and replacing the lists in this page with summaries of the type of magic being discussed. One the lists are on seperate pages, we could add spells that appeared in more than one school of magic to each relevant page where its uses for that school can be covered without the possible confusion caused by, as things stand now, having the same spell listed multiple times on the same page. Whatcha think? Gamemaker 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not split the article because of the risk of the newly split articles being deleted as fan-cruft. If the article was split, I'd like it be split as so Final Fantasy magic (covering white and black) / Blue Magic (Final Fantasy) / Time/Space Magic (Final Fantasy). --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
And how would you classify Green Magic when Final Fantasy XII comes out? It hasn't even been mentioned in the main magic article. ~ Hibana 18:41, 6

December 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone going to make this list of spells, or are we going to wait for Final Fantasy XII to come out to see if there are any new spells? And as for the split between black and white magic, I think if we categorize magic, things will be too confusing. Maybe we should simply list the spells in ABC order, as well as give an explanation to its modifications throughout the series? ~ ManVsMachine


Dia

It's not mentioned at all under white. Is it classified as something else? (the preceding unsigned comment was made by User:64.229.255.69 at 19:56, 30 December 2005)

This article isn't exhaustive. We don't, can't, and probably shouldn't list every spell that has ever appeared in any Final Fantasy game. Such a listing is much too detailed for a general interest encyclopedia, and would almost certainly get voted for deletion. That kind of detail is better suited to fan sites, such as GameFAQs or the Final Fantasy wiki. This article is intended to serve only as a representative sampling of some of the most common magic spells that have appeared in the series, and although the guidelines are a bit fluid, "Dia," having appeared in only one game, is not very common. – Seancdaug 04:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultima is white magic

Ultima is classified as white magic in FF2, where it made its first (and most prominent) appearance.

As such, I put it there. JONJONAUG 03:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall there being a differentiation between white and black magic in Final Fantasy II. ~ Hibana 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
There was a split in the manual. - Bill3000 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mages

I have had an edit reverted, about Mages, with the reason that there are already wiki links in the article. I can only find links to Blue Mages, so please increase the amount of info about white, black and red mages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RussellC (talk • contribs) .

Kingdom Hearts

Should this article contain information on Kingdom Hearts's magic? --70.25.168.90 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if we don't limit it to Final Fantasy (as the name implies) it will get too big and out of control. There are parts of this article that are very rough because people seem to want to include every minor variation in spells between the different FF versions. I would prefer a general description of the spell without listing all the variations. After all, there are articles about most, if not all FF releases. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope. This is a Final Fantasy magic article, after all. >Gamemaker 16:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If we include KH magic, we'd have to include SMRPG magic as well. Crazyswordsman 03:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Change

I decided to be WP:BOLD and add the magic page changes from Ryu's sandbox. — Deckiller 22:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ultima picture

Image:FinalfantasyVI_ultimaspell.png is tagged for deletion. If it is to be used by this article, it should be put somewhere. -- ReyBrujo 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Red Mages

Whoever keeps adding mention of them back into the category for types of magic, please stop. This section is about types of magic, not types of magic casters. As far as it goes, anyone who can use Black Magic is automatically a Black Mage, even if they can use other things. Furthermore, Red Mages are not the only non-Black or White Mage classes that can use Black and White Magic (like Sage, for instance), but we cannot and should not try to list them all in a section that's not focused on mage classes. Ryu Kaze 00:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

At first i thought it was me doing that, but I moved that, so it must be somebody else. Maybe we should do a types of magic casters article, just a thought though.

List of spells

We feel that a full list of spells is unencyclopedic, and more suitable to a wikia or wikibooks. The same goes to Ether in Xenosaga and so on. That's why we're just providing a prose overview here. — Deckiller 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Green Magic

Does anyone else agree that Green Magic should be added to the artical? As of Final Fantasy XII, there are now Green Mages/Green Magic, which is basically the effect magic from previous games (that was split between Black and White) placed in it's own category. -- Jelly Soup 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ice spell

Isn't that a pretty bad example? It's Edea's limit break, not an average spell. --81.129.40.225 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Leviathan or Bahamut

In Final Fantasy IV, in the village of summoned monsters Leviathan clearly states that he is not the King of the summoned monsters also in the village NPCs claim that their king is watching over them from high above. While Bahamut is optional to get and he does not clearly claim that he is the king of summoned ones according to rest of the game I think it should be him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.141.154.4 (talk • contribs) .

If I recall correctly, I believe that in FF IV Advance, Leviathan is referred to as the King of the summoned monsters, while Bahamut is referred to as their god. Somebody might want to double-check the reference, though. Mathfreq 21:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning FFVIII's Summoning Text

Somewhere in the text for FFVIII's use of summoning (Guardian Forces) it mentions that it does not play an integral part in the story. I choose to disagree, vehemently. I'd say the Guardian Forces play a very important part in the plot, and that the article should be changed accordingly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.108.229 (talk • contribs)

How much more elaborate should the explanation be? It specifically states that Summon Magic "has a significant impact on one of the story's major subplots. During the game, it is revealed that the powers of Guardian Forces (Final Fantasy VIII's title for summoned monsters) are dangerous to the human psyche, and that regular usage of such magic results in amnesia. Due to this, the game's main characters have forgotten a significant portion of their early lives." It's already sufficient and concise. Broadening it any further would be beyond the scope of the article. ~ Hibana 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Tactics and Ultima

It's certainly not the case that Ultima is one of the "most powerful spells in the game," contrary to its description under the Blue Magic section of the article. Zodiac is powerful indeed, but Ultima is actually very weak. Mathfreq 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to encompass every spell's role in every game. Ultima is, in general, a very powerful spell. Certainly, there are many exceptions, especially in later games. ~ Hibana 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right; this article shouldn't set out to discuss fine points and subtle differences across all the games but rather to give a general overview. Just the same, if the article is going to go out of its way to mention a specific spell from a specific game, then that reference should be accurate. I don't think it's accurate to state that Ultima is one of the strongest spells in Final Fantasy Tactics. Mathfreq 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered that in Final Fantasy Tactics, it's possible to learn many spells by being hit with them, blue mage-style, not just Ultima and Zodiac. Here's a forum post talking about in on gamefaqs (http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=197339&topic=29496904). I'm not sure how long that topic will be around; if I can find a reference to it in a more permanent location I'll post that here. In the meantime, I'm going to update the text of the article to reflect this fact as well.Mathfreq 19:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Slow spell prior to Final Fantasy V

Under the section "Magic classifications," it's stated that Slow was classified as Black Magic prior to FF V. I don't know about I, II, and III, but in FF IV, Slow is a White Magic spell. Mathfreq 21:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up. The status of the spell Slow in previous FFs is as follows:
It looks like previous FFs are inconsistent in categorizing the Slow spell. I'm going to go ahead and change the text in the article to reflect this fact.Mathfreq 19:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Magic

I still think an "Other Magic" section would be appropriate for magic that appears in only 1 game and for stuff that isn't always considered magic (songs, ninjutsu, geomancy). It's kinda annoying seeing every magic type listed. --Jopasopa 23:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe that every type of magic should be listed, even if it exists in only one game (such as the Dark Arts piece I added). Although, I suppose that an "Other Magic" section on the same page would be appropriate, as you have suggested. I gave this subject a title; hope you don't mind. HeroOfVirtue 23:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)HeroOfVirtue
I guess I'm okay with seeing them listed and maybe a short description of the magic type, but do such insignificant magic categories really need their own section? And of course of separate section for para-magic such as songs, ninjutsu, geomancy, sword magic, etc. --Jopasopa 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that having separate sections for less-used magic is overkill. IMHO, the goal is to educate the reader about the topic, not to list everything that anyone knows about it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on an "other magic" section, then someone can try to trim it down. Even though I feel them significant and they have a chance to reappear, I will include green and arcane magic in it. Also, unless I missed it in the article, I feel that FFXI's "magic skills" (healing magic, elemental magic, enhancing magic, enfeebling magic, divine magic, dark magic, summoning magic, blue magic, ninjutsu, singing/wind instrument/string instrument (song)) should be noted since, along with maybe XII's classification, it is probably the neatest categorization. Is it okay if I make note of it, if it isn't mentioned already? Also, I'm not really sure whether to put "spellblade" under Other Magic or Para-Magic, or if it even belongs under those. I'm putting it on Other Magic since it usually requires MP but is not as common or as significant as white/black/blue/time/summoning magic, but someone could change that if given a good reason. --Jopasopa 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference

That "no reliable reference" tag is a bother to see in that article. It's like seven months since that tag went up, and frankly I see little to no attempt to fix it. Where the so-called wikiproject members? You guys only concern on removing spoiler tags? Is this article made up just for fun, to spend free time on the computer and all? Really, how does referencing work in this article? Quote interviews? Read up final fantasy books? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.168.6 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Watch the personal attacks. Also, we are working on other articles right now; this one is on queue. Sources include strategy guides, interviews, the official website, official game reviews, etc; but not fansites. — Deckiller 13:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You're free to expand the article and make it better if you want, Mr. "IP". Kariteh 14:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags are against our writing style as they are an insert into the body content that serve no function except to break up the flow of an article and redundantly reiterate that WP is not censored, a fact that should be implicit. No Reliable Reference tags are a warning about the article and a need to improve it, it should not be removed until the issue is resolved, regardless as to how long it takes to address the issue. --Daedalus 16:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Spell Levels

Are those Japanese spell levels right? I had the impression that they used -da as well? As in, Cure, Cura, Curada, Curaga, or something to that effect? --Kajitani-Eizan 08:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Summons

Sort of minor, I suppose, but wasn't Bahamut in FF:U? It appeared in the first episode, again in the middle of the series when the fish guy tried to summon it, and was again summoned at the end. On the same note, weren't all of White Cloud's summons Leviathan? --Kajitani-Eizan 08:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thought like that too, but speculation more or less, since I remember the characters never refer to them as such. Got any sources? 私はBluerです 08:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the article List of Final Fantasy: Unlimited characters#Summons, Bahamut and Leviathan don't appear. Kariteh 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't remember ever seeing Bahamut, and White Cloud did not summon Leviathan. He summoned a Dragon based on his MaSword that looked similar to what we think of as Leviathan, but was not actually Leviathan since his design was based entirely on the concept of the MaSword and a Chinese Dragon, exactly analogous to the Dragon that was summoned using the MaGun. --Daedalus 16:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
They are called SwordDragon and GunDragon, apparently, and Lisa's member of the trio is KigenDragon.
Plus, Leviathan never had a bladed math, blade-wings, and insectoid legs.
I think they did call the perfect GunDragon (the one at the end, not the ChaosGunDragon at the beginning) Bahamut. I'd have to watch it again, though.KrytenKoro 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Table of appearances

Are we stating that creature's appearance in a game even when it's part of that game's summoned beast species but cannot be summoned by the party? For example, if Fenrir was a type of wolf in a game, would we put something like "monster" or "enemy" there? If not, then I'm changing Kirin's status in FFXI from boss to no. Also if not, why are FFXII ships included there? I'm guessing that's because most recurring summonings are featured as airships in that game, so it's worth mentioning. Also again, I'm not sure if "boss" is the appropriate term for Kirin in FFXI, as he is technically a (High) Notorious Monster/(H)NM, but I guess those terms would confuse some people. --Jopasopa 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say put No for Kirin in FFXI, if he's not identified as an Avatar. The green Yes are for Summoned Creatures that can be used by the party, while grey Yes are for the creatures identified as Summoned Creatures in the game's story but who can't be used by the party. (Titan in FFIX is a special case, as he is "summoned" by Fenrir when the party summons the latter.) I'm not sure what was the point of mentioning the FFXII airships. Then again, I'm not sure the whole table is relevant or too trivial. Kariteh 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any point in keeping "Adremmelech" in this table? It only appears in two of the games, and as a ship in a third. I think it should be removed.SirMeh 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, only appearing in Ivalice games he is not representative of summons in the series, unlike say Ifrit and Shiva. As a side note, where is he a ship? --Daedalus 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, the table listed it as a ship, so I simply assumed so. My mistake I suppose. SirMeh 18:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the summoning magic section

Okay, so I came up with some ideas to cleanup that section:

1) Get rid of the table thingy. Or at least return it to the state where it only states the more popular summonings. It's annoying me like the Blue Magic list that was on the Blue Mage page. Maybe which summonings appear in which game can be imported to that game's character page?

2) Get more in-depth with a game's summons by adding more prominent ones to either the races or, like I said above, bring stuff like that to the character pages. I'm thinking about making an avatar race section (for FFXI) and leaving the FFXI summoning magic section for mostly game mechanics and a quick review on the 3 types of summons (celestial, terrestrial, and elemental).

--Jopasopa 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: An idea of how the FFXI section would look like:

<Info about perpetuation cost/MP/Blood Pact abilities> Avatars are obtained either by completing their quest or obtaining a scroll containing their pact. (<-Not really needed) They come in 3 types: Sleeping gods (also known as Protocrystal or celestial avatars) which are heavily elemental-based, terrestrial avatars <can't think of a quick thing to describe them>, and elementals, which are obtained by making pacts using scrolls and act more on their own. --Jopasopa 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not against having the table in the section, though I'm not against deleting it entirely either. However, I am against the table listing every summon, and this obviously won't do. Maybe we can set the limit to having to have been in at least 4 games? --Daedalus 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't come across as a personal attack, but it seems the person who expanded it had the intent of adding all summons (and even then, it's missing some). I'd settle with 3 appearances, but as of right now I'm getting rid of one-timers and two-timers. --Jopasopa 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The chart will be better off deleted with just 4+ appearance summons. Also, since it's 3+ currently, I'm adding Diab(o)los since he appears in VI (GBA), VIII, and XI. Unless remakes don't count toward counting a summon's appearance? --Jopasopa 21:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say that remakes count, it is an appearance after all. --Daedalus 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I'd just remove the whole table. I don't think there's much sense in choosing an arbitrary number of appearance like this. I believe a general, well written paragraph of text with references and mythologic connections would be enough, and better than a "mute" table which doesn't really inform much. Kariteh 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Summon table of appearances is trivial

I don't think there's much sense in choosing an arbitrary number of appearance like this. I believe a general, well written paragraph of text with references and mythologic connections would be enough, and better than a "mute" table which doesn't really inform much. If an article about Summons is trivial, why would a random table that no casual reader care about not be trivial too? Kariteh 08:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this is more suitable for Wikia FF, then be placed here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's not a place for trivia. Bluerです。 なにか? 09:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The table displays at-a-glance information that is easy to parse and allows the viewers themselves to see who is more prominent in the series via their own conclusions. It is a very NPOV way to demonstrate which summons are more prominent. A well-written paragraph is not this easy to parse for the same information. This is not to say that the well-written paragraph is unneccessary, it still is necessary. On the other hand, I can easily accept that the table is trivial as well, but I feel we must think about all sides of the issue before we act. Personally, I don't care whether the table is deleted or kept, but it does have its uses nevertheless. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The table isn't NPOV at all. The mere fact that we're chosing to display some Summons in it while discarding other "unimportant" ones is biased. And we can't possibly display all Summons of the series either. Kariteh 16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
How is it POV to disclude summons that appear in two or less games? It is NEVER considered POV to disclude trivial info. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There's no issue with appearances in two or less games. There are issues with appearances in like, four, five, six games. It's POV in that case because it's not clear whether it's trivial or not. Kariteh 16:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
By showing summons that appear in 3 games and up and showing in a clear way what games they appear in it allows the reader to decide for themselves what is and is not a prominent summon. If they choose to consider the whole list, then that's their decision. If they choose to only count 5 appearances and up, then that's also their decision. For example, how does this table press the idea that Ifrit is more Prominent than Diabolos? This table displays them in the same, unbiased list without discriminating between them. It merely displays how many games they appear in, and it's up to the reader to decide for himself that Ifrit is more Prominent, the table makes no such claims. Presenting facts exactly as they are and discluding trivia is not POV and never will be. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, chosing the number 3 is not biased, okay. Prepare to see the table utterly cluttered when FFXII RW and FFTA2 will be released though. Kariteh 10:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If we decide to keep the table, then I'm prepared to bridge that gap when we get to it. Obviously, the system must adapt when the system no longer works. I'm not saying the system is perfect, nor am I saying that the system will work after more games are released. I'm only saying that it isn't POV. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Discounting appearances that appear in only one continuity is discrimination and POV. If a continuity is shared between several games, then so be it, but it mustn't interfere with the unbiased listing of Summons appearances by game. For now, Adramelk can't possibly be in the table anyway since he only appears in 2 games as a Summon, but I'm speaking in theory as well as in anticipation of the Ivalice Alliance games. Kariteh 21:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If we count Summons appearing as ship types, then we should also count Summons appearing as Lucavi. I'm not arguing that we discount the ships in FFXII, they are certainly a worthy mention, but to count the ships and not the Lucavi is inconsistent.
Discounting appearances in only one continuity is not POV. A recurrant element of one continuity is reflective of only that continuity, and this article is reflective of the entire series as a whole. We have to keep that in mind, otherwise there would be no purpose in creating the Spira (Final Fantasy X), Vana'diel, Ivalice and Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII articles. Anything specific to those continuities (including summons) should be discussed there and does not belong here. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe what we can say is that if the row is mostly red, it will probably get deleted. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 00:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The FFXII ships are not counted. We could put "No" instead of "Ships" and the corresponding Summons would still appear in the table, because they have 3 or more appearances as Summons. The "Ship" entry instead of "No" is just to note an interesting point (that ships have classic summon names in FFXII). But if you say we're counting by continuity where I thought we were counting by game, then perhaps this should be made explicite by putting XII/RW/T/TA in a single column or something. Kariteh 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
TA isn't the same continuity as the others, though. It may be based on it, and there's a lot of references, but their is no continuity there, and the game even states that. Thus, the Lucavi that appeared as Totema WOULD count as appearing in three games as summons (in T, they were summonable by the enemies, not the party (Exc. Zodiark, of course)), and also as appearing in two continuities.

So, Addramalech and Zalera (the Gukko Rukavi) would be a summon on the list (and the others who appeared as totema would have 3 appearances and 2 continuities once RW comes out). Or, we could count the ones based on final bosses, since they are usually summoned in some way - Chaos, Famfrit especially. KrytenKoro 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By continuity, we're referring to world motifs, not storyline continuity. In this way, all games of FNC are in the same continuity, even though their stories are unrelated. All Games in Ivalice are one continuity, even though they are unrelated. FFTA takes place in Ivalice, it is the same continuity just as much as FFT and FFXII are. RW is also an Ivalice game. But I do agree that they would count as appearing in three games as summons with FFT having a white "yes", but it's clear that they are only in Ivalice. We should NOT count ones based on final bosses. A final boss is not a summon, it does not count as an appearance. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidental question, then - how do we handle allusions to other games? In FFIX, for example, Ramuh, in a storyline event, references a storyline event (Josef's death) in FFII. Do we use this and myriad other ones (the reference to Garland attempting to use the crystals to take over the world before as a reference to FFI) to link them into once continuity? If FFTA2 is truly a sequel to FFTA, and not just another sidestory in FFTA's vein (I don't know which it is, since I haven't heard much on it), then the point is moot, but otherwise, that's all we have to link FFTA to the Ivalice games - allusions (as plot-based as they may be) that were specifically made TO BE allusions, and not even veiled hints as the FFIx ones could have been. So do we have Square tell us if the games are in the same continuity? Basically, to claim the continuity thing, does Square have to name it as a series, or do we make that choice ourselves? If the latter, can we then link FFIX to FFI and FFII?KrytenKoro 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we must have Square tell us whether the games are related or not. You can find tons of pre-FFX interviews where Square say the FFs (the ones that were released at the time) were not related to each other and are always set in a new continuity. The first FF game that Square has said shares its continuity with another episode is FFX (with FFX-2, and FFVII). Kariteh 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it...

...the more I realize that this might fit into the Gameplay of Final Fantasy article. I don't think any substantial out of universe info can be found on the magic of Final Fantasy. We can keep looking, though. — Deckiller 10:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Carbuncle in FF12?

I've tried to ask this before, yet no one bothers to answer me and someone called me a vandal. So here it is: Where exactly does Carbuncle appear in FF12? This is in reference to the table of the summons' appearances, which lists Carbuncle as a ship in FF12. Leonhart9999 06:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Why yes, Carbuncle is a ship in FF12. Not a summon. It does not feature in the game, but it is there. References point to the Official Game Guide and the Ultimania. — Bluerです。 なにか? 08:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
[1] Kariteh 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice one. — Bluerです。 なにか? 09:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Leonhart9999 22:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Chocobo Tales

Do the cards in FFF Chocobo Tales count as summons? I know that all of the common summons appear as cards, and it does say that you use the cards to summon monsters, so... If then, a lot more monsters would have the "3+" requirement to get on the table.KrytenKoro 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an intereasting point. Mind you, I have not played the game, but here's my two cents. Since common monsters are summoned by cards, then they should only count as a common monster, and the fact that common monsters are summoned by cards should be chalked up to a quirk of the game's unique mechanics. To be a "Summon", it has to be an extroardinarily different approach than the common monsters. It can also be argued that Chocobo Tales is part of the Chocobo series, a spin-off but not actually a part of the Final Fantasy series (just like Kingdom Hearts). --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
So far, the only "common monsters" I know of are Adamantoise, Bomb, Goblin, and Lamia. Bomb and Goblin are summonable in at least one other FF game, but I'm not sure about Adamantoise and Lamia.
There's also Iron Giant, Omega, and Shinryu, but I would argue that those aren't "common monsters" (and also that Weiss summons Omega in DoC). Everything else I have seen has been a summon at some point or another, so I would argue that it is in fact bringing Adamantoise, Lamia, Iron Giant, and Shinryu into the line of summons.KrytenKoro 16:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should include them (Ifrit and co. and Bomb and co.) only if they are explicitely said to be "summons" by the game. If they're just called "cards" or something, we shouldn't include them in the table but we should still mention in prose next to the table that several summoned creatures appear as cards in Final Fantasy Fables. Kariteh 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's called a Pop-up duel, and they say that you use the cards to summon up the monsters depicted on the cards. To get the exact line, I'd basically have to start my game over from the beginning, which I am loathe to do. I'll see what I can do, though.KrytenKoro 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've gotten nearly (and by nearly, I mean I have at least 5 of every monster, and am missing maybe one version of a few of them) all the cards, and the only ones that were not specifically called summons in other games are:
  • Lamia
  • Adamantoise
  • Iron Giant

Everything else was a summon at some point or another.
I guess the promos count as well, as none of those but Chocobash were ever summons, but those haven't been released in America yet. So, for now, the only "new" ones are Lamia, Adamantoise, and Iron Giant. Since everything else was a summon, I think that's a second clue that they are summons, the first being that you use the cards to "summon monsters".KrytenKoro 23:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)