Talk:Final Fantasy VI

Template:V0.5

Final Fantasy VI's sequel, Shadows of the Light

Is this true or not? I first read about it on a Retro-gaming story about Final Fantasy VI. There were some images to what would be FFVI's sequel, a game called "Shadows of the Light". The main character would be Shadow and most of the game would happen in the one year period between Kefka's growth to power and fall. Is that true? If it is, it should be on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.58.18 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Link please? Google is not turning up with anything of the sort. --PresN 19:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shadows of the Light appears to be a fanfic. Belasted (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's neither of them, I've found the truth. A website made an April's Fool in 2000 saying that Square planned to make this game but cancelled it, and many people believed it was truth. A now-extinct brazilian games magazine (Ação Games) made a story about it... that's why many people here in Brazil believe the "Shadows of the Light" rumor. There were even pictures of the so called sequence on the internet back then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.58.18 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Very positive reception?

First off let me just say don't crucify me for questioning this (I know what some fans are like) but when compared to other featured articles for games with equal or greater receptions like Shadow of the Colossus, StarCraft, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, even other Final Fantasy articles etc to same only a few, the reception is a string of "one of the best ever" style comments. Now granted I am aware of the game's impacts, legacy and overall praise and that there is one line of criticism. I'm not suggesting shoveling useless and trivial cons for the sake of diminishing creditability, yet I am rather surprised that a featured article barely reflects any other note beside undying praise making this game more of a 99.999999% than 90-93%. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that most of the FF featured articles tend to be like this because they were mass-written and mass-promoted in succession and in short amounts of time. With other featured article pushes the main pusher tends to focus on only one article, for a very long time, even after it is promoted to FA. But with the FFs it appears that the objective was always to take on the next numbered FF article as soon as the pushed article is promoted. So the reception sections tend not to be as in-depth as in other featured articles, maybe. It also doesn't help that every FF has hundreds of possible reviews to consider. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I've worked on numerous reception sections for massvely popular games, sometime I've even written the whole thing to prevent it becoming a string of praise. Without having to change anything or start an edit war, I'd just insert one or two lines of genuine criticism. For example the aged graphics for the GBA version, or perhaps something completely different. Stabby Joe (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just include the Nintendo Power review into the reception section? If you look at Game Rankings, that is the review that is the lowest. It gave it about a 75%. I do think it should be rewritten, but I don't think it should be drastically rewritten. It is pertinent that the game is often ranked highly in "best of" lists, specifically in magazines such as Game Informer and Nintendo Power.75.131.35.252 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yahtzee's reception of FFVI

I'm unsure about whether or not FFVI being one of the few JRPGs that Yahtzee actually likes deserves a full paragraph in the reception section talking about him comparing it to FFXIII. I don't really know much about Yahtzee, though, so if it is worth mention, then please tell me. Alex.liu064 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As usual, reviewers unknown to most are glorified as if their take on the game was of any relevance. Who cares if that guy likes the game ? I hate most JRPGs but love FF6, it's a well-known fact on a gaming website I write for but nobody wants to see a whole paragraph on Wikipedia about it. 82.231.37.66 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

With no disrespect meant, you're not a well known video game critic, but Yahtzee is.96.38.123.188 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With no disrespect meant, that wasn't relevant. Regardless of whether or not he's a big critic, his words make sense. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The point of that comment wasn't that 82.231.37.66 isn't "a big critic", but that Ben Croshaw is a well-known, Wikipedia-notable critic. - 24.180.122.2 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The graphic directors should be added to the credits list under Artists.

The term Graphic Director was just another term for Art Director before Square started using it. Yoshitaka Amano only did the character designs. Those that worked on the visuals seen in the games towns and locations shoud also be credited. These three people deserve recognition:

Tetsuya Takahashi, Hideo Minaba, Tetsuya Nomura

82.31.135.50 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you say that... I guess you can go ahead and put them back in, until someone more informed comes along and disagrees. Sorry for the trouble. The Stick Man (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Prime Blue seems to have problem with it. I don't really know much about the staff, and what he says makes sense. [TheStickMan]^[✆Talk] 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems like GZay has good intentions but is too lazy to write prose instead of putting microscopic additions in infoboxes. Things like Nomura/Tanaka/Takahashi contributing stuff should be explained in the Development/Creation section, which is currently kinda lacking in that department. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)