Talk:Final Fantasy III

Merge

Resolved

This article and Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS) should be merged.

• The first subsection of the Development section in this article is very short and efforts to find more sources and information have been difficult. The second subsection (Cancelled WonderSwan Color version) concerns both this subject and the subject of FFIII DS. The third subsection (Nintendo DS version) looks quite long but it's actually just a copy-paste of the Development section of the FFIII DS article. Overall, there is a lack of development information on FFIII Famicom.
• There is little to say about audio and visual since it's pretty much the same deal as any other Famicom game.
• There is literally no English-language review of the game at all. It's been pretty difficult to find any Reception information about this game and the two lines the section currently has is clearly not enough. Sales figures are also impossible to locate.

For these reasons, I think this article is not notable enough to have a separate page from Final Fantasy III DS. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Final Fantasy III as a whole" is a non-notable subject. I'm saying FFIII Famicom itself is not notable as a subject separated from "Final Fantasy III as a whole". Moreover, the merge is a very smooth process here since the Setting, Characters and Story sections of both articles are pretty much the same apart from a few lines in Characters. Merging would definitely benefit the subject as a whole since it would reduce the amount of sections being exactly the same in two different pages. Kariteh (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge; it contract this subject to one article on the game releases and one on the music is a prudent measure, and we can hopefully get a combined FFIII article to GA, someday FA, and get our featured topic back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is absolutely no other way to make the article a GA? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if there is either english language reception/development stuff that we have missed, or if we have someone who can read japanese who can dig up a lot of stuff in reception/development on the original, that would work to. Otherwise, this is it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So, having been consulted, and heard our rationale, do you have any oustanding objections still Link, or can we go ahead? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I still oppose it. There's too much content about the game that will go deleted in a merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please point out what had been deleted in the merge that we had performed.[1] Kariteh (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since there is no basis for the argument against the merge, I propose that we revert to the merged version. Kariteh (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll second to revert to the merged version. It won't take a huge toll on FFIII's page because only about half of the FFIII DS info is for development and such, anyway.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sony Playstation 2

Is there any chance this game will be available to play on Sony Playstation 2? I have heard Squaresoft originally wanted to remake it on the Sony Playstation 2. Please let me know.

Best wishes,

Albert Albert Cheng (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fat Chance

The Great Morgil (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A guy can keep hoping though!

Best wishes,

Albert Albert Cheng (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have gone off and passed the article to GA, as I did not find anything troubling while reading the article. Thank you to Gary K. who contributed to the article and did a fine job with describing the game setting/development. Congratulations.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Something's off in reception

Both 2nd and 3rd paragraph talk about the same remake and both begin with talking about its generally good reception. Either merge the paragraphs or figure a better way to transition between paragraphs because right now that line seems redundant.陣内_Jinnai 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Split remake out?

Personally, I think the remake is given undue weight as easily half of the contents of the article discuss the remake (most of the reception section deals with it). If work is done to find someone who can understand Japanese, or if more reviews have popped up recently, it shouldn't hurt the reception very much. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on the idea, not to mention the reviews you have for the original are, effectively, all you're going to get. Splitting them would only result in a work in progress and a future GAR for this one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...I also am unsure. How would splitting it out affect the notability of the original work as it wasn't released in English. I'd believe it would seriously jeopardize it which goes against the VG article guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 06:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To me it feels odd that the DS version doesn't have it's own page because of how much they changed in it. I am not all that familiar with the first version but from what I am told (and from evidence i have seen while playing the DS version) they did a lot more than put it into 3D. One main thing they did was add main characters instead of 4 interchangeable people, who you would think would possibly go in a "characters" section. 140.232.179.133 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New screenshot

I'm contributing a new screenshot. The old screenshot is okay, but I feel the new one better illustrates how the graphic elements of the combat interface evolved between Final Fantasy II and IV. Also, I don't think Square ever released an English language version of the game for NES. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed screenshot and caption:

File:Final Fantasy III NES interface.png

Like earlier games in the series, Final Fantasy III displays battle messages in text windows. Like later games in the series, it displays animated message sprites.

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, replaced. --PresN 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Western Release

It had never been released outside of Japan until a remake was released on the Nintendo DS on August 24, 2006. Until that time, this was the only Final Fantasy game not released in North America or Europe.[8]

As there was a time when other games in the series were unreleased in western regions, I feel that better phrasing might be "At that time, this was the only Final Fantasy game not previously released in North America or Europe.[8]" 202.134.253.55 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)