Talk:Final Fantasy XV

Only Versus XIII Info Allowed

This discussions page is only for discussing on matters related to Final Fantasy Versus XIII, PS3's 2nd FFXIII related game. Other matters should be discussed elsewhere

Inaccurate and info unreleated to versus XIII will be deleted immediately. Meaning that you guys must have solid proof of your claims and that Square Enix has delivered news to gaming news sites. This' so to keep Versus XIII's wikipedia main site with a steady flow of accurate info. Zeta Nova 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

News

According to several reliable sources; they've stated that Nomura has confirmed that there will be airships (a feature that was missing in FFXIII) in Final Fantasy Versus XIII. Yeah, this time you'll pilot a given airship to travel distant lands.

news sources

• Siliconera
• IGN PS3

Assessment

Assessed as C; several cleanup tags that have not been dealt with for nearly a year, including one that suggests an entire rewrite is in order. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Development began on PS2?

It says it began development on PS2 alongside FFXIII, but the linked article only mentions FFXIII, not Versus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.249.150 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Versus is mentioned in the article, and the fact that it was back in 2002, when development started, is further evidence of its original conception for PS2.--Tærkast (Communicate) 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That article says when FFXIII began development and that it was on PS2. But it doesn't say that about Versus. Read it again carefully. 91.5.35.43 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then it should be changed.--Tærkast (Communicate) 10:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vapourware

An editor is under the impression that the game is vapourware. I disagree, due to the conference in January, and some very recent news stating that, whilst it won't appear at TGS 2011, a date has been set for the next reveal. See this source. --Tærkast (Discuss) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So is this vaporware now?

The games unusual development time is notable enough to appear in the opening paragraphs of the article. As such I entered a few sentences concerning it, with three links to recent articles concerning the game's long development time of six years. Cross Pollination (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Officially it's not vapourware (yet) as Nomura has time and again said to wait for "more news soon". As for E3, it could make a suprise appearance, but for now, its a waiting game. This recent bit of news [1] seems to confirm its still in development, just might not be shown anytime soon. --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just wondering. Well I think it's still worth noting the unusually long development time in the opening paragraphs regardless. Other games like The Last Guardian, Prey and Duke Nukem Forever have such things mentioned in the article openings too and it seems like the development time of this game is getting more speculation than the game itself nowadays. It's in there anyway. If anything happens regarding the release date it can always be edited. Cross Pollination (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If it keeps up, it's development time is going to be discussed as much as that of Duke Nukem Forever, which we'll then have to add to the article. Perhaps some actual news about the game will slip later this year.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since no information was revealed this year, neither at the Final Fantasy 25th anniversary event nor at TGS, it's status as vaporware is more apparent, in my opinion.--Appledoze (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see a reference that seems to indicate it will be making an appearance next year. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Only way it is vaporware is if playstation4 comes out with no more playstation 3 games come out.Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FINAL FANTASY XV

Okay just dropping it here. A video has been making the rounds over the past few hours of a pre-E3 leak of this game being renamed to Final Fantasy XV. I don't wanna put it into the article in case it's all bullshit, but I'm just readying the usual editors of this page because I sense a lot of vandalism coming in regards to this title change. E3 2012 will hold the answer, so let's try and prevent anyone from coming and saying contrary to this being Versus XIII until we get an official announcement from Square Enix. Cross Pollination (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a possibility, however, waiting till E3 will be the best thing to do.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And so it begins. "On May 30, 2012 a video from a pre-E3 event from Square Enix was leaked online indicating that Versus XIII was codename and the game is actually going to be Final Fantasy XV. According to the video it will be released in Fall 2013 on the Wii-U and Playstation 3. A formal announcement will be made at E3 2012." I'm going to remove this paragraph from the article as there's no citation for it. I'll enter it back into the article later on, but this time re-worded a bit and with some sources. If you wanna do that then be my guest. Cross Pollination (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Cancellation

Please do not update the article stating that the game has been canceled. As of July 20, news of the game's official cancellation is still just speculation and rumor (as reported by Kotaku), as Square-Enix has not made any sort of announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.144 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for inclusion of cancellation rumors

So, obviously, there is a rumor going about that the game is cancelled. Some people, through the edit history, as saying things like "It's just a rumor, don't put it in". That's fine, if that happens to be the consensus here and all, but for the record, speculation is allowed in Wikipedia articles if it's reliably sourced, and portrayed accurately as speculation, not fact. As such, I figured that we should form a clear consensus on this.

• Support Inclusion - Per WP:VG/S, reliable sources are reporting on it. It originates from Kotaku, and other major reliable sources are covering the rumor, such as IGN and Eurogamer. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion of rumors are fine if the rumors are coming from normally reliable sources. To offset any concerns that they are only rumors, the statements can be added in in some form like "Rumors of the game's cancellation was reported by (Source)" or something along those lines that importantly attributes the rumor to a source in the prose. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support As long as it's emphasised from a reliable source that it is mere rumour at the moment. In anycase, semi-protection might be needed given the edit history between the IP users.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Just so long as there is more than one reliable reference to back it up. I have been looking through the internet and found that nearly half a dozen reliable sources have information that strongly suggests 'Versus XIII' has been quietly cancelled, though there are other, less well-confirmed rumors about the future of the staff and the developed hardware and software. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the concerns by Taerkast and ProtoDrake, it must have a reliable sources to back up the fact that it is a rumor at the moment. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible name change.

Heads up everyone watching this page. I have been hearing various things around the internet that Versus XIII may not be called that by the time it's released. Can any reliable sources be brought up saying whether or not this is true? If not, then this issue does not have to concern everyone, but if so... Just thought people should be alerted to this.--ProtoDrake (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The news came from the Japanese Amazon website. They recently added "(tentative name)" next to the game's title on their product page for the game. This "(tentative title)" addition was not there as recently as November 2012. This could be an indication that maybe Amazon know something the public doesn't. Only time will tell. Hopefully, we'll find out the truth when FF Versus XIII is fully revealed by Squenix sometime in 2013. Warm regards. --G-Zay (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly make sense if they did change the name. After all, the title Versus XIII seems to be a relic from when the Fabula Nova series stilled at the XIII numeral attached to it. I wonder what they would call it? --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My bet is on them calling it Final Fantasy XV. It has been in development for too long and they will want it to make as much sales as possible when it releases. They also seem to have decided to delay the reveal until Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn is out. I wouldn't be surprised if it's now FFXV and for all current platforms (PS3/360/WiiU). --G-Zay (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. They would need to rerecord some of the dialogue and change things a little from what I saw in the trailers. Otherwise it would still end up being part of the Fabula Nova Crystallis, instead of its own title (and I do think FFXV would need to be its own title in its own world). Still, as you said, only time will tell. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a waiting game for the moment, as if 7 years is not long enough. Amazon's reliability is questionable, so hopefully we'll know more next year.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Staff table

Hello. I'm adding the staff table as there's bound to be people out there who would like to know the core staff members of this game. I was one of them and was displeased the info was not on the Wikipedia page of this game and therefore went out of my way to research it and add it to the page of this game. Seeing as Square Enix has publicly disclosed this information, I see no reason why it can't be added to the 'Development' section of this page in a presentable manner such as a table. After all, it's not a list of the entire production staff that you would see in the end credits, but merely a list of the core staff behind the game. --G-Zay (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i disagree. Labor isnt a valid reason why they should be added. Also we dont have to go into specifics as long as we have key developers, such as the least specifics like map designer. Its far too specific. Noting 1st production team is enough.Lucia Black (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that the staff section had been cut out completely. I guess with the staff section gone, it does look a little better and certainly less repetitive. But even so, I to agree with Lucia Black to a certain degree. The table does seem a little too much, even with the staff section gone. I also understand G-Zay's view on the matter, but I'm sure a compromise can be reached. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

1st production team is all we generally need. Togo into specific members is unnecessary. I removed the redundancy of what game they made previously so it could be better organized. Programmer is probably the least relevant one. Music will probably already have its own article once its been made. Other than that the prose had it almost right.Lucia Black (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with G-Zay on this one. Given the long time this game is taking to develop, everyone will want to who exactly they should be throwing stones to when it comes, and more so if it is a blunder. Okay, I'm joking... slightly. But I think it is a welcome addition to the development section, even though most of the information is repeated on the infobox. Perhaps an alternative would be to change the information into text. 217.129.116.63 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose is good but only keeping the most relevant. Also organize it. Such as artist and esigners in one paragraph and planers into the other.Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree that the table should be removed completely. The most important staff members and their roles are already mentioned in the info box. I think a simple paragraph stating what team is making the game and what games they've made in the past is all that's needed. --G-Zay (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rumors alert!

To everyone who is watching this article, especially to User:G-Zay, with whom I have been enjoying working, there are new rumors that Versus has had a platform and name change! This is the one I found, which is bound to sprout dozens of others on a myriad of sites. I shudder to think what could happen to the article when these rumors get around. What should we do? I know we should not include them until or unless they are confirmed, but there is still the issue that the rumors could damage the article (like those earlier cancellation rumors). --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be added if the rumor is covered extensively like what hapoened with kotaku cancellation runor that led the head of SE to confirm the rumor false.Lucia Black (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Whats going on?

The article continues to be expanded but no effort to weed out the unnecessary info or summarize it. Its being treated too much as a news feed rather than a wikipedia article. And once (if it ever does) it ets released, all that info will become practically irrelevant. The "staff" has reverted to its list form and redundant. And not only that but splits it by years and its mainly irrelevant info of its development, such as trailers and such that dont really reveal anything important on the development on Versus XIII. I suggest we clean this article up.Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to be done, but there is a dual problem. A; a lot of unregistered users might come and mess it all up if a reduction in the amount of information happened. B; with the scale of the problem, it would either take a very long session to get it right or several shorter sessions spread out over a few days. But those are very minor quibbles on my part, since I also have very pressing calls on my time outside Wikipedia. On the whole, I approve of a clean-up. It would certainly make the "History" piece a lot less like random pieces of info stitched together from hundreds of sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the info is trivial in the History section.Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, for a solid clean-up and minimal disruptions, you'll need to protect the article appropriately, right? -017Bluefield (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done some truncation, minor edits, added some reliable references and got rid of the finicky little details that were turning the section into a farce. What do you think? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks much better. A couple of typos, and i find the interview sony being the least helpful for development, so i think that should be removed. Overall, its better. Thanks for yourr hard work.Lucia Black (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay has done it again. He undid all my hard work and put it back. Sure, it was without the subsections, but it's still an unnecessary amount of data. If someone could please justify this? It's making the article look a mess. I worked myself to a standstill to get that history section under control, and what happens?! Sorry, I'm just so frustrated. All my hard work just swept away with hardly any explanation, if any. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Im fustrated as much as you are. G-zay wont even discuss, so a propose to temporary block could occur.Lucia Black (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I won't be involved much then. Firstly, because I'm way too involved, and secondly because I've already had a headache with that malarkey over Niemti. I don't want to repeat the experience so soon. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

i just brought it to WP:SE.Lucia Black (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't say much here. However, I will say that please engage all major contributors to this page in a discussion before a consensus is reached. Don't go touting a consensus is reached before doing so. All of this could have been avoided if you simply were more considerate to other contributors. I spent a long times adding info to the "History" section and I'm not going to have it all thrown out without anybody giving me the heads up before hand. As it stands, I'm adding everything back and adding even more key historical points to the article. If you feel it looks to bloated than I suggest we add back the yearly sub-sections. --G-Zay (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC) You already made it clear you think you own this article to a degree per WP:OWN. The yearly subsections was part of the problem, the rest is just bunch of tiny tidbits that provide nothing to the history. To think we have to go to you first, but you wont even help the discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I own this article. I have no idea where you're pulling that BS from. That just shows how you've misjudged my character. Whatever. You know what? I think I'm going to just bow out from editing this page. You clearly seem to want to claim ownership over it and revert anything that doesn't meet your liking. I didn't become an editor to get into meaningless arguments just to meet some standard set by some stuck-up contributor. If that's the direction you're heading in then I'm out. I got got far more beneficial things to do with my time. --G-Zay (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)