Talk:Final Fantasy VIII/Archive 2

Very sad...[edit]

Look above, at the #Plot Encyclopedia section. Yes, I used to be like that, nearly one year ago :(.

On topic, the article is starting to make its way toward becoming FAC-able. — Deckill e r 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocobo World[edit]

Arrr, slow down there buckos. I just got done creating the Chocobo World page. I think for Final Fantasy VIII (which is a game I love) to qualify for FA, the gameplay section should be bigger (i.e., include at least a passing mention of Chocobo World and such, which was released in Japan on the PocketStation and in the US and Europe on PCs). As it stands, I don't think that the gameplay section is comprehensive enough (the character section certainly is...) nor do I think it's easily accessible to the non-expert. I don't think it's bad; in fact, it's quite good, but not as good as it can be! I would edit, but it's pretty difficult for me to jump right into a massive article like this. I think it is best left to those of you here that have contributed religiously to the FF8 article. I will, however, provide my own screenshots, which are higher quality and more representative. It's great to see Final Fantasy articles up to such strength (Final Fantasy X is on the front page today); I did my own part by overhauling Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, the most disliked game in the franchise. :D --Tristam 03:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been wanting to expand the gameplay section and "dumb down" that section's prose a bit, but it had no objections until this point. I'll try to strike a balance between opinions, and we'll go from there. It should only take ten minutes to get that section up to speed; I can do it before work tomorrow (eh, later this morning o.O). — Deckill e r 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Version[edit]

Do you think there should be a "Differences between PlayStation and PC versions" section? Aside from Chocobo World, the graphics on the PC are obviously smoother, and some of the sound effects are slightly altered. --Tristam 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. If not an entire subsection, it's worth a mention in the Development header. ~ Hibana 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can work it in somehow. Ryu Kaze 02:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Check the Development section. Ryu Kaze 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. I fixed some wording, but I'm not sure if the date is correct. — Deckill e r 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The year is correct, if that's what you mean. Ryu Kaze 13:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Ryu and Deckiller. I see you were able to cover both of my concerns in one fell swoop. :) --Tristam 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have been of service. Ryu Kaze 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image glitch[edit]

What is the case of this error? I've used three different computers now, and the exact same error has occurred on all three of them. The image which has been placed at the top of the "Gameplay" section instead occurs near the top of the "Junction system" section, where it obviously doesn't belong (it's aligned with the top of the "Microsoft Windows version" bar, which is probably the cause of this problem). -Silence 01:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not getting that error. — Deckill e r 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get the error in Firefox, but in IE it looks just fine. I even tried to rearange the format of the page a little bit, but that didn't seem to help the way it looks in Firefox. Johaen 02:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yet another reason why I dislike firefox :) — Deckill e r 02:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox owns you. To criticize it in a comparison with Internet Explorer is like criticizing chocolate ice cream in a comprison with smallpox. Not everyone likes chocolate ice cream, but I'm pretty sure most people would prefer it to smallpox. >:F Now fix the page. I've already attempted to reorganize the image many times to fix it, but it doesn't work; like I said, the problem is probably with the code of the sidebar, not the code of image itself. -Silence 02:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there was already a discussion here. I knew I should have checked for it. Anyway, I'm using Firefox and it looks kiiiind of like that, but it doesn't look like a glitch at all, even in your screenshot. Ryu Kaze 02:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Now fix the page". O.o Is that an order?! — Deckill e r 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the image placement looked a bit "off," but there's no way I'll switch from Firefox to IE because of it. :) As a solution, you could move the infobox of the PC version down to the "Development" section, seeing as part of it talks about the Windows port. This would also give room for another screenshot in the gameplay section. Whatever you guys feel is best. --Tristam 06:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this happen on other pages. The simplest, though not necessarily most elegant, way to fix it is to put both infoboxes inside a table, which prevents the stacking problem, and also has the added benefit of making the [edit] quick-links show up in the correct place. If anyone has a better solution, though, by all means.... – Seancdaug 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Packing art section[edit]

I recently removed a couple of images from the infobox and created a packaging art section. This was quickly reverted. The message was as follows:

"rv: we used to have a gallery, but galleries of fair use images are frowned upon, so they were moved to the infobox, where there is actual commentary to justify their use"

I don't particularly agree with this. Although it is technically a gallery of fair use images, it is not in the fact that is just a gallery of covers. Putting them into the infobox makes it look unclean to me. Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence and Metal Gear Solid 3 appear to agree with me as well.

However, this appears to be a set rule. Instead, I will create a release dates section (as per Final Fantasy XI) which will also remove the need for the second infobox. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can this change wait until after the FAC? We don't want people getting false impressions of stability issues. — Deckill e r 06:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, if we're having this discussion we are, in fact, having stability issues. So it's not exactly a false impression :-). – Seancdaug 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that a simple release date calendar is going to obsolete the PC infobox, though, unless it's of a very different design than the Final Fantasy XI one. The system requirements and input sections would seem to have no place in the table. Besides which, the FFXI table scales very badly to lower resolutions and, to me, looks even less "clean" than the two infoboxes. The current solution was finally reached after a great deal of back-and-forth wrangling, where we covered most of the alternatives, from image galleries to tables, and found them all wanting for a variety of reasons. For what it's worth, this is also the approach favored by Final Fantasy X, which is a featured article, and the format has been cited over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and Video Games as a model for handling multiple cover images. I think it would be a mistake to change it, frankly. – Seancdaug 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as it was when we nominated this article, because there were no previous issues (hence giving us the impression of stability prior to tonight). And, since we worked hard to push this article as quickly as possible, we don't want to step on our own toes. — Deckill e r 06:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I do too (I'm arguing against the changes). But that's the cruel fact of the matter: no matter how much effort we put into the thing, we don't really have any control over other editors, and if they want to come in and edit it en masse, then we've got stability problems. If the article hasn't settled down to a stable form, then it really shouldn't be up for FAC. No offense, of course: I think it's great as is, but if we're going to have people coming in and turning the place upside down frequently, we've got some problems. And it's kind of out of our hands. – Seancdaug 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is why I am not very happy right now — we waited several days without any major edits (outside of prose polishing, which happens on all articles) until now. Nothing against Emulator; if anything, it's my fault for nominating it perhaps a day too early :) Fortunately, I don't think FA voters are much concerned with "stability" any longer, especially when the stability is over a minor infobox issue. Most FA voters nowadays are into more important things (that were once overlooked), such as prose and comprehensiveness. The FA process has matured from its old days, when articles had to be hacked, tailored to non-criterion opinions, and sat on for weeks. — Deckill e r 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the possiblity of keeping the infoboxes there and still creating the release dates section. To be fair, there are many more unlisted releases including Greatest Hits, Platinum, Ultimate Hits, Collectors Edition Box etc. that don't have the possibility of being in an infobox - the release list will cure there problems. --TheEmulatorGuy 06:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to a list of release dates, per se. I just don't think we should try and shove the packaging artwork into that list. OTOH, most of the subsequent releases (Greatest Hits, in particular) are generally not listed in CVG articles, as they're not generally viewed as important enough to warrant a mention. Doesn't mean we can't include them, of course, but it's food for thought. – Seancdaug 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits, Platinum and the rest hardly count as different versions. They're still just the NA, PAL and Japanese versions in a box that says "We sold X number of copies". Ryu Kaze 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind if I archive some of the older discussions?[edit]

We're at 65KB now, which is kind of excessive. Are the any objections to moving the older discussions to an archive page? – Seancdaug 06:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Ryu Kaze 12:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um...[edit]

Is there any particular reason why I'm getting this glitch? The page is appearing as the talk page of User:MiraLuka. I have no idea who that is. Ryu Kaze 12:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odder still, when looking at the most recent changes in the edit history, that doesn't appear. It does when I click on "article", though, or type in "Final Fantasy VIII" and hit "Go". Ryu Kaze 12:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to normal now. Ryu Kaze 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Role-playing game? (Part II)[edit]

This is a bit odd as well. Last night I edited the genre of Final Fantasy VIII as a console role-playing game rather than computer role-playing game, and on this very talk page I discussed the reasoning behind it - but my edit isn't in the history and the discussion vanished. Please note that this is not a platform distinction, but it does hold for the commonly accepted term for the genre. Console role-playing games (e.g., Final Fantasy) are far more linear and emphasize storyline-driven arcs and character development, whereas computer role-playing games are more traditional and allow for character development based on user input, like the old pen and paper days. Both kind of evolved out of the Ultima series, but the only thing really common across both genres is a stat-driven battle system. I'm not driving at my own theory; most big-name gaming sites (especially GameSpy) are very careful to distinguish between the two. In their "History of computer role-playing games" feature, you'll find no mention of Final Fantasy. For that, you'd have to check out their "History of console role-playing games." I think the edit is small enough that it won't compromise article stability, so I'm going to change it. I hope that you all will agree with me and place changes throughout other Final Fantasy articles. Tristam 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. I'll make the changes. Ryu Kaze 17:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. It took a while, though. I had to change the summary on every image for Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy VIII, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy X-2, Spira (Final Fantasy X) and List of locations in Spira. D: Ryu Kaze 18:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. — Deckill e r 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Ryu! :) --Tristam 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay references[edit]

Gameplay references added per Spaingineer's suggestions to me over IM. — Deckill e r 03:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the details of the game's world and characters are not fully explored by official materials" any chance this could be referenced or expanded upon? RN 04:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really the major blemish of the article right now — while it's true, it's a tough one to source. I think the best thing to do would be to drop that entire paragraph, since it's mostly obvious stuff and could be said about just about anything. — Deckill e r 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

equippable or equipable?[edit]

Heh, I found this message board thread regarding the issue (which I will warn is rather in-depth). Basically, equippable (I THINK) is a regular deviation of equip and able. It is a pretty silly topic though and the word is mostly relegated to RPG games (I didn't know that before I put in the article and then checked later, only to not find it in the dictionaries... hmmm :)). (P.S. it sort of made me regret the reword a bit since it uses somewhat non-standard words :\) RN 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure which one is "correct"... Now that I think about it, I've seen it used both ways. Ryu Kaze 11:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like which is correct: color or colour? I think both get the point across, even if they both have an extra letter.Disinclination 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dictionary.com, Answers.com, and thefreedictionary.com, neither of them are words. However, words such as "equipping" and "equipped" have two letter Ps, so I'd guess the official version is "equippable". And hopefully I did this post right; my second one :D Mahare 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System requirements[edit]

33 MHz seems rather low requirement. I think 133 MHz would be correct?

i got this from the readme file from the pc version of the game

The minimum system requirements to run FINAL FANTASY VIII PC are:
Computer: Must be Intel or 100% Intel compatible.
CPU: With 3D Accelerator: Pentium 200MHz or equivalent (Pentium II 266MHz is recommended). Without 3D Accelerator (i.e. software rendering): Pentium II 266MHz.
Video Card: 8MB Direct3D-compatible 3D accelerator for 3D hardware accelerator. 4MB SVGA Video Card for software rendering.
Sound Card: DirectMusic and DirectSound compatible sound card.
CD-ROM: 8X CD-ROM
Memory: 32MB of RAM (64MB is recommended)
DirectX: Microsoft DirectX 6.1 or later is required to be installed to play FINAL FANTASY VIII PC. DirectX 6.1 is included on the installation CD.
HDD Space: FINAL FANTASY VIII PC requires at least 300MB of hard drive space to install. In addition, the player may install Optional Game Data which will enhance the speed of the screen transitions. However, this requires an additional 300MB. The player will also need to have enough disk space for the Save Games and Windows Swap file!

i have no idear how to change thwe main page or even if i should so if any on wants to correct the system reqs feel free ^__^

--meddy 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in need of expansion[edit]

Seriously, a lot of the FF8-related articles are, to put it mildly, woefully inadequate. Explicitly, they are pathetic! Some of the main character profiles are only stub-quality, considering how long the FF7 articles are. Even most of the Pokemon articles are more informative than the character articles. I could use some help in editing them. I'm currently working on the [Selphie] article (although I'm not on the Internet much), and I would greatly appreciate it if someone could work on the other articles. Thanks! The Legend of Miyamoto 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a plot summary database. FF7 character articles are a huge series of bloated plot summaries. Retelling the same plot over and over is redundant. Please do not add excess information (called fancruft); in looking at the Selphie article, if you can do some research finding some information on how the characters were created, and perhaps some critical analysis on her role as comic relief, then that information may be worth including. — Deckill e r 22:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS2 Technical Demo[edit]

I think this should be mentioned somewhere. I'd do it myself but I'm not really sure how to go about it. - The preceding comment was made by Grevenko Sereth 4:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

appropriateness of rumors[edit]

Should rumors about a possible movie sequel be mentioned in the article? No source is given, and it even states that it is unconfirmed by Square. I don't think that belongs there. --Robomojo 09:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I chopped them out; they had no place in a featured article. — Deckill e r 12:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement with intro section[edit]

I'm in disgareement with a number of opinions in the intro section of this article.

First of all, I'm not sure how FF8 deviated from the traditional "kill enemy -> get EXP points -> level up" schema of making characters more powerful any more than any other FF title did. FF1 included a jobs system, as did FF3 and FF5. FF6 involved espers and magic points used to learn spells with espers or equipment equipped to the character. FF10 included the sphere grid, and likewise FF12 included the license points system. FF8 contains, as did most of the other titles in the series, a schema of killing enemies to earn EXP points in order to increase character levels, and added onto it, but so did just about every other game in the entire FF series.

XP is next to useless in FFVIII. The real power in this game comes from junctioning and gaining AP for your GFs to gain new abilities. In fact, it is almost detrimental to level up early on, as the player cannot get as much level-up stat bonuses at higher levels once the GFs develop that ability, and monsters gain levels as the player does. Quite simply, it has a variant system that relies less on fighting and gaining XP and more on gathering magic and AP for the GFs. Peptuck 09:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the statement-as-fact that it is the third title to not use a completely fantasy setting seems a bit off to me as well. FF4 featured a lunar scenario, as well as the "great whale", a ship capable of navigating the skies as well as space. FF5 featured a visitor from an advanced extraterrestrial culture (ala Tales of Phantasia style). I could see something along the lines of "The main characters within the plotline of the story hailed from a culture of greater technological advances than Final Fantasy games prior to FF6" or something such as this, which may be more factually accurate (assuming you don't count the games released in North America and Europe as "Final Fantasy Legends" - FF-Legends 2 and 3 both featured extremely advanced civilizations from which your main characters originate, including the ability to have cyborg and robotic party members). 68.233.12.105 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this game listed in the controversial articles as well. Anyway, about where in the Final Fantasy game does alleged spanking scene occur? Just trying to verify this. --24.154.173.243 01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but this is the first final fantasy since II where experience points and levels is virtually pointless. Additionally, those games merely feature a few scifi elements; the games are still primarily about knights and castles. — Deckill e r 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Release Date[edit]

According to this patent, the actual US PC release date is Jan. 26, 2000. Is there a better existing source for the current date, or should I change it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEmulatorGuy (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

FF8's M rating[edit]

Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that Final Fantasy VIII was M when it was pre-released with Brave Fencer Musashi but Square toned down everything so the game would get a T rating? Oh, that's a mouthful. So does anyone else agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.7.180.238 (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Axem Titanium 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Final Fantasy Shrine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.7.180.238 (talk • contribs).

That's not a very reliable source... Axem Titanium 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really, how do you know? It sounded pretty convincing to me... Well, if you don't think I shoudl put it on the page, then I won't, but... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.7.180.238 (talk • contribs).

On Wikipedia, in order to maintain a certain degree of verifiability, the sources for the information must be reliable. The page I linked to explains what is and what isn't a reliable source. Since FFShrine is a fansite, it doesn't have the same kind of editorial review and fact-checking that larger commercial gaming websites like IGN and GameSpot do, so it can't be counted as 100% reliable. Anyway, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be included, I'm just asking for a reliable source to back it up.Axem Titanium 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]