Talk:List of Final Fantasy media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured list List of Final Fantasy media is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for List of Final Fantasy media: edit · history · watch · refresh

TO RESTORE Featured List Status:

  • Lead section doesn't tell what the article is about.
  • ISBN needs sourcing.
  • Expand music section

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)

Do screenshots also fall out of the fair use criterion? RyuBahamut | Talk 10:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC) And, can someone please explain how images on individual pages are justified but not on on this list?? Might be a stupid question, but i am confused.. RyuBahamut | Talk 10:56, 10 January 2007 (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)

[edit] Remake != Port

While yes, I noticed that some are direct ports of the game, I have a hard time believing that a full graphical overhaul plus changes and additions to the battle systems for many of the re-released games counts as it merely being a port. LanceHeart 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure some of them were ports and some were remakes (FFI for WSC, for example) and some were ports of remakes and it just gets more confusing from there. Anyway, reverting all of it doesn't seem quite necessary... Axem Titanium 03:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought remake was reserved to actually re-made games like FFIII DS (the other games like FFI&II on GBA technically still use the same base coding as the original games, although enhanced) but I checked the dictionary and it seems my edit was unnecessary, sorry about that. Kariteh 11:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see someone tackle this as I hadnt visited in the page a bit but now all I see is the word remake over and over again when clearly the majority of these have been ports. Graphical updates do not constitute use of the word "remake". FF III DS and FF IV DS are remakes. Most of the numerous versions of FF I and II are ports. Deusfaux 01:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Source? (Dictionary entry, something) Kariteh 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you could really find a source for something like, here is the wikitionary entry for port "(computing) The act of adapting a program so that it works on a different platform from the one on which it originally worked." Nontheless, there is a line between something constituting a port and a remake. We could possibly find individual articles for each game where a major site like IGN calls it one or another but I think consensus would say that without significant overhaul.. USUALLY of the graphical engine, a port is not a remake. To expunge further on my examples above... FF I and II Anniversary could be debateable... but surely the previous Wonderswan, PSX, and GBA versions are but ports - the most significant changes being minor graphical updates, and a rewritten dialog, and some other minor additions. FF III and IV DS are clearly remakes as the game is remade from the ground up with completely new coding. Deusfaux 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmmh, I'm not really convinced personally... FFIII and IV DS are clearly not ports, but the "nature" of the other games is more fuzzy... Your interpretation of the difference between port and remake is just that, an interpretation. It's not officialized in dictionaries (their definitions of port and remake are probably too generic, FFI PSX could very well be both). I think the lack of reliable source, and the fact that many people do refer to FFI PSX etc. as ports, precisely show that the issue is not clearcut and that there's no set rule regarding the distinction between those two terms. Kariteh 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that the Wonderswan version of FF1 was more of a remake than a port due to the addition of an actual MP system and changes to the battle system. The game felt and looked much more like the 16-bit games in the series. That's much more of representative of a remake than a port. Any of the other versions based on the Wonderswan version (PS1 and GBA, basically) are ports of the remake, yet not ports of the original. This is where everything gets quite fuzzy, seeing as how while a graphical update is probably not enough by hardcore games to count as a remake, it can be for others. I'd guess going by the least strict denomination would avoid this sort of debate, while asking for more than just graphical updates can lead to even more debating. LanceHeart 16:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FFXII novella

Anyone knows what's the title of the FFXII novella/short story which appears in the Ultimania Omega guide? (I know that it exists, but I don't have the title so for now I just put "Final Fantasy XII" in the article.) Kariteh 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Square's "Finest Fantasy" / Nintendo's "Legacy"

Are we sure Finest Fantasy for Advance is the collective name of FFIV-V-VI Advance? I mean, have we got someone who knows Japanese to translate the page? because, at first glance, FFI-II Advance and FFIII appear on the page too. Also, IV-V-VI Advance were released separately, not in a package. Incidentally, Nintendo of America has its own name for I-II-IV-V Advance and III (and probably VI Advance when it'll be released): Legacy - Final Fantasy on Nintendo Systems. Either way, these names sound more like project names rather than the names of an actual compilation (like Compilation of FFVII or Ivalice Alliance). FFI and II were released on mobile phones separately but under the generic name "Final Fantasy Mobile", and yet this project doesn't appear on this article. Kariteh 09:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I found this IGN article which has "Finest Fantasy for Advance" at the bottom and it also pointed me to the official FF4A page which has the same logo in the top left corner, after everything loads. Also, apparently only IV, V and VI are part of "Finest", not the remakes for I, II and III. I couldn't find anything on Google for Nintendo's supposed name for the project. Axem Titanium 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Update: The "Finest Fantasy for Advance" logo is also found on the FF5A and FF6A pages, but I couldn't find it on the FF3DS or FF1&2 DoS pages. Axem Titanium 23:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmmh, okay. Logically, it's still a "project" title though, like Compilation of FFVII, and not the title of an actual compilation (since IV, V, VI are sold separately). Kariteh 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe retitle the section heading... Axem Titanium 01:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No images

doesn't a page like this deserve images, like maybe box art or the title screen or stuff? at present the only images on can see are flags.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryubahamut (talk • contribs).

The images may be considered decorative and removed again, per our fair use criteria. -- ReyBrujo 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible in any way to go back to the old way and have the logo for each game in use? This page looks so ugly nowadays...it used to be really nice. Ultimate77 17 January 2007
Two things, the article does not need to be "nice", but informative. And the logos can be used under fair use in the main articles, not in a generic list, as it is considered decorative. -- ReyBrujo 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy Anthology: European Edition

Please stop deleting Final Fantasy Anthology: European Edition from the article. This compilation is different from the Final Fantasy Anthology released in North America by its content and its name. They are not the same thing. Or at least explain your reasoning instead of edit warring without any edit summary. Kariteh 07:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArticleHistory

Can somebody fill in the data in the Template:ArticleHistory/doc I put at the top? It needs info on when it was featured, if it was ever marked as GA, peer reviewed stuff like that. I put only FLRC info as that was most recent. Shinhan 12:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since it just KILLS you to type "yes" or "no"...

Does one game = a compilation?

And has FFIII ever been called "Final Fantasy for Advance"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No, and no. FFIII is a part of "Finest Fantasy for Advance", however. Kariteh 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So we call it a compilation even when it's not... And we call FFIII "Final Fantasy for Advance" even when it isn't...
So we're knowingly lying to readers by saying things are something they aren't, yeah? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you calm down and talk and expose your arguments in a civil, non-sarcastic way? What "one game" are you referring to? Finest Fantasy for Advance is the collective name for the GBA/DS releases of FFI&II, FFIII, and FFIV in Japan. That's 4 "one game"s, not one. Kariteh 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
They are NOT a compilation of games. They are a SERIES of games. A compilation implies that they are a compilation of four games in ONE. And where is FFIII labelled as "Final Fantasy for Advance"? You just said that FFIII was never called that, so why is it "FF for Advance"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but you seriously need to calm down as you seem not to be understanding basic logics here. Of course FFIII was never called FFfA; FFIII is part of FFfA. As for the "compilation" semantics, if it's not a compilation, it's a collection anyway. Kariteh 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me any evidence that FFIII is considered a part of FF for Advance. And it's NOT a collection! Why do you think the word "series" exists? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the existence of the word series has any relevance to the existence of the word collection... this is getting weird. For the evidence, it is referenced in the sentence right where it is needed; that's about the third time I say this. Kariteh 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
So why don't we call the Mario series a "compilation of Mario games"?
And looking there, I see NOTHING that calls FFIII "Final Fantasy for Advance". Has FFIII been grouped under this category by Square Enix? And if so, where did they do so? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Not getting the point again... Of course nobody would call the Mario series a "compilation"; we could maybe call it a "collection" though. A more similar example however would be the Ultimate Hits collection (re-releases like FFfA). The "nothing" that you see is the 14th reference: [1] , at the bottom of the page with the boxes and the FFfA logo. Kariteh 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to leaving my computer now. I hope the confusion has been cleared. Kariteh 18:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No one would call it a collection either. It's a series.
And that's for Japan. There is no English series of games called "Finest Fantasy for Advance". - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To add, FFIIIDS is not part of the "Finest Fantasy for Advance". Check out the official Japanese page. — Blue。 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(kickback indent) FFIIIDS is part of FFfA according to Kariteh's link; it's grouped with the FFfA logo at the bottom. I don't see why it's semantically important to define whether or not FFfA can be considered a "compilation" or "collection"; the section title is just a general descriptor that doesn't need to completely cover everything contained within that section. Axem Titanium 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a clarification, in the reference, FFIIIDS is grouped under Final Fantasy Classics, not FFfA. The placement of the FFfA logo is only to tell visitors that FFfA falls under the Final Fantasy Classics category. I'm posting an evidence that FFIII is not considered a part of FF for Advance, that's all. — Blue。 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at FFIII's site, it does not have FFfA's logo, while the others DO have that logo on their site.
And in regard to the description of these games, people do not use compilation and collection to describe separate games. The best term is a series of games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the FFIII DS bit as per Bluerfn's factual clarification. As for the collection stuff, people do use the word to describe separate games.[2] As for the "that's only for Japan" stuff: what's your point? Kariteh 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are..?

Where are Final Fantasy Unlimited on PC (PC), Final Fantasy Unlimited with U (mobiles), Choco Mate (mobiles), Bahamut Lagoon (SNES) and Final Fantasy Unlimited After (book)? o_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.137.55 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It awaits editors who could provide thorough information and verifiable references. — Blue。 22:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem to know about these games, please add them to the article, Eightythreedot. (Except Bahamut Lagoon, it's not an FF spinoff.) Kariteh 08:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


you didn't add choco-mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA (talk • contribs) 12:56, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. Kariteh 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Time flows like a river and the purpose of this article has thus gradually evolved. It has grown to encompass not just Final Fantasy titles but also Final Fantasy TV series, mangas, novels, and radio dramas (most of these info being uncomplete and unsourced, but that's not my point today). I think the article should be renamed List of Final Fantasy media, like List of Kingdom Hearts media but without the soundtracks since they can remain at Final Fantasy music (given their large number). Kariteh 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a bold move to "media" since it seems to fit. Go for it, I doubt people would object. Axem Titanium 14:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, done. Kariteh 15:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Kingdom Hearts?

Kingdom Hearts is a game with FF characters. Mario Hoops, Ehrgeiz and Bahamut Lagoon have elements and characters of FF... but they are not in the list. In addition, Bahamut Lagoon is more related to FF than Final Fantasy Legend for example. I don't understand it. EDIT: And Dragon Quest & Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Special and Dragon Quest & Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Portable?

Kingdom Hearts appears because it features FF characters prominently. Mario Hoops, Itadaki Street and Ehrgeiz have FF characters but they're nothing more than glorified cameos with little significance to the game. Bahamut Lagoon is only similar in gameplay and so is practically every other RPG. As for FF Legend, regardless of its actually being in the SaGa series, it was released under the "Final Fantasy" label and thus belongs here, but SaGa games that aren't labeled FF don't appear. Axem Titanium 01:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimania

This is really more of a reminder to myself but when we come back to put this up to FL status again, we should probably include a "Books" section and include the Ultimania books. Axem Titanium 15:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads up! I've created a new section heading "Companion Books" and started with a FFXII Battle Ultimania following the example of List of Kingdom Hearts media. I'm not sure if it's best to put the Ultimania listing here as there are lots of Ultimania for each titles, like for eg FFXII and FFVII. But I've started something and would try to add more if its good. — Blue。 18:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To-dos for the former featured list

From the recent denomination discussion I've summarized the key points:

  • Lead section doesn't tell what the article is about.
  • ISBN needs sourcing.

An example of a related List which is Featured and can be used as a benchmark for this List is List of Kingdom Hearts media. Heads up to the related Wikiproject and editors who are interested in helping. — Blue。 08:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Final Fantasy movie?

I saw a video on Youtube which claimed it was a new Final Fantasy movie. It indeed looked like something new, and nothing fanmade. It had really good graphics just like any Square Enix game/movie. Is this a true thing? What have you guys heard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.85.188 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Links plx. I'm quite certain it's false though. Maybe CG footage of a game currently in development. Axem Titanium 20:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A trailer for RF Online, a Korean MMORPG. Here's the link [3], but here's part of the truth, [4]. — Blue。 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It wasn't a Final Fantasy Movie? Dang! And this is gonna sound pretty lame but, I don't know how to post links on Wikipedia. Sorry for all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.85.188 (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead rewrite

I am considering a rewrite of the article's intro. Any ideas, comments or objections? Greg Jones II 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead is okay. Maybe grammatical errors or misspellings? — Blue。 23:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That could be the problem. Also, the lead needs to be three paragraphs just like other articles that are FA. Greg Jones II 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
List of Kingdom Hearts media, a featured list, has only two paragraphs. I think short summaries off the different medias of FF can be mention in the lead. And, do you think the infobox might have to be redesigned? — Blue。 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article has only 2 paragraphs. I agree that short summaries off the different FF medias can be mentioned in the lead. And, as for the infobox, it might have to be redesigned, I think. Greg Jones II 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New FFIV Spin-off

recently announced http://s221.photobucket.com/albums/dd288/Rpgnooukoku/Final%20Fantasy/Final%20Fantasy%20IV/?action=view&current=d2b4b902.jpg it's called Final Fantasy IV The After - Tsuki no Kikan (return to the moon) and is set to be released on japan cell phones on feb 2008. it talks about cecil's descendant. someone please add it to the list and create a new article on the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallLeonhart ITA (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

I don't think this article needs its own templates (Template:FFtitlebox and Template:FFspinoff) so I'm converting it to a table. Also, I'm going to be sprucing up the whole article, particularly the lead, to nominate it for FL. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Slowly it is transformed to the likeness of the List of KH media? I would not mind. If it's better that way, we'll give it a try. — Blue。 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As the number of related FL's grow, perhaps that table now being used would be better off suited as a template instead? « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 19:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
FFtitlebox is no longer just being used by this list. I just thought something universal would be of some benefit, like {{Episode list}}. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try fiddling around with something. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at User:Axem Titanium/Sandbox2 and tell me what you think. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The template looks good, but no one made any suggestions at WP:VG yet. When you feel like its ready, go ahead and implement it into the list. « ₣M₣ » 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Guardians W1

http://www.square-enix.co.jp/mobile/ff/cg/ --81.35.49.30 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks vaguely like Tactics A2 but it doesn't say Final Fantasy anywhere! WTF. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"Final Fantasy" is written on the first button at the bottom right side of the page. Kariteh (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That just leads to the main FF mobile page. I guess it is under "ff" in the url. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's written ファイナルファンタジーモバイル, "Final Fantasy Mobile". The game is part of the Final Fantasy Mobile compilation/series/however you call it. Kariteh (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Crystal Guardians is part of the Final Fantasy Mobile series and is an evident spin-off of Final Fantasy (like Chocobo series). --81.37.115.172 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look here its listed alongside other ffmobile titles http://www.square-enix.co.jp/mobile/ff/ --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where's Kingdom Hearts gone?

I'd think it'd at least deserve a mention, maybe a link to List of Kingdom Hearts media - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in Final Fantasy Collection

All that would be needed is the sales figures, as this was a japan-only compilation and a permanent stub, so it would eliminate a stubby article and bolster this one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - Merge in the alarm clock stuff and the reception details. The rest should already be covered in the FFIV, V and VI articles. Kariteh (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree for the most part. I think the information about the clock, graphical/audio update, and special features, should be added to the notes section, and the page should be redirected to here. But I think the reception information should be added in the FFIV, V and VI articles. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC))