Talk:Final Fantasy Type-0

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

The release date for this game is March 2105, not March 2014 as is stated in the summary paragraph. --berkough 03:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Already done. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ultimania development information

I have come across several easily-accessible good-quality scans from the Final Fantasy Type-0 Ultimania, featuring interviews with key staff. There is some minor transparent watermarking, but that shouldn't impede translation.

Interview with Scenario Writer Hiroki Chiba

• Page 1
• Page 2
• Page 3
• Page 4

Interview with Kitase, Tabata and Nomura

• Page 1
• Page 2
• Page 3
• Page 4
• Page 5
• Page 6

If anyone who can translate it and wishes to play the game does not want to open themselves to spoilers, this can easily wait until after the game has been released in March. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, yeah, those Ultimania interviews usually have some pretty interesting insight, so I hope someone can help with this. You could always say something at WP:VG, or even to a FF fansite or something... Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Already asked someone over on FF Wikia, and they didn't want to spoil themselves, which I understand and respect. I'm a rare breed who can be spoiled rotten and still enjoy the story. I don't really have connections with any FF fansites. As to WP:VG, I'll give it a whirl, but I'm not holding my breath. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Open world?

Could this be considered open world?ECW28 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No. It's like the opposite. Lots of hallways, barriers, and set paths to follow. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy Type-0/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it bad that I've never played a Final Fantasy before? JAGUAR  16:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "It was released in Japan in October 2011" - exact date not given here
• I think a little more on criticisms/praise should be included in the lead. "Type-0 has received strong sales and positive reception in Japan" is quite vague. You could mention that the AI and camera were criticised?
• "players unlock a New Game+ option" - 'New Game+' should be in quotes, given the plus sign
• "Characters can continue to level up through activities within the Peristylium while the PSP is in sleep mode, the cartridge was plugged in and the PSP is charging" - what cartridge?
• "Developers had been planning a release on the next generation of cell phones" - use either "mobile phones" or "cell phones" throughout for consistency
• "A Collector's edition of Type-0" - unless it's the actual official name of the edition, I don't think "collector's" need to be capitalised here
• "On November 2011, a manga adaptation" - In November 2011
• "the action-oriented battle system made it "a very different Final Fantasy."." - double full stops

References

• Sources are all good, and reliable

On hold

It's a very well written article, nice work with this. I only found minor prose issues and I feel the need that the reception could be expanded a little in the lead. Other than that, pretty flawless. Once all of the above are addressed then this should have no problem passing JAGUAR  15:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

All issues addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This should be good to go. JAGUAR  15:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Product Advertisement

The 'Reception' portion is totally biased. All the great reviews are from biased websites. This game was not received well in america by users or critics. This is total product advertisement. And this also is basically an exhibit of good cover-art, while everyone pretends the actual gameplay was not lacking. Good job advertising this game, Wikipedia. I really hope moments like this are not someday used to define any possible commercial interest the Wikimedia Foundation could possibly have.Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources that were less positive about the game? And the content from them that you'd want to add? You've got to be more specific on what you'd want to change, or your complaints will fall on deaf ears... Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• The video game journalism field is a huge mess of paid advertisment and biased reviews, but there are still some sources which remain truthfull and accurate. One of these sources are Steam User reviews. Which are genuine reviews by gamers who are not being paid. Ontop of the low review score this game has on steam, it is also filled with many, hand written negative reviews from users such as this: http://steamcommunity.com/id/faerly/recommended/340170/ Please do not advertise video games on Wikipedia. Yes, once again, the cover art of this video game may look cool, but the gameplay is total crap. And if wikipedia is going to become an advertisement platform, at least do it with games which were created by actual skilled artists. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:USERG - basically, Wikipedia does not document user reviews, except for the case that they are so noteworthy that reliable sources write an article about said user reviews. Unless you can prove that happened, it is correct that the steam reviews were not covered. (Full disclosure - this is from someone who did not enjoy the game, so I'm not "defending the game" or anything. Just explaining policy.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

bro you are policy shopping. i can pull many other "super legitimate" sources from the web which all say this game sucks.

I asked you to provide sources, and you respond with criticisms of me while mentioning how you could provide sources? How about just providing some reliable sources? Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms of you? LOL get real. You are such a liar that you are now making up things which never happened. Cool story bro. Keep policy shopping, maybe one day someone will believe you. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm lying about, or what "policy shopping" even means, but you seem to be way off base in your understanding of Wikipedia policy. Ignore me if you like, but your info will never stick with the explanations you've given so far... Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are lying about me criticizing you. Because I didn't. That is a total lie, which makes you a liar bro :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I assumed "policy shopping" was a criticism of sorts, tthough it's true, I can't be sure, considering it's not really a phrase I've seen people use, nor have you defined it. Also not sure why we're still discussing this instead of you proposing constructive changes or reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you now claiming you do not understand the English language or something? Accusing someone of policy shopping can no way be perceived as a personal insult. The word policy, and shopping do not come together to form an insult. There is no possible way you can be serious right now. I am really surprised at the length you will go to excuse yourself. Here, let me give you an example of a personal insult. Suppose I, or anyone else were to call you a little rat. Then of course you could claim someone insulted you, and it wouldn't be a total delusional lie, such as the one you just gave. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a fine lecture on the concept of an insult, but I said "criticism", which is different. Not following policy could be a criticism. Whatever "policy shopping" is, could be construed as a criticism. Which is what I was talking about. Now, do you have a point to make that can currently be implemented into the article, or are you just here to play bizarre word games? Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, you are correct here. But the 'reception' portion of this article is total BS Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

actually i'm still having trouble understanding how accusing somone of policy shopping could be considered legit criticism. But I really don't care at this point. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

But the real honest truth about these video games can actually be found in user reviews. They are actually a credible source. Wikipedia obviously needs to review some of its policy on source material.Andiar.rohnds (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want to overturn WP:USERG, that's much bigger of an issue than can be discussed or decided at this talk page. You need to have that conversation elsewhere, get a consensus for it, and then return to this talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Japan is really pretentious and has lost its touch with video games. Japan hasn't produced a solid video game in 10 years. Some people pretend games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne are not mediocre and uninteresting garbage. But these games are actually perfect examples of the pretentious nature of biased video game critics. Of course, this may be considered opinion, but I honestly don't care anymore. Because this article is totally biased and not remaining factual. What are you going to do about it?Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You've presented nothing actionable, so probably nothing, at this rate. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

FYi - in case anyone is interested, there actually was a huge video game journalism scandal recently, which does actually discredit many so called "legitimate" sources and generally prove how biased the journalism field for video games can be. This all goes to show why wikipedia needs to update its policy on some creditable sources such as Steam. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Great. Go change consensus and policy, then return here and start up these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you're forgetting about the fact there are tons of legitimate commercial game review sites which all consider this game to suck. Go to metacritic or anywhere which is not a pretentious Jap site or affiliated with Sony. The only reason I dont post them here is because I don't have to. Because that Steam review I posted actually is good enough. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Steam reviews are not usable under current policy. I wrote little to none of the current reception section, so redirect your raging elsewhere. I've only asked you to prove your own points. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse my hostile nature. One of the reasons why the video game journalism field is so corrupt right now, more so than it has ever been, is because of Sony. They are really the driving force behind tide of online deception. This is one claim that is difficult to prove, but trust me, I assure it is accurate. And this also why I feel passionate about the subject. In my view, technically this article is using Wikipedia to promote such corruption. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, WP:RGW. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that Wikipedia is not the medium for this battle of yours. Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you must have missed the example I gave on someone calling you a little rat. Because I am totally right on this subject. This article actually is product advertisement, and this example of you being a little rat is really showing right now. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, if you have no proposed sources for changes, and are resorting to "hypothetically calling me a rat" or whatever it is you're doing right now, then we're done here. You've been given your options - propose changes with sources currently considered reliable, or work on your project of redefining how the website defines usable sources, and once you've got consensus on that, then provide sources. What you're proposing so far is simply not do-able. Sergecross73 msg me 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

still trying to eek-out a final word in this matter? a tiny little morsel? a crumb? fickle-fink :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Andiar, while you make some good points about the status of the video game industry, the video game review press system and their intermingling, it has, as things stand, nothing to do whatsoever with this Wikipedia page.

• Wikipedia is not advertising the game: the page is not saying "This game is good.", it is saying, "this publication, this publication and this publication say that the game is good." If you don't trust these publications, you're completely allowed to - for now, Wikipedia does.
  • If you can reliably prove your claims as to a source's untrustworthyness, I'd suggest you take it to Reliable sources' Noticeboard so that wider action can be taken.
• Even if we took in account the Steam user reviews, for this page it wouldn't quite matter, as it is a page for the original, japan-only, PSP-exclusive game. Any Steam user review would be for its HD remaster, which was published internationally and on PCs.
  • I'd make you note, incidentally, that the Critical Reception section of the Final_Fantasy_Type-0_HD article involves more sources, and that it is, on the whole, more critical, if still somewhat positive.

As Wikipedia policy stands, this page is fine : it collates, and edits together reliable, published information on its subject. What makes something reliable is a point where, it seems for now, we'll have to agree to disagree. Valmoer (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"As Wikipedia policy stands" -- woo, that is some official sounding drama. Too bad this article still is being deceiving for the purpose of self promotion. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Had nobody taken the time to put up any criticism of this game, which actually *IS* the overwhelming consensus for this (regardless of platform, although the quality of some games do vary across platforms, this game certainly does not, excuse me for this minor mistake, policy shoppers). Focusing on Japanese sales is picking and choosing what information should be displayed, obviously for the purpose of self advertisement. It's extremely obvious and I really shouldn't have explain this much. How about we just keep this article non-biased and factual instead? Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see this particular release is Japanese-only. My mistake. Such a pathetic technicality. Well, enjoy the free advertisement boys. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup, this actually is a pathetic technicality. This game really does suck ass, and the entire workings of this article, including the effort made to make it featured article, actually does have commercial interests and self promotion in mind. And this biased self promotion is succeeding, especially when being included on the front page of Wikipedia. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You are aware of that there are two articles for this game, yes? This is the original PSP release that was only in Japan. Much of your complaints (such as referring to Steam user reviews) seem to focus on the HD remake, Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. The reception section for the HD remake is considerably different and includes the North American based reviews you are looking for... -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that typing "final fantasy type 0" in google brings up this page, as if it's the definite source for this game, and mentions nothing of other versions, right? There is a lot wrong with the workings behind this article and its FA status. I am positive these are made from commercial interest. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why the very first line of the article points the reader to the HD version with a hatnote, and the last sentence of the lead specifically discusses the high definition remaster. And the synposis section again hat notes it. And the Legacy section discusses it several more times. If you truly believe there's a conflict of interest at this article from a particular editor and have proof, you should visit WP:COIN. I would strongly recommend you not go to COIN without very strong proof however. Otherwise, it's probably time to drop the stick. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this EN wiki or JP wiki? More sales of the HD version on PC have been sold in America and europe than anywhere else, even more than japan PSP version (which i can prove). Now tell me why the hell english american google is bringing up the japan-only version of this game as the definitive source? Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Because the product names are different? The North American release is literally (and officially) named Final Fantasy Type-0 HD. Even in Square Enix promotional materials. -- ferret (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No liar, the product names are not different. Not as far as google is concerned. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rat

No, it's because this page is what square enix wants users to see. The search engine result is all that matters here. This game has no relevance here in America, Europe or Australia. You need to try harder. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Remember, it's the search engine result is what these failing pathetic japanese companies are looking for. They cant make good games anymore so they will literally just shit all over wikipedia instead :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

REMEMBER. Typing the name of this game in google brings up this page as the first result in google. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if you did have proof that Square has somehow influenced the naming of the two articles, it's very unlikely whatever change you want (For the two articles to merge? Be swapped somehow name wise?) will happen, when reliable secondary sources (JP and EN) treat them as separate topics. Wikipedia doesn't care what the search engine results ultimately are or in what order, that's why the hatnotes exist and the repeated mentions of the HD Remaster. I'd recommend dropping the stick unless you can argue for a specific change based around Wikipedia policy. It's unclear exactly what you want changed, other than for negative reception to somehow be added. Again, that's the other release. -- ferret (talk)

True, but I really doubt something like this will ever happen again. Where an obvious product advertisement is placed on the front page of Wikipedia. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You really need to explain why the JP version is more relevant here on English Wikipedia. Especially when more copies have sold in the English speaking world, than anywhere else. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I really hope this is all just coincidence and has nothing to do with the upcoming final fantasy game for Playstation 4 A lot of money is put into this, and Sony and square enix have really been doing poorly. This is why Wikipedia should really not be used here. Because you really can begin to question the Wikimedia Foundation and speculate if they have any real connection with this, weather if someone is 'donating' to them or if things are generally being overlooked in favor of these so called editors to have their article included as FA and on the front page at this convenient timing, and which have also manipulated google search results in favor of an irrelevant product. One of the people within this topic is also a wiki admin, and his biased intentions are obvious. Some people may think technicalities and policy-shopping can allow them to do whatever they wish, but I assure you there are real consequences for this. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Andiar.rohnds, I wasn't involved in writing this page and know little about video games; I noticed this conversation just because I was one of the reviewers at FAC. Can you give a URL to a negative review that you feel should have been incorporated in the article? Not including Steam, which doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than provide another URL which proves this game obviously sucks, I am definitely going to provide you with the next major, upcoming, multi-multi million dollar Final Fantasy game, which is the focal point of the series and the main product which has the most money and development put into it. Final Fantasy XV Enjoy. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your choice, but I'm not going to be able to correct any bias there might be in this article without sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me also reiterate that the personal motivation I have behind this is how Japan as an entire nation has really been failing at video game design for the past 10 years. And it's literally the biased journalism which keeps them alive at this point. It's quite annoying because their bad games have been just poring in and they are always trying to influence gaming market, more so than anyone else. And more so than in any other point in history. This is not typical for market shenanigans. The balance is quite off, it's really just a pot hole of shitty games and corporate lies now. And you still have these annoying people who are trying to convince users that Japan is special mystical pretentious Asians, and their games are super deep. It's really nice to see this on the front page of Wikipedia, it really is. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to learn more about how Today's Featured Article works, please visit WP:TFA. If you have complaints about this article being chosen, you might find a better venue there. This talk page is for discussing improvements to this specific article, and has no bearing or control over the TFA process. -- ferret (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL such generic irrelevant response. Who are you trying to fool here? You really think you know what you're doing, and I find this humorous. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

OK Andiar, as you, very vocally, made your distate for generic answers and policy drama, so I'll aim to be as factual, specific, and blunt - yet civil - as I can, and try to answer your concerns.

1. Frontpaging this now, in 2016, the year where FF XV will be published, is suspicious
   • It so happens that at Wikipedia, we love putting things on the front page at significant dates (rather than random ones), and it just so happens that this date is the first anniversary of (speaking of the devil) the HD remaster. Surely, that decade-old community custom is part of SE's Evil Plan (TM). </sarcasm>
   • Also, if this is really a promotion effort from SE, I'd fire their marketing guys. I'm sure having this game frontpaged on Wikipedia is making Sega, Nintendo, along with SE's competing studios quaking in fear.
2. Everyone knows this game is shit.
   • Going by your standard - i.e. Steam User reviews - it stands at Mixed, with a 59% approval. Nothing stellar for an AAA release, and, I'll freely admit, it would, if I was interested in buying it raise a few redflags as to its bang-for-buck ratio. But it's nothing terrible either.

'Mixed' is practically the lowest score any game will receive on Steam. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

1. • You're gonna say that the positive opinions are morons/SE fanboys/paid reviews/any other. That could be true. (And that could be false.) And the inverse could be true as well : negative opinions could be just as ill-informed, emotionally-motivated and/or self-interested. And that's why we don't use user reviews in WP : we most certainly can't nitpick singular opinions among a pile of anonymous contributions. We need people and/or organisations that have stood the test of time as fair and even reviewers.
     • Which publication are truely fair-and-even -is- a point of contention, I'll admit. But again, without hard proof, such concerns (even if valid!) are nothing but dust in the stellar wind.
     • As an aside, I'll also underline that some negative opinions are contradictory with each other in their criticism. To each his own...

Overall consensus is what matters here. Even Steam has some bias, because practically no video game will ever dip below 50%, this can be proven with official published Steam metrics. The user reviews are where most the factual weight is here, but one only needs to be slightly realistic when looking at a 'mixed' rated score on Steam, and instantly understand how this is a very low score. Even the letters of 'mixed' turn out to be red, to make it simple for the user to understand this is a bad score. Not even Steam takes their percentage rating seriously, because these numbers at the moment are still easy to manipulate. Plus some people would argue that human feces would taste delicious. What exactly is your point here? Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Steam is nowhere perfect, but it is still far more reliable as a real credible source than most other review sites. Especially the ones listed on this article. Millions of users know that 'mixed' rating is garbage. Not just a few users, but literally millions of users know this. This is easy to prove. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

1. • Which means that, all things being said, you're asking that the page change... to reflect your opinion.
     • You've been offered, multiple times, to link to one negative review, so that we can consider its inclusion. You refused, in mocking terms.

I really don't need to draw this out on a map for you. Because the evidence is very simple to figure on your own. Just look at Steam. And I already posted a perfect example of a genuine, honest, user review which is near the top of this entire section.

1. • • In the end, Wikipedia pages just doesn't change on anyone's simple say-so. Not mine. And, I'm sorry to say, not yours.

I can see you're passionate about this subject, and, as I said earlier, you're maybe even right! There might be something deeply problematic with videogaming reviewing, SquarEnix might be the corporate vanguard of the Antechrist, and Type-0 might be the largest videoludic turd we've ever seen this past decade. Yet, the point still stands that Wikipedia, in the end, isn't (directly) about truth, it's about due process (Of course, it's our fondest wish and our daily labor that said process leads back to truthful statements) : your (potentially right) assertion isn't worth a damn if you can't back it up by reliable publications. And, as to what is or isn't a reliable publication... it has been discussed at length. If you think you can prove a source we've used isn't reliable and/or trustworthy, go to the noticeboards we linked, and make your case. Valmoer (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I certainly wouldn't be taking the time to assert anything if I couldn't back it up with the truth. Believe me, I make it clear when I state something as opinion. Literally all the key points I raise can be backed up with solid evidence. Don't assume that because I haven't posted it here in this worthless chat, that evidence simply does not exist. You would be very foolish to assume so. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Last chance, put up or shut up. Provide sources for constructive change, or this conversation will be closed and archived. Call anyone "foolish" or "pathetic" (as you did here before you revised your comment]) or any other personal attack again, and you're blocked. Last chance. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last Chance" Don't make me laugh. This article is the one with dishonest intent, not I. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)