Talk:Final Fantasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Final Fantasy is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 18, 2012.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Media franchises (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Square Enix (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Square Enix, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Regarding some of the new references put in. Ref 36 looks to be a blog, and probably shouldn't be used as a reference. Ref 37 and 38 are fine, but the full book information using a citation template would be best.
Here's the info and template needed: {{cite book| year = | title = | publisher = | language = Japanese| isbn= }}.
Just put that info in between the ref tags and that should take care of it. This is a minor detail, but it is best to nitpick to keep FAs from falling into disrepair. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

It is not a blog, but a website. It is also the largest square-enix fan site in China, original name of the site is actually They released the url address to the official square-enix company after the merge of square and enix. MythSearchertalk 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, when I clicked on the link it brought up an error page. So I tried and it redirected to Either way, if it's a fan site, it we probably can't use it either. Do you happen to know of a gaming network review, or a printed source that would mention the content? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Well, it is a secondary source, stating that the books talked about it and having 3 walkthroughs on how to finish the FFV with low level characters. One even calculated the total EXP gained in game that is a must to have. And sorry, I placed a wrong site, it is [], not .com site got a .cn news mirror and I got confused...) MythSearchertalk 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Note:fixed wrong link. Again, sorry for using the wrong url. MythSearchertalk 16:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm.... the fact that it is a fan site kind of discredits it. Let me see what I can find in some reviews. Thanks for adding the Ultimania reference info. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
As long as it is a source with editorial oversight, it should have its credits, they seems to be a registered company anyway, their register number is 05003107. And citations? The more the merrier :) It would be best to be able to find a English citation, that would help a lot. MythSearchertalk

The new tweaking is good, but the problem is that it looked like only the two referenced titles have such feature, while V, VI, VIII, IX, X-2 and XII also having such feature(I am not sure about X). It is almost a common element of the series by now. MythSearchertalk 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We can always use more Ultimania books to cite it. I've got a few strategy guides at home I can check too. Besides, since it's only a general statement, the references need not be that in depth. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Well, as I recall, the Ultimania guides started in the PS generation(i.e. VII), thus V and VI need other sources. I got a set of two books that is a collection of I to VI, it should have the info, but it will take probably quite some time before I can find them. Usually Japanese game guides got a list of enemies with EXP, I guess any guide will do in this situation then. MythSearchertalk 17:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've got the FF Anthology guide at home, even though it is for the PS release, it should still cover V and VI. I'll take care of it once I get home later today. Like you said, the more citations, the merrier. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
famitsu interview i'm just putting this here so i can remember. Lucia Black (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've added it to a refideas template at the top, if it helps. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles[edit]

Final Fantasy III has been demoted from GA and needs to be re-promoted by June 10, 2008 or the topic can be removed. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Final Fantasy battle systems[edit]


Please actually look at the article before you voice your opinion. Final Fantasy battle systems As you can see, it is a stub, and 90% of the information is already in the article. Add at most a sentence or two, and this can be merged and eliminate this stubby article that asserts basically no notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. It would definitely help the main article by adding another reference. The patent info would be a nice addition that can be sourced by the patent itself. However I do think the battle system article should be trimmed down first to make the merger go more smoothly.
Another issue is what should be done about the images? The patent image looks like it would be a good one to include instead of the FFIX one currently used. The Tactics one might be a good one for the CTB. I don't think we could include more than two images in that section of the main article (and even that might push it). Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC))
That design sketch looks pretty good, might be good to transfer to the main article. The other one, no opinion, so do what you feel is best with it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that anythig that has to do with FF should be on the page.Just put it in diff sections.Then if somebody's looking for that particular section they can see it in the contents.You should only have at most 2 pictures, just enough so that people who accidentaly find the page will know what it is and might be interested.Just put in 2 really cool scenes from one of the games.Jacob Green696 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the merge too. The FF battle systems article is borderline game guide material. The references to Grandia, Heroes of Might and Magic V, etc. do not establish the notability of the topic, they're just trivial similarities that exist because the FF battle systems simply aren't that unique to begin with. Developers love to create fancy names to make their gameplay features stand out, but in the end these are marketing gimmicks and there's not much to say about them in terms of encyclopedic treatment. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I think that the page shouldn't be that long, but should at least mention how Final Fantasy's battle system began and how it has changed over the years. In regards to the pictures there shouldn't be more than two or three for that's all it really takes. But, it would be tricky to pick the pictures. I suggest that you designate what areas are to get pictures and then go from there. MoggishFashion (talk) 20:15 , 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:58, May 23, 2008


why is it always Tydus this Tydus that? --Faxle (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Topic put up for removal[edit]


Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles has been put up for removal here. Zginder 2008-06-10T18:20Z (UTC)

Sales figures[edit]

I kind of like the idea of including a table like this, but I think the format should be different. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 17:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Couldn't hurt. But how would it be structured with respect to system? Would you include the PlayStation, GBA, and DS versions of the games, or just use their original platforms? I was never able to find reliable sales figures for the Famicom versions of II and III :/ ~ Hibana 17:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy (band)[edit]

I haven't found out how to do it myself, and don't really have the time to do so right now, but shouldn't there be a redirection link to Final Fantasy (band) (which redirects to Owen Pallett)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellevc (talkcontribs) 14:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's listed on Final Fantasy (disambiguation), which use to be at the top of the article, but was removed for some reason. I'll add it back in. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC))
Thanks a lot, Guyinblack25! Jellevc (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unidentified Anime[edit]

Does anyone know about an anime called Final Fantasy 10: Another Story? No mention of this is made in the article or derived articles. CFLeon (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X: Another Story is a short CG movie chronicling the events between FFX and FFX-2. I think it would have to be mentioned in the FFX article instead. — Blue 01:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Section heading[edit]

I think the section titled Overview should have a different name. The article is referring to the whole media franchise, not the video games. However it seems that the section Overview refers to the games only. Maybe it should be changed to Overview of Final Fantasy games. However I am not sure if it should be included in this article. However I am not familiar with the Final Fantasy franchise so this may be a misunderstanding on my behalf. I would have changed it already if it weren't a Featured article. --Stinkypie (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture Section[edit]

It's good to see that the expansive list is being edited to remove the OR and such, but a lot of the references are made to specific Final Fantasy games, so I don't feel that they necessarily belong here because this is about the entire franchise in general. Zybthranger (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to condensing it even further into say a prose paragraph that just discusses its role in popular culture using the kinds of sources found at Google Books that discuss its role in popular culture rather than dwelling on the specific examples of a list. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the addition of this section, but I have to take issue with the structure and some of the sourcing.
  • The number of subsections gives undue weight to the whole pop culture section. Switching to prose would be a better fit with the whole article.
  • I think the descriptions should be more condensed to talk in more general terms. See Space Invaders#In popular culture and Pong#In popular culture for examples.
  • Several others are somewhat trivial by comparison: hair styles in MK, the Kingdom Hearts references (already in "Direct sequels and spin-offs" section), and the two sports references.
  • I believe Ars Technica is a blog and would need to establish the author as an industry expert.
  • I've never seen Slam Sports before, but it's reliability would need to be established too. However, if the Sabin reference goes, then there's no issue.
Other than the above issues, I don't see anything wrong with having the section. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


I've found something in this article that bothers me a bit, as I had never heard it told this way, but I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt instead of out right deleting it. The origin section of this article states, "as Sakaguchi planned to retire after completing the project, it was named Final Fantasy," and then gives two references to back this statement up.

The first reference is (Berardini, César A. (2006-04-26). "An Introduction to Square-Enix". TeamXbox. IGN. Retrieved 2007-09-29. ), but it clearly states that the reason for naming the game "Final" was because it was Square's last ditch attempt to stay out of bankruptcy.

Reference Text: "Sakaguchi, who at the time was the company’s president, knew this would be his final chance to save the company, so he picked the term “Final” for what could very well have been Square’s last game."

The second is ("Developer Bio - Hironobu Sakaguchi". MobyGames. Retrieved 2007-09-29. ), and I find it questionable at best. MobyGames is an open project to which anyone can contribute. (See their about us page.) WP:SPS says, "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." The text itself seems to be a little embellished, so I'm not certain how useful it actually is as a source.

Reference text: "Square's games were not very successful at the time, so with the remaining money available, he decided to make his final game and retire from the industry, or so he planned. This final game was called Final Fantasy, which sold a lot better than anyone (including himself) anticipated."

So my problem is this: one source doesn't back this up at all, and the other doesn't meet Wikipedia reliability requirements. Does that mean the statement is wrong, especially since I have never heard it this way? No. But Can anyone find any reliable sources saying otherwise? KhalfaniKhaldun 04:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Moby Games does have limited editorial oversight, but you're right, it shouldn't be used to source that content. It's fine for the second citation for Sakaguchi's game credits. I believe there's a print source and a GT video for the retirement source. I'll look into it later. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC))
The series name, Final Fantasy, is often attributed to Square’s dependence on the product as its last throw of the dice – but the truth, says Sakaguchi, was that it was his personal last effort.

Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've updated the references for that section. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

adding a paragraph about plot[edit]

I've been monitoring the Common elements of Final Fantasy article. With the exception of the section about plot, the entire article is about characters. My goal is to turn this into a Recurring characters of Final Fantasy or Character design of Final Fantasy article (which would be tough to reference, but not impossible based on what I've seen out there).

For that reason, I'd really like to move the section about plot to this article. Some of it is original research, but we could give it a good old try and then trim it back if necessary. Trust me that this small inconvenience to the series article will be better for the overall organization of FF articles. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just expanded the common elements section for this article to include some plot info. You could use it to expand Common elements of Final Fantasy#Plot if you want.
I get want you're saying about original research, there's really only one statement referenced, and one of the two references looks dubious. Tell you what, I'll add the statement about Gaia to this article and leave the rest up to you or the consensus reached here. If you want to further expand the common elements article with the plot sources, go for it. If you want to remove it entirely, go for it. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
Just so you don't think I'm trying to dump my garbage in someone else's backyard, I went to the effort of researching and referencing the section about plot. The idea would be to have a Plot, Characters, and Gameplay subsection under the Common Elements part... with the latter two subsections linking to more detailed articles on character and gameplay. Randomran (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'll merge the plot section if you can find some more sources for this article's gameplay section. Every time I look at that section my head hurts. :-p (Guyinblack25 talk 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC))
  • So I went through brutal agony to reference the Gameplay of Final Fantasy article over the past day. It's still not done. It probably needs a copy-edit, first of all. Secondly, I have no idea how the heck I'm going to reference all the little factoids about recurring weapons, armor, items, and status effects... although you'll see a couple of referenced statements in the weapons section about Masamune and Excalibur. You're free to summarize it and use it in the current article, and post a WP:SS link to the more detailed Gameplay of Final Fantasy article as a work in progress. That said, the plot section from Common_elements_of_Final_Fantasy#Plot is complete as is, and I'd advise moving it wholescale. Randomran (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Great work; it's nice to see that the project is implementing the merges I outlined a couple years ago. — Deckiller 06:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I might even advise some further merges. But we'll get to that in due time. Thanks for the encouragement... Randomran (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Here was the version we were working on in 2007 before my major wikibreak: User:Deckiller/Gameplay of Final Fantasy. I don't remember if it was let loose into the mainspace or not; feel free to use it in any way you see fit. — Deckiller 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
        • If you see anything important missing from the current gameplay article, feel free to re-add it. I know this stuff is brutal to reference though. Randomran (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's very challenging to find ample references unless we resort to manuals and official strategy guides. — Deckiller 06:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
            • And even then, flagging commonalities starts to verge on WP:SYNTHESIS if we don't find a secondary source that does it for us. This is a challenge I found when working on a lot of the video game genre articles. Randomran (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
              • In the past, basic synthesis (i.e. "Chocobos/Biggs/Crystals/etc appear in most Final Fantasy games") was acceptable, though that convention may have changed in the last year or so. — Deckiller 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I've gotten away with it here and there. But when entire sections are based upon it, I see people knocking it at peer review, or removing it. Randomran (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

←(Un-indent) Excellent work on the gameplay article. I'll comb through it to make a condensed version for the main article. Quick question to clarify things, you want the whole "plot" section of Common elements of Final Fantasy to be removed and merge with the current content into a "plot" subsection of "Common elements"? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

I dont know where to post this, but I dont want to post it on the main page yet, however to main central theme in ALL final fantasy games as far as I can tell, is that the planet is actually a living being, and its "life" is threatened, by the antagonist, while the hero group (usually a rebel faction) is FATED to stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta have sources. Besides, I think the current section already covers that stuff. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Androgynous and effeminate main characters"[edit]

I removed the first phrase in the "Characters" section since it stated that the main characters of the series are androgynous and effeminate, and increasingly so. First of all, such a statement is obviously biased and based on perception, and as such does not belong in a neutral article.

Secondly, "androgynous" means a person who is not distinctively male or female (which doesn't apply to any of the main characters in the series who are all clearly portrayed as one or the other), and "effeminate" means a person who acts womanly (which again only applies to female characters of the series).

Furthermore, the sources used to "back up" the claim were a review to a completely other game, a parody site and a random article from IGN. I know that sentence was only added in the article to rile up fans of the series, but I sincerely hope I won't see it there again after this. SamSandy (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't how the sources are unacceptable. Gamespy, IGN, and GameInformer are well-respected entities in the gaming community that satisfy WP:RS. Also, that statement was not added there to "rile up fans", it was added to provide information about recurring themes. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
I agree. Neutral point of view doesn't mean "positive point of view" or "cater to fans of the topic"; it means compile as many perspectives from reliable sources as possible to cover the topic as best as possible. I'm adding the sentences again. — Deckiller 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to third that opinion. There has to be a really really compelling reason for removing information that has been sourced to reliable third-party sources. Also, I might add that Character design of Final Fantasy was changed, and I went ahead and reverted the bold change for the same reason. Randomran (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is totally absurd, people. A chapter can't be based on something made-up like this - just read the sources and you see the words are only mentioned in passing in them by random people with no real credibility. I can understand that the main characters aren't buff, muscular studs like in Western games, but they're certainly not androgynous or effeminate either. You have to keep in mind what those words really mean - they are not equal to adolescent, skinny men. Besides, Final Fantasy is no different from any other JRPG in the sense of having young, teenage main characters in it, so pointing that out is pointless in itself.

The issue isn't about positive and negative perspectives, but of what's an objective truth and what's a biased opinion. Using such strong words as these is totally unnecessary and uncalled for. SamSandy (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of reliable sources and blogs calling certain male characters (and even entire casts!) "feminine": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], and [17]...I could list dozens more, perhaps hundreds if I widen the search parameters. It's simply a commonly accepted fact. In that FFXII interview, the designers even admit that they change characters' looks based on "trends" -- that "rugged...wasn't hip". "Effeminate" seems like a perfect word to use in this context (as many of these sources state); it means "having traits that are more often associated with traditional feminine gender roles rather than masculine roles". Long hair, melodramatic characterization, feminine figures (Kuja, for instance), crying, etc. are all considered non-masculine traits by many people, as these sites point out. Most of them just mention it in passing, which is why this page denotes only a sentence to it — and only as a "common element" to boot. Note that it's not considered a positive or negative thing; it's just reporting a common aspect of the characters as mentioned in numerous sources. — Deckiller 19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sam, a few things-
  • We're talking about a single sentence, not a large chunk of text or chapter.
  • While you may not think the articles' writers are credible, they meet the Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source.
  • The fact that it is such a "controversial" (for lack of a better word) statement is the reason three sources were given in the first place. The multiple sources demonstrate that it is not a minority opinion.
  • We are well aware that "androgynous" and "effeminate" do not mean scrawny teenager. Those words are the original authors' words and were used because it adequately and concisely described the intended idea.
  • Though some of this information may seem obvious to you and other gamers, we are writing this article for those that have no knowledge of the topic. Mentioning common elements, even if they are shared by other games, is the point of the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." When writing articles, we are meant to provide a information in a neutral presentation. That includes "objective truth" and "biased opinions". So long as we keep things in proper proportion–like using a single sentence instead of a giant heading called "Girly characters"–neutrality is achieved.
I understand we'rewhere you're coming from. I think most of the FF characters are awesome; Tidus won me over despite his squeaky voice, silly outfit, and over-moused hair. But I can't deny the fact that some of them possess certain androgynous/effeminate qualities. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
I hate to say this, but it is kinda true, even if you bring out the WP:V statement, hoping it supports that verifiability does not mean truth. Sadly, it is a trend of ACG in Japan as a whole since this really attracts females nowadays, and video games, shonen manga and anime usually don't in the past and they really need the boost right now with all the economical depression and overthrowing merchandises. I must add the instance in FF VII where Cloud dressed like a women to seduce someone to get through a main plot, and he can actually beat 2 female team members at the time to do so if you do everything right.(or wrong, if you are in a negative perspective). MythSearchertalk 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
But why isn't the sentence "main characters possess effeminate qualities" instead of "main characters are androgynous and effeminate, and increasingly so"? It just sounds so... unencyclopedic, to me. And I still wouldn't count a reviewer's word as a reliable source when it comes to character design. As an example, I'm quite sure that in many FF X-2 reviews Yuna is described as "skanky" and whatnot, yet her article here doesn't say "Yuna is a skank". Can you see the difference here? SamSandy (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I think there's definitely room for a copy-edit, to avoid too much hyperbole, and avoid a judgmental tone. But we just don't remove verifiable information because one person finds it controversial. Randomran (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed the sentence to reflect this discussion. — Deckiller 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, while all the sources are western views, I will have to say that these characters are actually quite similar to the average body build of Asians male. Asians are possibly genetically harder to build up visible muscles or simply less people are interested in building them. The sad thing is, it is almost impossible to get a counter view from the eastern side since it is very not likely that anyone would comment on things they think are normal, and the neutrality could never be achieved simply because of that. So to a certain level, this part would be of western bias no matter how much reliable source is found. FF series compared to the large shoujo manga market is quite normal, actually. MythSearchertalk 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, this whole situation is absurd! Sam's right, the sentence is altogether ridiculous, and I'm sure whoever wrote it there was a troll or vandal. I'm not saying it should be outright removed, but it can at least be changed to sound more... educated? To me, calling the characters "androgynous" seems like more of an insult to the creators of the characters. It also represents a very Western view, as Mythsearcher pointed out. The average Asian build usually does not compensate for a muscular body, so the sentence may also be seen as sort of a racial stereotype. I'm erasing the sentence from the article until a consensus can be reached. Anonymous reader (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the trolls/vandals here- Rather than delete a statement that has been sourced by several sources independent of the creators, how about you suggest the more "educated" wording. This can be discussed; constant removal and reverting is not needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC))
I deleted the sentence again, on my first time visiting this wiki, I feel that such a statement contributes nothing to the overall value of the article, and is akin to stating things like "several Final Fantasy games feature characters" Or more accurately "There are often both male and female characters with varying characteristics" The fact that effeminate characters are present in the series, is not up for debate, we know there are very feminine male characters in final fantasy, but every game also features the typical "manly men" and I feel that presence of these feminine characters should not define the game, and that people without an in depth knowledge of final fantasy would be misinformed with the presence of such information in this section of the article.
Um... it's backed up with reliable sources. It's a common element. It adds to the article. Consensus is to keep it. No one is saying that androgynous characters define the game. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I would recommend deleting the word 'androgynous' for two reasons. First, I know it's sourced but the article only makes mention of it in passing. It's reviewing a completely different game and simply makes a passing reference. I'm not sure that's enough to build on. Besides, none of the other sources utilize 'androgynous'. They use the term 'effeminate'. Secondly, and much more importantly, 'androgynous' can have several different meanings. According to, it can mean 1)being both male and female; hermaphroditic; 2)having both masculine and feminine characteristics; or 3)having an ambiguous sexual identity. I think the source was using 'androgynous' in the 2nd sense, but unfortunately the article doesn't clarify. Will the average reader see that word and think that the main characters are hermaphrodites? Or that you can't really be sure whether they're men or women? Androgynous does carry those meanings so I think it could be confusing. Plus, if all that's meant is "having both male and female characteristics", then isn't it redundant to say both effeminate and androgynous? Thus, because "androgynous" is only used in passing in a single source and would either be confusing or redundant, I believe it should be removed.Ultimahero (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Well... I seen the sense in that. That means Project Sylpheed ref should be removed as well. The other two sources already deal with the effeminate-ness well enough, and, like you said, that ref doesn't exactly cover the topic at hand very much. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, the other two sources make the point sufficiently. The Project Sylpheed, while it meeting Wikipedia standards, doesn't really add anything. It just makes it potentially more confusing.Ultimahero (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
And it's done. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New game[edit]

In the latest issue of V-Jump, there are the first glimpses of the new game Final Fantasy Gaiden: The Four Warriors of Light (ファイナルファンタジー外伝:光の4戦士 Fainaru Fantajī Gaiden: Hikari no Shisenshi?).Fractyl (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

NES vs. Famicom[edit]

I've had to correct this twice now. The second and third games were originally released on the Famicom, NOT the NES. It doesn't matter that the NES was the American/Canadian/European equivelant of the Famicom, they were two different systems. You can't stick a famicom cartridge into a NES, and you can't stick a NES cartridge into a Famicom. There was NEVER a release of FF II or III that would run on a Nintendo Entertainment System, so saying they were released on the NES is simply NOT correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WraithTDK (talkcontribs) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I agree there are several prominent differences, they are same system. The reason the different cartridges don't work is mainly because of a regional lock out system that was designed to prevent unauthorized games for the system. Most other differences are minor technical upgrades (the two systems were released two years from each other) and tweaks to appeal to specific regions. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
I agree with Guyinblack. They're localized versions of the same thing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That may be, but the bottom line is that the NAME of the system they were released for was The Famicom, not the NES. Therefore, saying they were released for the NES is wrong. To say that a game was released for the NES implies that the US/Can/Brit version of the systme could play these games, and they couldn't. I understand that the NES and the Famicom were virtually identical, however, the name Nintendo Etertainment System applies SOLELY to the western version, which could NOT play games made for the Famicom, which was the Japanese version. Therefore, saying that a game was released on the NES implies it was available for the Western system. This. Is. Wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of easily verifiable fact. Grab a NES. Try to play Final Fantasy II or III. You can't. Wikipedia standards says all content must be verifiable. What I'm saying is. WraithTDK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
Wraith- with all due respect, I wouldn't try to plug a Final Fantasy III cartridge in an NES because I know they don't work together. The software and hardware are still the same though. There's just an additional bit of hardware to prevent piracy. I understand the argument you're presenting, but I think it's more a debate about semantics than accuracy.
It is not the job of this article to explain the difference between the variants. Labeling them as two different things can create confusion for the general English-speaking reader. If they want the details about the release, they can read up on Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, and Nintendo Entertainment System. They same goes for the SNES releases, details can be found in the respective articles. That's what the wikilinks are for. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC))
Alright, 1. You just got through saying that a FFIII cart and a NES would not work together. If they wouldn't work together, then saying FFIII was released FOR the NES is factually inaccurate. 2. Actually, there' more than just an additional bit of hardware to prevent piracy. That may be the only difference internally, but the shell of the systems are also different, as are the shape of the cartridge. A famicom cartridge litterally would not fit in a NES. 3. Labeling the systems as two different things may cause minor confusion about the nature of the Famicom; however, I should point out that A. The purpose of this page is not to educate people about Nintendo hardware. The purpose of this page is to provied the most factually accurate information about Final Fantasy games available. Your version is not factually accurate. The linked NES page (which Famicom redirects to) would clear up any misconception, should the reader chose to look into it. B.I also contend that your version causes confusion, as anyone who does not know the difference between a Famicom and a NES would be led to believe that somewhere out there are FFII & FFIII cartridges that would work in the grey box they have tucked away in their basement. This is not the case. 3. Yes, they can read up on the release details by going to the game's individual page. However, by that exact same logic, if people want details on what a Famicom is, they can get details for that on the NES page. As you said "That's what wikilinks are for." WraithTDK (talk)
Wraith- I still believe we are debating trivial semantics. There are regional differences for numerous electronics. I fail to see why this one is so special in an article that only gives a small description of it. If this were the NES article, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But this article is meant to give an overview of the Final Fantasy franchise to an average English-speaking/reading end user. Because of that, we have to avoid diverging on a tangent about a term that is meant for a non-English-speaking region.(Guyinblack25
1. If the issue is, to you, a matter of trivial semantics, then WHY is it so important to you that it end up being YOUR way? If it's really a matter of trivial semantics, the it shouldn't really be that important, in which case you shouldn't care. 2. Yes, there are regional differences in many electronics. For example, a PS2 in Europe plays games in PAL format, while the PS2s in America play NTSC. In this case, you are talking about two of the exact same systems, and you would use the name PS2, because it is accurate. However, with FFII & FFIII, you are talking about two visibly distinguishable machines that not only will not play each other's cartridges, but were given different names by their manufacterer. The NES was the grey square cube that most americans over the age of twenty are familiar with. It played NES games. And ONLY NES games. It did NOT play Famicom games, and thus did NOT play FFII or FFIII, which means that saying that either of them were released for it is incorrect. We don't have to go off on a tagent to explain what the Famicom was; that's why the Famicom Wikilink redirects to NES. If anyone is unfamiliar with the Famicom, they can click on the link and find out what it was. Like I said, the goal of the Final Fantasy page should be to educate on Final Fantasy, as accurately as possible, not to make sure people know their console history. WraithTDK (talk)
Regardless of that, WP:OVERLINK states that multiple links to the same article should be avoided. Having those two links together like that will cause confusion to the laymen. So again, I ask you to please to stop reverting things before the discussion is over. If you feel that these practices does not accurately depict the information. I suggest you take it up with other video game editors at WT:VG to get more point of views. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC))
Fine, then keep the one link. Regardless, you continue to bring up Wikipedia's lesser rules and concerns, but seem to be ignoring the major one: a Wikipedia article should be as accurate as possible, and saying that FFII and FFIII were released on a system that can not play them violates this goal. Perhaps YOU should take the matter up with other editors. I again fail to understand why you continously point "the way things are supposed to be on Wikipedia" but expect ME to make all the concessions.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC).

Errr... What confusion will it make if the article says Famicom but noy NES? Did not follow the editting, but the discussion itself is confusing. MythSearchertalk 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I argued that the details behind the differences between the Japanese Nintendo Family Computer and the Western Nintendo Entertainment System are not needed to understand this topic. Such information will create a divergence in the topic that can be avoided by using the system's common English name.
Wraith argued that not showing the difference will misinform people into thinking that the games are universally compatible across regions. That is how I've interpreted it anyhow. Wraith may or may not agree with my description of his argument. More point of views would be appreciated, because it's mainly been Wraith and me going back and forth. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC))
Not exactly what I argued. I never advocated talking about the differences between the two systems. I simply stated that because FFII and FFIII were only released on the Famicom and not the NES, the article should say they were released on the Famicom. Seesm like common sense to me. WraithTDK (talk)
Okay, I understand what is going on now. I don't have a strong preference, but since I am a more technical person, I lean more towards Wraith's position than yours. More accuracy is always appreciated but I also agree with your point that it is not always necessary. I, however, do not really know if the westerners are not familiar with the name Famicom or not. If most people understands the word, it might just be a simple solution to change the wording like Wraith suggested, just for ending the argument. MythSearchertalk 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe most Western gamers over a certain age are aware of the term, but I'd say the general public is ignorant to it. That's why I'm opposed to including it, as I think it will create more confusion than if the terms are omitted.
Also, I don't really see using only NES as an inaccuracy, but rather a generalization. For instance, we don't take regional lockout into account for other articles about specific SNES or PlayStation games. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC))
I would argue in favor of saying SuperFamicom for games that were not released on the SNES, but I'm not interested in opening a whole fresh can of worms on that topic. As for the Playstation; that's not really the same thing, as in Japan, the Playstation is still called the Playstation (well, whatever the closest Japanese translation of Playstation might be). You don't have two very different looking systems with two different names, each of which have certain games in their libraries that are exclusive to them. WraithTDK (talk)
As I am not an expert on this(and probably bias due to the fact that I am an Asian and are familiar with both systems) I guess I do not have much more input on this. However, I would suggest trying to have consensus in the related wiki project and make it a guideline, it will reduce future arguments, hopefully. MythSearchertalk 14:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Wraith- I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#NES vs Famicom. Please respond to further comments there. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC))


If you ask me the layout of what games went in which order on what consoles is totally incomprehensable. I can't tell which games are for which consol. I think that it could be layed out a lot better. Fire Emblem has a good example with it's chart under the games section. Just tweak it some and the article would look a lot less like a text block and be easier to read. (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the prose does not lend itself to easy information about the games' releases. But that is not the intention of that segment. The article is meant to convey an overview of the Final Fantasy franchise as well as its history and impact. Such info about specific releases are less relevant to this topic. I suggest checking out List of Final Fantasy media for that information. It is more suited to that purpose. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
K. Thanks. (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A few issues[edit]

A quick run through Checklinks shows a few links with redirects and one link which doesn't appear to go to an article at all, stated as a server error:

Not too big but should be attended to. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the link issues except for two from Since they switched to a new format, I think all their old content is gone. The new format looks to still be in a beta phase. So I'm not sure when the old content will return if ever. I checked for old versions, but nothing came up. I'm out of ideas. Everything should be fixed. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

FF XIV[edit]

The article states that FF XIV is to be released on PS3 and PC, where it has been released that it will be released on XBOX 360 as well.Kilshin (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you can provide an official press release and/or other reliable source to back up your claims? --The Taerkasten (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there a criticism section?[edit]

Honestly now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Honk2234 (talkcontribs)

You're welcome to make one, just make sure it is properly sourced or it will be promptly removed. SpigotMap 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The "Reception" section already features a mix of praise and criticism. A separate section solely for criticism would probably violate WP:NPOV. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
I agree. I can't see any reason that we need a criticism section when we already have a critical response section.-- (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I tried loading the video that was used as a reference, but I couldn't, so I was curious about what they had to say about the common use of "crystals" in the series. The only games in the series I have a general knowledge about are I, VII and X, and in those if I remember correctly, they didn't utilize crystals per se, but "orbs", "materia" and the "sphere grid system".

I think it would be a good idea to give some ideas on the specific variations of this theme, and i'll try to research more of the other games myself, but if someone else knows more than me about all the games, perhaps that could improve the article more effectively. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The video stated that Final Fantasy III, IV, V, VI, IX, XI, and XII feature crystals. While Final Fantasy I first used orbs, this was later changed to crystals in remakes/re-releases. The video also drew a parallel to the materia, but not so much with the spheres in X and X-2. However, it also stated, "10 and half [not sure where the half comes from though] of the 12 Final Fantasies have used crystals or orbs to serve as the emotional link to the planet's life force."
To further clarify, the whole caption was less about the crystals and more about illustrating themes in Final Fantasy V that are common to the whole series: collecting crystals (or orbs), save the world, and defeat an ancient evil.
Let me know what ideas have about the caption. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC))
I think if someone could give some brief, specific half sentence examples of them in the series, that would be enough for someone not familiar with the subject. After all, all the games in the series have characters that use swords and magic, but that doesn't make it unique in the RPG world -- broad concepts aren't good here. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What about this for the caption:
"Final Fantasy V is typical of the series in that the heroes must retrieve crystals to save the world from an ancient evil. Shown is the character King Tycoon approaching the Wind Crystal, one of four elemental Crystals that controls wind currents and is linked to the world's creation."
Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Sales discrepencies[edit]

Regarding overall series sales figures, there should definitely be "more than/over" before the figures listed as they are inaccurate. Firstly it states by August 2003 there was 45m total sales. I calculate (based on the wikipedia entries for the games released prior to then) it's conservatively 67m. This is further strengthened by the strange 18m increase by the next figure in December 2005 despite there being no significant release in that time period. Only Crystal Chronicles & Before Crisis, there should have only been a 2m increase. There is absolutely no chance that older titles accumulated 16m sales, video games don't sell like that. Since I cannot beat the official cited sources, it would be best if the earlier ones are just deleted as they are unnecessary. 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Sorry, but I disagree. While I agree the lack of details leaves room for doubt, there were a number of releases between August 11, 2003 and December 19, 2005 in addition to Crystal Chronicles and Before Crisis.
Another important piece of information is that the press releases talk about the "franchise", rather than the solely the video game series. The franchise can encompass all the other media, like Final Fantasy VII Advent Children (September 14, 2005 in Japan), Final Fantasy: Unlimited (October 28, 2003 in North America and March 15, 2004 in PAL regions), and printed media.
I agree that we can't know with any certainty because we don't have Square Enix's sales records in front of us, but I see no reason to doubt the increase between the two dates. And given that the numbers are press releases from Square Enix, I see no reason to doubt the source. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

KH a spin-off?[edit]

Bread Ninja recently made an edit removing KH from the list of spin-offs. This was quickly reverted. However, I'm not entirely sure whether or not KH counts as one. Crossovers can hardly be considered spin-offs... TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe developers and third-party sources have considered it so. That's why its listed as such. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC))
Really? That's something to think about. Anyway, the spin-off page defines it as a work that derives from an existing work, so I guess KH counts. Spin-offs aren't strictly a change in narrative viewpoint set in the same fictional universe? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I assume not. The Final Fantasy games don't follow the traditional definition of a sequel either, but they are considered as such. We just go by what the sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
Gotcha. Thanks for clearing this up for me. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Impact expansion[edit]

Just wanted to go through the recent expansion to the impact and legacy section. Unfortunately, the mix of the different sources and attribution made it difficult for me to sort through them. I would like to add much of it back, but think some scrutiny should be applied first.

Here is the new text with the new sources for it.

The game also introduced different methods of transportation, including a ship, canoe, and flying airship,[1] the latter inspired by Hayao Miyazaki's Castle in the Sky.[2] Final Fantasy II is considered the first sequel in the industry to omit characters and locations from the previous title,[REF] a concept influenced by Nihon Falcom's Dragon Slayer series,[3] which Square was previously involved with as a publisher.[4] Final Fantasy II also introduced an activity-based progression system,[5] which has been used in later RPG series such as SaGa,[6] Grandia,[7] and The Elder Scrolls.[8] Final Fantasy III introduced the job system, a character progression engine allowing the player to change the character classes, as well as acquire new and advanced classes and combine class abilities, at any time during the game.[9] Final Fantasy IV was an important milestone for the genre, introducing a dramatic storyline with a strong emphasis on character development and personal relationships,[10] as well as the Active Time Battle system, a hybrid of turn-based and real-time combat.[11]
  1. ^ Vestal, Andrew (1998-11-02). "The History of Console RPGs". GameSpot. Retrieved 2009-09-10.  |chapter= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Rogers, Tim (March 27, 2006). "In Defense of Final Fantasy XII". Edge. Next Generation. Retrieved 2011-03-02. 
  3. ^ John Harris (July 2, 2009). "Game Design Essentials: 20 RPGs - Dragon Slayer". Gamasutra. p. 13. Retrieved 2011-03-02. 
  4. ^ Kurt Kalata. "Dragon Slayer". Hardcore Gaming 101. Retrieved 2011-03-02. 
  5. ^ Roschin, Oleg (March 26, 2006). "The World of Asian RPGs". MobyGames. Retrieved 2009-09-10.  |chapter= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Patrick Gann. "Romancing SaGa". RPGFan. Retrieved 2011-03-02. 
  7. ^ Francesca Reyes (November 4, 1999). "Grandia". IGN. Retrieved 2011-03-02. 
  8. ^ Jeremy Dunham (July 26, 2007). "Final Fantasy II Review". IGN. Retrieved 2011-03-02. 
  9. ^ "Final Fantasy III". Retrieved 2010-09-13. 
  10. ^ Kasavin, Greg (2005-12-12). "Final Fantasy IV Advance Review". GameSpot. Retrieved 2006-09-10. 
  11. ^ "Final Fantasy Retrospective Part XIII". GameTrailers. 2007-11-02. Retrieved 2009-03-30. 

The first thing that caught my eye were whether or not some sources were reliable.

  • MobyGames (To my knowledge, MobyGames is only considered reliable for developer credits.)
  • Hardcoregaming101

The second thing that stood out to me was if the impact section was the best place for some content.

  • Dragon Slayer info should maybe be moved to development.
  • Miyazaki info should maybe be moved to either development or gameplay
  • I don't think the Active Time Battle system needs to be explained again

The third thing is that I think we should attribute who made the claims. Not just with the above content, but most everything in this section.

Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

Regarding MobyGames, I think it's the other way around: it is considered reliable for its articles, but not for its developer credits. As for Hardcore Gaming 101, the articles written by Kurt Kalata and John Szczepaniak, both of whom have are writers for mainstream gaming publications, are considered reliable. As for inspirations, you may be right that these should be moved to Development. ATB probably doesn't need another explanation, but it would be useful to provide some explanation regarding its impact on the genre. With this in mind, I think I'll have another go at re-writing that paragraph, keeping it relevant to the section. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Moby Games is listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources per a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 4#MobyGames. Can't say I completely agree with it, but that's where things stand now.
Do you have more information about the two authors at Hardcore Gaming 101? What publications did they write for? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC))
I see. I wasn't aware of the recent decision to demote MobyGames from situational to unreliable. Nevertheless, I avoided restoring the MobyGames material, so that shouldn't be an issue here.
As for the Hardcore Gaming 101 writers, Kurt Kalata is a writer for Gamasutra, while John Szczepaniak is a writer for Retro Gamer and The Escapist.
Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Another source[edit]

Kotaku posted:

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Compilations in the aggregate scores.[edit]

I was wondering if we are supposed to be technical when adding games to the GameRankings/Metacritic table. Should we have the Dawn of Souls scores separately since it's still FF I and II, or should we not include it because they're compiled into one game? I'm also confused about Darkness's insistence on not counting the Dawn of Souls score while including the FFIV Complete Collection in it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No one? Anyway, either we keep both or get rid of both. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think it's got to be consistent either way. And I favor not having them since compilations skew the numbers.Ultimahero (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. Stand alone releases sounds like the best way to go. (Guyinblack25 talk 10:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC))

About archived links[edit]

I'm not sure refs with videos like GameTrailers can be archived. Can videos be loaded when they are archived? T.R.Elven (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Our Wikipedia entry on WebCite says that all web content can be, but I didn't find such a statement one way or the other at I'm not that familiar with the service, but I'm sure there those that are at WT:VG. You'll probably find an answer there. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC))

I will try there, thanks. T.R.Elven (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Final Fantasy is not a role playing game[edit]

It's a turn-based third-person shooter with cut scenes. Players are not playing "roles" in this game any more than if they were playing as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider. In fact, we're a long way from role-playing in video games altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourceless and biased and untrue accusation. Computer RPGs, especially JRPGs are mostly like FF and DQ(being the two most profilic JRPGs) and when you call FF a TPS, and turn based, obviously you have little understanding to those terms as well.(given that most ATB early FFs are NOT turn based at all anyway). I've seen your not RPG argument in the RPG article as well, its simply a POV highly biased towards a specific meaning of role playing and either tries to push the term role playing to both extremes to either a very limited meaning, or a too general meaning. Yes, you take a role as the protagonist in an RPG, and no matter how you say you always take a role in all games including FPS, ACT games, those games don't label themselves as RPGs, and earlier games when they establish the genre names don't have as much plot in those as RPGs, and in most of those, you can even have different characters facing the same plot as the same character. The difference from ADV games is that most RPGs you get something equivalent to leveling, which you, as the specific role, can choose to face challenges without leveling up, or you can choose to level up to boringly high level before continuing. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 07:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Game genres have already been defined, you can't re-write history. Why don't you re-name Classicism, Romanticism and Utilitarianism while you're at it. Jainsworth16 (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In reference to video games, an RPG is not a game where you play a role. It is a game in which character development is based on the acquisition of Experience Points (or, in examples such as Final Fantasy XIII, advancement on a skill tree in place of a leveling system). The initial argument is completely invalid.Daganolson (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Role playing is a term that came long before video game publishers redefined it for their own purposes. I suppose I should say that it is only in video game RPGs where you could call it role playing. It's not role playing in the strictest sense at all. Not the least bit. But since companies can simply decide to redefine terms for marketing and hyping, then they have the unusual authority to change our language and enjoy support from their loyal fans. But it will only ever be "role playing" in a video game RPG carrying a different meaning and sense. Role playing, before RPG video games screwed up the term, does not exist in Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy's version of "role playing" does. But that version has no historical support or basis. At all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Some parts are not showing up in the article, and some are not showing up when editing[edit]

Sequels and spin-offs part isn't showing anywhere in the main article, but it shows up when I try to edit the article. On the other hand, there's a spam message ("PPPPPPPPPPPPPRRRRRREEEEEEPPPPPPAAAARRRRREEEE TTTOOO DIIIIIIIE"---meta knight"I AM WARIO I CHARGE THROUGH MY ENEMIES AND SYRUP STOLE MY COINS SO I HAVE TO GET THEM BACK BEFORE SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM) which is in the article page, and it doesn't show up when I try to edit it out. I've tried loading the page in the latest versions of Opera and Firefox, and no dice. (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now, thanks. SG2090 20:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Returners RPG[edit]

There is a tabletop version of Final Fantasy, available for free with a bit of digging. If someone could start at least a brief mention of it. There are actually two: one is caled ZODIAC, and is much simpler than the one by Returners. Both are fan-made, with no affiliation with or approval from Square Enix. In my opinion, the Returners version (which goes by the simple moniker The Returners Final Fantasy RPG) is worth an honorable mention: it is incredibly well-made, includes races and jobs from just about every core entry in the series and executes an amazing translation from console to tabletop. To be honest, the workmanship of the core rulebook, which is 411 pages long, trumps that of the Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks, as do the width and diversity of the mechanics.Daganolson (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Somebody's creating (literally) fan fiction articles, removing my speedy delete tags[edit]

Like at Final Fantasy Pair: Cloud and Lightning. --Niemti (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of release years[edit]

I think it would look nice if the Timeline of release years had a border. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues with info box[edit]

I am worried about the user called G-Zay. He has been putting in large amounts of detail in this article's info box that does not really have a proper place there and makes the article look untidy and a little clumsy. The edits seem to be done in good faith, but they are too much info for the sections they are being put in. Here are a couple of examples:this one and this one here. I was wondering if this issue, together with others on various Final Fantasy articles involving this user, could be resolved here without dragging it into the Wikipedia:VG talk area or causing an edit war. Try to avoid another Neimti incident (but I am not suggesting that G-Zay is anything like Neimti. Far from it). --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your concern. I can agree that my initial edit for the info box of this page had too much information. However, you pointed that out to me and I took your advice and made a far more streamlined edit. I believe this version of the edit is very important as it portrays who was the main creator/designer of each game in the FF series. Sure, Hironobu Sakaguchi created the series, but he was not the main creator/designer of every game in the series. I think the info box needs to portray this important distinction. Also, the composers are irrelevant to the info box so I have removed them. What's most important is the main creator/designer of each of the FF games. If people want to know who composed then they should visit the specific page of the FF game in question. I hope I have addressed your concern. Warm regards. --G-Zay (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have seen your latest edit, and taken in conjunction with the reasons you gave, I think it can be left how it is right now (that is with your current edits in the info box), unless another editor decides otherwise, but that's another issue. It actually looks alright, though it may get a little tricky when we have to put in the creator/game designer for Final Fantasy XX, but that's another story far in the future. Thank you for this, it's been good to see how you do your work, and it helps me understand the Wikipedia workings better. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is confusing/avoiding this issue at all, so just WHO were the creators of the various characters?[edit]

Besides the two cases where actually there was a creator line. --Niemti (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see people agreeing with creating categories for all the people who have designed so-and-so character(s) in Final Fantasy games. They can be put into the articles or sections concerning the characters, unless one designer who has an article on Wikipedia has created more than one character, such as the two you have mentioned. If they are missed out, that can easily be rectified. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Layout (2)[edit]

Most of this article is quite nicely laid out. There is plenty of info and it's relatively easy to find as it's is all neatly organized into sections, sub-sections and sub-categories. All except... "Other Media". For some reason, another editor insists that multiple media types be lumped together into one paragraph. Though an attempt was made to organize this, is was quickly reverted. While considering another way to approach this, I see that this editor has now made more edits... adding back the reverted edits under his own name. How nice. For that, I don't really care but... this section still needs to be divided into sub-cats to make content easier to find. As almost ALL the other sections on this page are divided as such so, I'm at a loss to understand why this editor insists this section remain anonymously congested. I'm sure this has all been done in good faith, so perhaps together we can work something out so as to improve the article for everyone. - thewolfchild 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess I was a little hasty. The thing that had struck me was that the section was divided up even more than it is now, and the sentence about Advent Children and Last Order was just split in half, without the needed restructure and repair (or references, but that problem was there already). I guess I could have done the alterations and added the references without grouping who section together again. My mistake. Sorry if I seemed to be lording it over this page: it was quite unintentional and I was doing it in good faith, however misguided that faith was. I was tired and I was... well, not in the best state to be editing on Wikipedia. Plus, I had a proper look at the rest of the article, and it is divided up in a similar way: yeah, I was a real dingbat. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


The article's infobox mentions the series also being available on Wii, however the article doesn't mention anything else regarding any games on Wii. (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Several of the older games have been on the Wii Virtual Console. and while not part of the main series Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers was on the system as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


I was thinking through this in hte aftermath about this piece of news about a game in the series, and I think there should be some kind of section about the history of the series' localization (if the information can be found, that is). Any thoughts about what it would say? --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about the timeline[edit]

How was the timeline on this article originally created? —017Bluefield (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Update Needed[edit]

The ratings table in the reception section needs updating for Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, which was rated as a different game because it basically is to much greater reception than the original: 79% from Gamerankings and an 83 Metacritic. Gamerankings Metacritic I'd do it myself but I took one look at the syntax in there and went "naaaah, I don't have that kind of time." (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)