Talk:Square Enix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
VG To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Square Enix, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of top priority within Square Enix-related articles for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] Merge with Squaresoft

Shouldn't this be merged with the Squaresoft article?? Jacoplane 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you mean the Square Co., Ltd. article, right? And, uh, no, I can't see why. There's a much stronger case for merging it with this Enix article, as the "new" company was formed out of Enix, not Square (the former absorbed the latter). That being said, there's not a particularly strong case for either: Square, Enix, and Square Enix are not the same thing, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to confuse the issue by trying to pretend that they are. – Seancdaug 02:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, get your point. Sorry about adding that category, i see you removed it only last week. Jacoplane 03:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. Happens a lot, actually, and it's easy enough to fix. – Seancdaug 04:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
There's a List of Square Enix games, and it seems to list every single Squaresoft and Enix game ever made. Should it be taken down since there's already a list in each of those systems + this one, or should it be left up for reference? ~ Hibana

[edit] Enix's Online games?

If I remembered correctly, before Square made FFXI, Enix also published numerous online games for Asian countries, some continued to this day. One example is Moli Baobei (魔力宝贝), which can be found on Square Enix's official Chinese website. Shouldn't these online games that are only found in Asia be also included under Online Gaming? ~ Aresmo 16:55, June 16, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Square founding date

In response to the anon. editor who keeps adding the Square Co., Ltd. founding date to the infobox: please stop. I understand why you're adding it, but it's misleading, as Square Enix is the successor to Enix, not Square. This is explained in the introduction to the article: Enix purchased Square. Square Enix is a continuation of Enix, not of Square, and adding Square's founding to the infobox is extremely misleading. – Seancdaug 02:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

As of recent, some users have added Square Co., Ltd. to the founding date. While I personally don't see anything wrong with it, shouldn't we reach a consensus here first before committing the change? It's been kept with only Enix's founding date for 2.5 years, after all. ~ Aresmo 19:55, February 23, 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy: Unlimited On PC

There's a 2003 PC card-battle game produced by Armada Printing called Final Fantasy: Unlimited On PC, based on the anime series. Does anyone have any information of this game, like its connection to Square Enix besides the name? ~ Hibana 13:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Culture?

Hey. Does anyone know anything about Square-Enix's corporate culture? Are they known for being creative, stodgy, old-fashioned, new-wave, or any other adjective you could name? In general, what's the company's reputation? Thanks. -- Brasswatchman 8:26 PM EST, November 30, 2005. Very,new age ,dreamlike,imaginitive.

[edit] Quick question

I'm not really sure how to handle this: how do you describe the company that made a game before the merger? Would you still describe Final Fantasy VIII as being made by Squaresoft, since that was the name of the company when it was finished, or would the name be retroactively changed to Square-Enix? Master Deusoma 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In the articles for the games created before the merger (about midway into 2003), we say they were either made by Square Co. or Enix. If you notice in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, the game was released and published by Square in Japan but Square Enix in the US, because the latter was after the merger. ~ Hibana 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Nintendo published it in North America, Square Enix published it in Europe. You are correct though, games that were released before the merger are described by the companies name at the time, so Final Fantasy VIII would be from Square Soft and not Square Enix. TJ Spyke 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmmm

I am quite saddened that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is not included under the "film" subtitle in this article. I guess it is because it was made under square pictures? I just hope it has not been left out due to its box office blunders as there are quite a few fans around, although far and few between, that absolutely adore this movie and respect its place within all of Square-Enix's Final Fantasy based franchises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.233.251 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmmmm... it appears that TSW has been on the article at least since December 12. I bulleted the films so it's easier to see. I dunno. I liked it, and so did Roger Ebert and he seems like a pretty knowledgeable guy about movies. Axem Titanium 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not any of us actually like the film, why are we including it when it was produced and released before the merger? Mentioning it's financial failure as a leading cause for the merger might be worthwhile (though we should have a reliable source for it, just as standard practice), but including it as part of the list of Square Enix properties is slightly misleading, I should think.... – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be included, but I suppose it would depend a lot on how much reliable info exists on Square's financial health pre-merger. I always found it a tad suspicious that the movie was the single blunder that brought down Square (Square Pictures, yes..but the parent company?). Kensuke Aida 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absorption

According to the first section: "Square officially absorbed Enix, [...]"

Shouldn't this be "Square was officially absorbed by Enix" instead? (58.188.97.134 10:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

This has been addressed. Axem Titanium 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the fact that all the gaming news sites that I've seen that reported on the "absorbtion" actually use the term "merge" which has a totally different meaning to "absorb"? Which is why I think in the founding details, Square should also be listed considering, although they were technically bought out, the two companies still merged. It's not like they just bought out Square then sacked all of its employees. It's still Square and Enix. Arrowny 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There's not really any difference between "merge" and "absorb." As the article on mergers and acquisitions says, the distinction is frequently made solely "for political or marketing reasons." There is, as you suggest, a colloquial difference between the two: "merge" implies a mutually agreed upon arrangement that is beneficial to both parties, not a hostile takeover situation. But I think this is pretty well covered in the article itself: the sentence quoted above refers to the actual legal status and is unequivocally true. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think it's a bit misleading not having the Square info somewhere at least though (unless I've missed it) as it seems Enix suddenly decided to rename themselves. Arrowny 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, that's a fair point. I think it's a mistake to split hairs that, technically speaking, don't exist, but that doesn't mean that we can't improve the wording. I'll take a crack at it and see if I can come up with something preferable. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PSP & Wii Virtual Console Support Sections

These sections seem a little... useless. The PSP Support section is basically just a short list of in-development games, and it's already been established on the Virtual Console page that they've announced support, and currently they've only announced one title for Japan only (at least thus far). It seems to me that these articles need to be either improved or deleted, because there really seems to be no reason for them to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JusticeLeaguer8 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I feel the same. All of the PSP games are already listed in the List of Square Enix games page, and of what significance is it if another section is made about SE releasing a single game on the Virtual Console? Pikku 02:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an attempt to expand à la the Nintendo DS section (with a previous fanboy attempt to overwrite the NDS section with a PSP section as part of the drama). It doesn't really work though, and we don't really need the article of every developer being updated as Wii Virtual Console and PlayStation Store adds old games to their inventory. Kelvinc 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
These sections are totally out of place in the article: Nintendo DS/PSP/Wii Virtual Console Support. They're very specific instances of what the company does and I don't think they should be in an article that amounts to an overview of the company. SynergyBlades 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Might we reconsider putting back at least the DS section? It did contain some useful info. SE has been supporting the system aggressively, and having a section dedicated to their commitment is fairly useful. Pikku 08:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Source? Kariteh 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
20+ DS games produced or being produced. Besides, I thought the bit about how Nintendo snubbed SE in the past interesting. 74.227.19.2 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, so you have no source. Kariteh 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if there is no source, the article is a lot shorter now. Pikku 20:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Source? Any gaming news site would obviously show it. Arrowny 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Keep talking. Kariteh 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone has some common sense issues. Arrowny 00:01, 09 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commercials?

Does anyone know which game commercials had the Square Enix name pronounced as "Squa Enix"? 209.91.61.251 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crystal Tools

I think Crystal Tools should be merged to this article because it would make this page richer in content. The Crystal Tools article is very short and doesn't assert much notability (just because FFXIII and co. are notable doesn't make this engine notable). The scope of the engine article is very limited; there isn't much you can say about its nature or its particularities. It would be better to merge it into this Square Enix article in some section, since it's one of the implementation of the "polymorphic content" philosophy of the company. FightingStreet (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to merge here. Perhaps the FFXIII article? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be if there were an actual "Polymorphic content" section describing the philosophy of the company. Taku Murata said that the point of making this engine was so that it could be used for lots of different games (before this, a new engine was coded from scratch for each new game). This all fits with Yoichi Wada's policy about gaining more profits with less expenditure. FightingStreet (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge somewhere :) By the way, I also noticed this article Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), I'm speechless, and not clear on what to do with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a merge is a good idea in this case. 202.86.217.28 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a merge is a good idea in this case. FightingStreet (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a bad idea because the game engine IS a game engine, while a company IS a company. A cat IS a mammal, but they are in different sections. Jerry Liu (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't merge--RafaeldKsonic (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Exclusive?

Can we get a definite (if it exists) yes or no on whether Square Enix have decided to go exclusively to Sony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaerun (talk • contribs) 09:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Square Enix is not a Sony-exclusive developer. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public Opinion

Some mention needed to be made of Square Enix's failing BBB grades prior to their joining. It seems very suspicious that as soon as they've paid dues to the BBB, their grade is boosted that significantly, despite a relatively stable set of complaint numbers. Although "agreeing" to abide by the BBB's rules (via joining) is laudable, it doesn't render their consistent failing grades in previous years meaningless. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was common practice in business. Kariteh (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought what was common practice? Receiving a better grade for joining? Perhaps. But again: does that make their previous grades irrelevant? I'm not proposing we keep track of every grade for every year (though I'm not against it), but I think certainly a company with a long reputation should be assessed fairly over time. Otherwise, companies could simply clear their slate/history of any wrongdoing. Their previous grades should remain available for the public eye. Fortunately, the previous revisions of this page provide a reference for previous grades. Revisions from August 2007 report a "B", July 2007 a "C", June 2007 a "D" and in May 2007 and prior, an "F". I have cited the May 2007 revision as the source. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)