Talk:Kingdom Hearts III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not the first to use Unreal Engine 4[edit]

"The game also is the first in the series to utilize Unreal Engine 4." is written at the end of the second paragraph, but the page for "Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue" shows that it uses Unreal Engine 4 as well, and is an earlier release. (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The decision was first made for this game, and then development of HD 2.8 stemmed from the work being done on III, resulting in Fragmentary Passage to use the engine. So yes, this was first, despite 2.8 releasing first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
We normally go by release date, not announcement date. And even then, this was trivia that doesn't really matter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is the distribution credit for DCPI removed?[edit]

Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media is the company that distributes Disney intellectual property, and is their current video game division. Why is this removed from the Kingdom Hearts III infobox? As you can clearly see, they are the current division promoting and distributing their video games. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Further evidence is provided through Square Enix's official press release of the Toy Story trailer, indicating the division's involvement. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Iftekharahmed96: The Video Game project has determined to removed the "distributor" field from the infobox (so this isn't just for this game). The discussion regarding this can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
At the very least, they deserved to be credited in the infobox. In the press release, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media is mentioned before Square Enix, not only validating Disney's ownership of Kingdom Hearts, but highlighting their involvement with the release of this game. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really, because they are not either the developer or publisher of the game, that is all Square Enix. And since the distributor (which they are) parameter has been removed, they do not have a place in the infobox, nor the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that they deserved to be credited because Disney owns Kingdom Hearts III, and they are directly involved with the game. They have a place in the lead because they are involved with the game. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The field has been removed. If we removed the publisher field from infoboxes, then "Square Enix" would be removed too. It's nothing personal against DCPI, we're just literally not listing that role for video games anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 02:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no opinion on whether it should be included in the lead or prose. Long as it has valid sourcing, I'm not sure I see an issue. Is there any proof or sourcing that shows DCPI is handling physical retail distribution of the game? Distributor is not the same as licensor or license/property ownership. However, there is no place to put it in the infobox, after distributor was removed as a field following weeks long discussions and unanimous support. This was not particular to KH III. It was removed from the infobox on all articles. -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The parameter was removed from the infobox. If there is an RS listing them as distributor, that can be included in the article-proper. --Izno (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The field was meant for companies that handled physical distribution, not license holders and IP supervisors. The links you provided say nothing on if Disney is actually doing that. Square Enix is perfectly capable of handling distribution of their own games, and this confusion is one of the primary reasons why the field was depreciated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I completely understand that the distribution field was removed, and I've got nothing against that decision. But that the same time, DCPI is clearly involved with the game, and at the very least, should they not be credited in the introduction paragraph if it's not really necessary to add them in the infobox? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Iftekharahmed96, leads of Wikipedia articles summarize the rest of the articles's contents. The inclusion of some particular information in the lead of an article should be relative to its presence in the article, which itself is regulated by reliable sources. I CTRL+Fd for the name and it appears nowhere in the rest of the article. That indicates to me that its presence in the lead would be improper at this time, and I would guess, that it may never be appropriate there. --Izno (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason as to why it doesn't appear in the rest of the article is because nobody gave them credit in the article. Matter of fact, I had to be the person to rename the Disney Consumer Products article to Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media as both the url for Disney Interactive and Disney Consumer re-directed to the official Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media website. I'm not asking for a paragraph dedicated to them for this article, I just feel that they should be credited within the article because they have are involved with the product. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe DCPI has any actual "production" capacity for the game (thus not needing to mention it in the infobox or body of the article, which in turn would then allow it in the lead). Square Enix is the developer and publisher of the game, and all the Square Enix release you linked to says on the matter is "KINGDOM HEARTS is a series of role-playing games created through the collaboration of Disney Interactive and Square Enix." (that doesn't help us) and then it just describes DCPI as a company, without saying how they are part of this release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
DCPI is the successor company to Disney Interactive as evident by the D23 press event. Disney doesn't use the Disney Interactive or Disney Interactive Studios brand for their video games anymore, however they both studios are still active as legal entities. As I mentioned earlier, the Disney Interactive website gets re-directed to DCPI, so it's evident that Disney wants to use DCPI as the current brand for their video games. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Credit for what, exactly? Simply being the owner of the Disney properties? Supervising and marketing the game? None of these belong in the infobox or lead unless you can find a source that directly mentions them handling physical (or digital, but that's even less likely) distribution of the game, since the game is fully developed and published by Square Enix. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Placement of information in the Setting section[edit]

@Dissident93: All of the information in the second paragraph of the setting section (as seen here), in my eyes, belongs together, not broken in half as you have been adjusting it. I also don't agree with your statement that the setting section shouldn't have any of [the futue dev news] but the pure facts. All of this info is about the setting/worlds and is most applicable there. Additionally, if we moved all the info to the development section (because all should go if we move it), I don't think the spot you added it was the best location for it, and I'm not sure there is one. It wouldn't work in my eyes having it in the development section, because we'd ultimately have to break it up as you've been suggesting. I'm feeling it all belongs together, because it flows from one point to another: info on the properties Disney has acquired, Nomura on those acquisition, Yasue on choosing a world including from the acquired properties, and then noting which worlds appear that apply to those properties. That is how I'm seeing this info work together. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The entire section should really be moved to the dev section, as it will become outdated as soon as the game releases. It's written in a way that seems more news like, and settings sections shouldn't have that type of writing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    • If we were to move it to the dev section, I don't think where you originally put it is the best spot. I'm looking over what is there and I'm not entirely sure the best spot. I think it should just live as an independent paragraph, as it were, at the bottom of the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)