Talk:Final Fantasy XV/Archive 1

Archive 1

Only Versus XIII Info Allowed

This discussions page is only for discussing on matters related to Final Fantasy Versus XIII, PS3's 2nd FFXIII related game. Other matters should be discussed elsewhere

Inaccurate and info unreleated to versus XIII will be deleted immediately. Meaning that you guys must have solid proof of your claims and that Square Enix has delivered news to gaming news sites. This' so to keep Versus XIII's wikipedia main site with a steady flow of accurate info. Zeta Nova 18:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Assessment

Assessed as C; several cleanup tags that have not been dealt with for nearly a year, including one that suggests an entire rewrite is in order. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Development began on PS2?

It says it began development on PS2 alongside FFXIII, but the linked article only mentions FFXIII, not Versus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.249.150 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually Versus is mentioned in the article, and the fact that it was back in 2002, when development started, is further evidence of its original conception for PS2.--Tærkast (Communicate) 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That article says when FFXIII began development and that it was on PS2. But it doesn't say that about Versus. Read it again carefully. 91.5.35.43 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then it should be changed.--Tærkast (Communicate) 10:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Vapourware

An editor is under the impression that the game is vapourware. I disagree, due to the conference in January, and some very recent news stating that, whilst it won't appear at TGS 2011, a date has been set for the next reveal. See this source. --Tærkast (Discuss) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

FINAL FANTASY XV

Okay just dropping it here. A video has been making the rounds over the past few hours of a pre-E3 leak of this game being renamed to Final Fantasy XV. I don't wanna put it into the article in case it's all bullshit, but I'm just readying the usual editors of this page because I sense a lot of vandalism coming in regards to this title change. E3 2012 will hold the answer, so let's try and prevent anyone from coming and saying contrary to this being Versus XIII until we get an official announcement from Square Enix. Cross Pollination (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a possibility, however, waiting till E3 will be the best thing to do.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And so it begins. "On May 30, 2012 a video from a pre-E3 event from Square Enix was leaked online indicating that Versus XIII was codename and the game is actually going to be Final Fantasy XV. According to the video it will be released in Fall 2013 on the Wii-U and Playstation 3. A formal announcement will be made at E3 2012." I'm going to remove this paragraph from the article as there's no citation for it. I'll enter it back into the article later on, but this time re-worded a bit and with some sources. If you wanna do that then be my guest. Cross Pollination (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible Cancellation

Please do not update the article stating that the game has been canceled. As of July 20, news of the game's official cancellation is still just speculation and rumor (as reported by Kotaku), as Square-Enix has not made any sort of announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.144 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for inclusion of cancellation rumors

So, obviously, there is a rumor going about that the game is cancelled. Some people, through the edit history, as saying things like "It's just a rumor, don't put it in". That's fine, if that happens to be the consensus here and all, but for the record, speculation is allowed in Wikipedia articles if it's reliably sourced, and portrayed accurately as speculation, not fact. As such, I figured that we should form a clear consensus on this.

• Support Inclusion - Per WP:VG/S, reliable sources are reporting on it. It originates from Kotaku, and other major reliable sources are covering the rumor, such as IGN and Eurogamer. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion of rumors are fine if the rumors are coming from normally reliable sources. To offset any concerns that they are only rumors, the statements can be added in in some form like "Rumors of the game's cancellation was reported by (Source)" or something along those lines that importantly attributes the rumor to a source in the prose. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support As long as it's emphasised from a reliable source that it is mere rumour at the moment. In anycase, semi-protection might be needed given the edit history between the IP users.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Just so long as there is more than one reliable reference to back it up. I have been looking through the internet and found that nearly half a dozen reliable sources have information that strongly suggests 'Versus XIII' has been quietly cancelled, though there are other, less well-confirmed rumors about the future of the staff and the developed hardware and software. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Agree with the concerns by Taerkast and ProtoDrake, it must have a reliable sources to back up the fact that it is a rumor at the moment. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So is this vaporware now?

The games unusual development time is notable enough to appear in the opening paragraphs of the article. As such I entered a few sentences concerning it, with three links to recent articles concerning the game's long development time of six years. Cross Pollination (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Officially it's not vapourware (yet) as Nomura has time and again said to wait for "more news soon". As for E3, it could make a suprise appearance, but for now, its a waiting game. This recent bit of news [1] seems to confirm its still in development, just might not be shown anytime soon. --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just wondering. Well I think it's still worth noting the unusually long development time in the opening paragraphs regardless. Other games like The Last Guardian, Prey and Duke Nukem Forever have such things mentioned in the article openings too and it seems like the development time of this game is getting more speculation than the game itself nowadays. It's in there anyway. If anything happens regarding the release date it can always be edited. Cross Pollination (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If it keeps up, it's development time is going to be discussed as much as that of Duke Nukem Forever, which we'll then have to add to the article. Perhaps some actual news about the game will slip later this year.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since no information was revealed this year, neither at the Final Fantasy 25th anniversary event nor at TGS, it's status as vaporware is more apparent, in my opinion.--Appledoze (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will see a reference that seems to indicate it will be making an appearance next year. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Only way it is vaporware is if playstation4 comes out with no more playstation 3 games come out.Lucia Black (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible name change.

Heads up everyone watching this page. I have been hearing various things around the internet that Versus XIII may not be called that by the time it's released. Can any reliable sources be brought up saying whether or not this is true? If not, then this issue does not have to concern everyone, but if so... Just thought people should be alerted to this.--ProtoDrake (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. The news came from the Japanese Amazon website. They recently added "(tentative name)" next to the game's title on their product page for the game. This "(tentative title)" addition was not there as recently as November 2012. This could be an indication that maybe Amazon know something the public doesn't. Only time will tell. Hopefully, we'll find out the truth when FF Versus XIII is fully revealed by Squenix sometime in 2013. Warm regards. --G-Zay (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly make sense if they did change the name. After all, the title Versus XIII seems to be a relic from when the Fabula Nova series stilled at the XIII numeral attached to it. I wonder what they would call it? --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

My bet is on them calling it Final Fantasy XV. It has been in development for too long and they will want it to make as much sales as possible when it releases. They also seem to have decided to delay the reveal until Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn is out. I wouldn't be surprised if it's now FFXV and for all current platforms (PS3/360/WiiU). --G-Zay (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. They would need to rerecord some of the dialogue and change things a little from what I saw in the trailers. Otherwise it would still end up being part of the Fabula Nova Crystallis, instead of its own title (and I do think FFXV would need to be its own title in its own world). Still, as you said, only time will tell. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a waiting game for the moment, as if 7 years is not long enough. Amazon's reliability is questionable, so hopefully we'll know more next year.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Staff table

Hello. I'm adding the staff table as there's bound to be people out there who would like to know the core staff members of this game. I was one of them and was displeased the info was not on the Wikipedia page of this game and therefore went out of my way to research it and add it to the page of this game. Seeing as Square Enix has publicly disclosed this information, I see no reason why it can't be added to the 'Development' section of this page in a presentable manner such as a table. After all, it's not a list of the entire production staff that you would see in the end credits, but merely a list of the core staff behind the game. --G-Zay (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but i disagree. Labor isnt a valid reason why they should be added. Also we dont have to go into specifics as long as we have key developers, such as the least specifics like map designer. Its far too specific. Noting 1st production team is enough.Lucia Black (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that the staff section had been cut out completely. I guess with the staff section gone, it does look a little better and certainly less repetitive. But even so, I to agree with Lucia Black to a certain degree. The table does seem a little too much, even with the staff section gone. I also understand G-Zay's view on the matter, but I'm sure a compromise can be reached. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

1st production team is all we generally need. Togo into specific members is unnecessary. I removed the redundancy of what game they made previously so it could be better organized. Programmer is probably the least relevant one. Music will probably already have its own article once its been made. Other than that the prose had it almost right.Lucia Black (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm with G-Zay on this one. Given the long time this game is taking to develop, everyone will want to who exactly they should be throwing stones to when it comes, and more so if it is a blunder. Okay, I'm joking... slightly. But I think it is a welcome addition to the development section, even though most of the information is repeated on the infobox. Perhaps an alternative would be to change the information into text. 217.129.116.63 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose is good but only keeping the most relevant. Also organize it. Such as artist and esigners in one paragraph and planers into the other.Lucia Black (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree that the table should be removed completely. The most important staff members and their roles are already mentioned in the info box. I think a simple paragraph stating what team is making the game and what games they've made in the past is all that's needed. --G-Zay (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rumors alert!

To everyone who is watching this article, especially to User:G-Zay, with whom I have been enjoying working, there are new rumors that Versus has had a platform and name change! This is the one I found, which is bound to sprout dozens of others on a myriad of sites. I shudder to think what could happen to the article when these rumors get around. What should we do? I know we should not include them until or unless they are confirmed, but there is still the issue that the rumors could damage the article (like those earlier cancellation rumors). --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be added if the rumor is covered extensively like what hapoened with kotaku cancellation runor that led the head of SE to confirm the rumor false.Lucia Black (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Whats going on?

The article continues to be expanded but no effort to weed out the unnecessary info or summarize it. Its being treated too much as a news feed rather than a wikipedia article. And once (if it ever does) it ets released, all that info will become practically irrelevant. The "staff" has reverted to its list form and redundant. And not only that but splits it by years and its mainly irrelevant info of its development, such as trailers and such that dont really reveal anything important on the development on Versus XIII. I suggest we clean this article up.Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good thing to be done, but there is a dual problem. A; a lot of unregistered users might come and mess it all up if a reduction in the amount of information happened. B; with the scale of the problem, it would either take a very long session to get it right or several shorter sessions spread out over a few days. But those are very minor quibbles on my part, since I also have very pressing calls on my time outside Wikipedia. On the whole, I approve of a clean-up. It would certainly make the "History" piece a lot less like random pieces of info stitched together from hundreds of sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the info is trivial in the History section.Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, for a solid clean-up and minimal disruptions, you'll need to protect the article appropriately, right? -017Bluefield (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done some truncation, minor edits, added some reliable references and got rid of the finicky little details that were turning the section into a farce. What do you think? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks much better. A couple of typos, and i find the interview sony being the least helpful for development, so i think that should be removed. Overall, its better. Thanks for yourr hard work.Lucia Black (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

G-Zay has done it again. He undid all my hard work and put it back. Sure, it was without the subsections, but it's still an unnecessary amount of data. If someone could please justify this? It's making the article look a mess. I worked myself to a standstill to get that history section under control, and what happens?! Sorry, I'm just so frustrated. All my hard work just swept away with hardly any explanation, if any. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Im fustrated as much as you are. G-zay wont even discuss, so a propose to temporary block could occur.Lucia Black (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I won't be involved much then. Firstly, because I'm way too involved, and secondly because I've already had a headache with that malarkey over Niemti. I don't want to repeat the experience so soon. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

i just brought it to WP:SE.Lucia Black (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't say much here. However, I will say that please engage all major contributors to this page in a discussion before a consensus is reached. Don't go touting a consensus is reached before doing so. All of this could have been avoided if you simply were more considerate to other contributors. I spent a long times adding info to the "History" section and I'm not going to have it all thrown out without anybody giving me the heads up before hand. As it stands, I'm adding everything back and adding even more key historical points to the article. If you feel it looks to bloated than I suggest we add back the yearly sub-sections. --G-Zay (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC) You already made it clear you think you own this article to a degree per WP:OWN. The yearly subsections was part of the problem, the rest is just bunch of tiny tidbits that provide nothing to the history. To think we have to go to you first, but you wont even help the discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I own this article. I have no idea where you're pulling that BS from. That just shows how you've misjudged my character. Whatever. You know what? I think I'm going to just bow out from editing this page. You clearly seem to want to claim ownership over it and revert anything that doesn't meet your liking. I didn't become an editor to get into meaningless arguments just to meet some standard set by some stuck-up contributor. If that's the direction you're heading in then I'm out. I got far more beneficial things to do with my time. --G-Zay (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverse accusation wont work here. Because i did not edit before making the discussion, i edited after someone else did and have made no edits other than reverts relating to his. Consensus can exist even if its 2 vs 1. Thats why WP:3O exist. So that Ok, ill show you youre behavior:

• remember the previous edit? When we all agreed not to list staff and just briefly mention them. In a summary praragraph? You went against your own word without any notice in the talkpage. If thats not WP:OWN, idk what is
• you expect a "heads up" if anyone is going to remove content youve added (as if things have to be that personal). When weve been discussing about that a while ago here. The heads up was long ago. But, the point is, we dont have to give you personally a heads up, you shouldve been on top of it on your own and couldve attempted to prevent it by discussing it before hand.
• You reverted several times, provide no discussion and continue to derail the discussion.

If you cant accept that your showing signs of WP:OWN, then at least you cant deny you're the one being disruptive. Protodrake and I believe the information is excessive and trivial and should only get the key info of developement info. Your 2 cents are welcomed to further the discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, if you guys didn't notice, GZay has been indef blocked/banned now, so you can trim the article down more unopposed. I've been doing little trimming here and there, but if you guys have bigger plans/aspirations, by all means go for it. (Also, the reason for his departure was for repeatedly adding bogus references to articles, so don't hesitate anything questionable related to that.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now the coast is clear, I have put back the condensed history I did back in March. It may need some copy-editing and there is still room for condensation. But it's definitely a start. Something I'm definitely proud of is putting all the notable rumors into one section rather than scattering them through the entire section. So, Lucia Black and Sergecross73, what do you think? It was a lot of work and I felt that it should not go to waste. I gave up some serious working time to do it, since it looked very important that it should be done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. I can help here and there. I haven't been following the game super closely, but there are so many excessive examples, massive quotes, or WP:OR type observations present that some trimming is definitely in store. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Thoughts

With the games release not likely happening soon, and with so much information released on it, this article seems like it could make a GA run. It's as comprehensive as it can be right now, so what do people think? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we aught to wait. It looks hugely better than it was before, true. But I still feel that it would be liable for rapid reconsideration and even demotion when there are new announcements and a new flood of info. Even though it's a long wait, I think we should wait for the game's release, when we can put in a referenced plot, better development section and reception section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The article still.neds some work. We shouldnt assume nything yet.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with them too. This article is surely headed for some rough times of instability upon it being revealed (possibly at upcoming E3 or TGS) and then again upon its eventual release, between the rabid fanbase, and the strong association to the "console wars", with it being an "exclusive" title and all. Its in good shape, but I don't know about GA... Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming 'Reception' section

We really need to rename that section. Primarily because its contents don't reflect what a reception is. If anything, it's more like a 'rumors of cancellation' section. Any ideas for a name for this section? I'd also like to hear your opinion if you don't consider it appropriate to rename it. --yeah_93 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe blending it with the development section and giving it an in-section title. As to the actual title of the thing... Maybe just calling it 'Rumors'. Or even not having an in-section title at all, just making it part of the development story, like all that stuff about the Xbox 360 port for Final Fantasy XIII --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Its pre-release info. So we can make a sun section for that in reception. Then when the game actually comes out we could call it post release for actual reviews.Lucia Black (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Calling it 'Rumors' is wrong, considering this isn't a site for rumor. The info posted is very relevant and isn't a section for rumors themselves but rather the impact they had. The problem I have with it, is that the only "reception", is how the game is believed to be a vaporware. --yeah_93 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rumors can be notable if noted by different reliable sources. Another is if it made significant coverage that can actually cause a responce.Lucia Black (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My two cents; most of it is the type of stuff that would typically go in a "Development" section. (It's not so much judgement on the game itself, like "Reception", as it is speculating on the game's fate.) I'd rework it into the Dev section. (Though I wouldn't put too much work into it, I'm guessing things could change drastically in a few weeks at E3 2013.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it might well show up there, given what's cropped up recently. Nothing that can be used here, which is a good thing. G-Zay would have had a field day with some of the stuff floating round at the moment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, lets move it to development section.Lucia Black (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. It still flows well. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed now that it is Final Fantasy XV

It is now confirmed through recent square enix invitations that Final Fantasy Versus XIII is now Final Fantasy XV as proven by this link [[2]] JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ok, theres also a picture of Kingdom hearts 3, which looks like the same april fools prank logo made by KHInsider. can someone revert the move????Lucia Black (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I already did sorry about that confusion JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

If/when they announce a retitling like this, it'll spread across the internet like wildfire, so we certainly won't need to depend on sketchy images like this. It'll be on the top page of just about every video game website... Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The image certainly looks suspect (although I see no sign of a III or '3' within the KH logo), but moving a page and causing such a comedic confusiton should not have been started by just that. And it's from tumblr, which I think is not a good place to be looking for revelations about this game's title. And you're quite right, Sergecross73, the news would be on every single gaming and fan sight from here to New York to Vladivostok. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The New Confirmed Character, Cole

Are we able to put information about a new character of the game, Cole Leones, I believe, in this article? The link is here: http://gematsu.com/2013/06/final-fantasy-xv-main-characters-detailed Lacon432 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I changed this name based on another source. Cole Leones seemed like a bad guess by Gematsu given the game's Latin character names. Not that Cor Leonis is guaranteed to be right, or any of the middle or surnames for that matter. If I had the choice, I'd remove these for the time being until they release the English names.Xiomicronpi (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

according to the articles final fantasy versus xiii is completely different from final fantasy xv

that means that they are completely different games so, the games should have separate articles. it is obvious that versus xiii is cancelled though so it should be listed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How else are the "two games" different? —017Bluefield (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, its just a rename. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Xbox One?

Has anybody found any sources confirming Xbox One release. So far it is written on here but no sources confirm this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.223.231 (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They announced it at E3. It's all over the trailers. And look at their official website. http://www.jp.square-enix.com/ff15/ ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 04:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Amazing

I originally came to the talk page because I found the introduction to the article very sale-y, much as if it had been written by a Square representative. I read through the talk page and no one had an issue with it so I went back to the article and continued.

I'm writing now to say that was the most amazing game article I've read. Extreme amount of information yet each of it quite succinct with many, many references. If I had written the page (and I've not actually written a page and have done very little work on wikipedia as yet, sorry), I don't know if I would have included all that detail but I did recognize it as being a tremendous amount of work and wanted to give kudos to the contributors! StefanijaSili (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"providing a darker and more realistic atmosphere" - I have to say this line annoyed me. Final Fantasy is always dark and most often has a realistic atmosphere. It's a game about saving the world from destruction after all. The major departure from previous FFs would rather be action based combat instead of turn based. 2001:2002:D541:C4E5:A0DC:C10D:E5C1:B470 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XV is not coming to Xbox One anymore.

Today it was revealed that Final Fantasy XV won't be coming to any Microsoft systems due to their restrictions on online multiplayer. Here is a link: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/09/why-final-fantasy-xiv-isnt-coming-to-xbox-360-or-xbox-one

Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, not XV. Get your numerals right, please. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ProtoDrake, maybe stop being snide? Please?87.81.221.243 (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

release day listed as july 15 in a norwegian shop

that likely means that it will be released that day. just check the spaceworld website.84.213.45.196 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for the official announcement.Tintor2 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinion needed on source

I have found an article from a site called Final Fantasy News (a fan site of some kind) containing details on a lecture Yusuke Naora gave at Southern Methodist University which features new information on Final Fantasy Type-0 HD and Final Fantasy XV. There is a video on Twitch, but it won't archive (the video might be taken down), and this information is not stored on any other referable site in its entirety. I have encountered other cases where a fan site like this is acceptable if the transcription is proved accurate. Can it be used on this article and Type-0 (they are both likely to become FA in the future)? --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Likely not—it's one thing to use a talk as a self-published sources (but they tend to be tenuous and ephemeral, as you've explained), but it's another thing to use a site without a reputation for fact-checking or expertise to relay facts from that talk.  – czar 23:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

XV-FNC removal question

Recently, GameSpot reported that XV was removed from the Fabula Nova Crystallis subseries. As of now, GameSpot is the only reliable source that is reporting this, as no other reliable/acceptable site has stated outright that this is the case (and those unreliable/unacceptable ones appear to be paraphrasing the GameSpot article rather than using direct quotes). Even IGN isn't stating it directly, just what was said before about some elements being altered to fit the setting. I have already made edits based upon this information, but I'm beginning to feel skeptical as to whether one source is suitable for such a major change. Opinions? And, almost forgot, I'd appreciate it if Tintor2, PresN, Player017, Rhain1999, Sergecross73, Czar and Jaguar would give their opinions here as experienced editors. Any other opinions are, of course, welcome. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me. I'm really stumped here. You'd think that something like this would be mentioned elsewhere, surely? The fact that it's briefly mentioned at the end of a bullet point makes me wary. If we could see/read the actual interview with Tabata, then I would be more confident about changing it. Hmm. Perhaps it should just be removed for now; if the developer later claims that XV is actually part of FNC, it's nothing one small revert can't fix, right? – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that once it changed to Final Fantasy 15, and Tabata took over, that it ceased to be part of FNC anymore. It seems like SE has been trying to move away the FNC label with the FF13 iterations being less successful critically and commercially with each release. In general, I would support either Rhain's proposal to remove for now, with it being easy to re-add in the future, or alternatively, maybe putting it into a "Related" subsection. Whether its part of it or not, its certainly "related", and the dev section would explain how... Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sergecross73, something that I'd like to bring to attention is this interview from Tabata by Finaland, in which he states that the FNC mythos is still an integral part of the game, only it's been adjusted so it fits the setting. That was under a month ago. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think the GS report is solid enough to make the change, but it's also simple enough to be a transcription error, so it's fine to reserve skepticism in case a conflicting report arises. If the WP changes are simple enough, I'd just make them. It's clear from both sources that XV has departed from the Versus XIII plot so this is just a matter of whether the studio technically regards the game as an entry in that series. We sufficiently trust GS (and Corriea) to make that call or retract if proven incorrect, though of course it feels better to have enough reporting to counterbalance past reports of it being part of Fabula Nova. Realistically, most outlets likely don't care enough about that one detail to dedicate a full article to it. (edit conflict) I agree that it's fine to include as "Related" in the infobox. I also think GS's interpretation is what we should report over our interpretation of an interview. Again, nothing's set in stone if this report changes. You can also add a caveat in the prose that "GS reported that" or "according to GS" to show that the fact has not been communally acknowledged. – czar 13:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Czar. While FFXV is no longer part of Fabula, at least the infobox could have a "See also" redirecting FFXV.Tintor2 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the mention, ProtoDrake.

Personally, I think we should give this a few more days or so to give the other sites a chance to post articles on this. Even if GS's article is true, we should at least get one other source to confirm. —017Bluefield (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I agree with czar, if there's no significant coverage of reliable sources yet or if GameSpot is just speculating, then it would be best to include something in the infobox. I'd wait and see if other media outlets comment on the confusion with the subseries. JAGUAR  15:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This game has news all the time which is kind of funny that at this point we cannot confirm whether or not it is FNC. I'll be keeping my eye out for anything else that can confirm this issue. 68.199.168.107 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If Noctis dies?

One of the biggest criticisms of FF XIII was that if the character you're controlling dies, it's an automatic game over regardless of any resurrection abilities of the other party members. Does FF XV still use this mechanic if Noctis is the only playable character? 124.197.22.57 (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible GA/FA?

Hi all. Since the release is so close and given how I helped make Final Fantasy XIII a GA and eventually an FA, I'm thinking about doing a complete revamp of the article for a future GA/FA nomination, especially when the appropriate source material (strategy guides, in-game quotes, etc.) are made available. I think we should at least expand the reception section and synopsis section as well if there are any sources available. Also, I think we should create a Music of Final Fantasy XV article if it's possible. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A few points:

• I'm kind of assuming that ProtoDrake, who wrote the basis of this whole article and the development child article, is going to be jumping back on this once the game is released. Feel free to help out on the post-release rewrite though? It would certainly need one, I suppose.
• There's not really any way to make this a GA until the game is released- both from a "there's no reception" standpoint, and from a "what possible sources are you going to use for gameplay/plot, anyway?" standpoint. I mean, you said it yourself- "if there are any sources available" - there aren't, the game hasn't been released yet.
• ProtoDrake and I were talking about the music article a few days ago; he's got a sandbox page up, but it won't be posted until the soundtrack album comes out in late December. --PresN 04:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm kind of baffled by the question. Of course this can be a GA and eventually an FA, but only after the game has released so you can build the reception section. --JDC808 ♫ 06:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC

@Sjones23: While agree with the principal, I think expanding the reception section at this stage is more than precipitate. I think the main issue with the article at this stage is just the addition of references without proper citation, and some copyediting. Also, while I am definitely planning on bringing the Development and future Music articles to GA at some point, I'll have to wait and see after release whether I'm really invested enough to also tackle the main game, let alone the character article or the dedicated articles for its spin-off media. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• While I personally don't see an issue with a GA review before the game's release, the precedent is not to do so, given that the article is bound to go out of compliance (read: have "stability" issues) when the game is released and a new Reception section is needed—that's often a third of the article.  czar 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User reviews on Amazon Japan

Currently there are more than 820 user reviews on Amazon Japan for "PS4 Masamune FF15 initial release edition"[3]. The rating is quite polarized resulting the average of 3/5 with 1/5-star reviews just outmatch 5-star. I wonder if we have any policy or guideline which prevent us from including this information in the reception section. As far as I concern, Amazon only accepts user review after the user has completed transaction of the product in question. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User reviews are user generated and cannot be included. See WP:VG/USERREVIEW for more. -- ferret (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Basically, we only add user reviews if reliable sources take note of the user reviews in one of their articles. Sergecross73 msg me 04:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That is quite not true. As far as I know, Amazon accepts user reviews even if they haven't bought the product from the site. Atleast our country's version does that. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 10:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that they are user-generated. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not argue that. I was just correcting the OP about who can post a review on Amazon. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 15:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Unused footage source

• http://kotaku.com/final-fantasy-xvs-trailers-gave-away-way-too-much-1790097969 - Read through this article, and though it could maybe be of use someday. Or for the development article too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Take it up to GA?

With the retention period for the article expired before the main FF series topic would eventually be listed for FTRC, I think we should get it started and have it become a GA at least. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see is how small is the reception section.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I brought that up a while ago. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Complaining about a few things

I would just like to say a lot of the information in the combat section is inaccurate. I do not have the time to fix it so I am posting it here. The bar that fills through attacking is called the tech bar not the link bar. There are more but I do not have time as I said. Thank you and have a nice day. Yogneir (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Fantasy XV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707172802/http://www.qj.net/An-Interview-with-the-People-behind-Final-Fantasy-XIII/pg/49/aid/50304 to http://www.qj.net/qjnet/playstation-3/an-interview-with-the-people-behind-final-fantasy-xiii.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Fantasy XV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325125111/http://umbra3d.com/press-releases/umbra-improves-frame-rate-performance-in-final-fantasy-xv/ to http://umbra3d.com/press-releases/umbra-improves-frame-rate-performance-in-final-fantasy-xv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy XV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "Final Fantasy XV takes place on the fictional world of Eos; ..." I can't say I've ever seen two semicolon breaks in one sentence before. I'd replace the second one with a period/new sentence, but up to you.

   "Noctis Lucis Caelum" is first Wikilinked in the Chracters section? Should 'Noctis' be Wikilinked at its first instance in the Gampelay section?

   "Story-related weapons are the Royal Arms" - so what exactly are these? Are they melee weapons?

   "Final Fantasy XV was the second biggest Final Fantasy launch after Final Fantasy XIII" - too much Final Fantasy haha. Not sure what you can do about it though, have a think but no worries if you can't fina a way around this.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Really impressed with this one. Looking forward to passing following minor adjustments. Freikorp (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: All done! --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Passing :) Freikorp (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

iOS/Android version

Isn't this version too different to be considered a normal port, and thus should be excluded from the infobox/lead? From the announcement trailer, it's a simplified version with a different art style and gameplay, and only related to the actual FF15 by way of the main plot. How should we handle this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly not a port, but an entirely different (if tightly related) game. Somewhat akin to DS ports of Call of Duty games, which typically end up a separate article. -- ferret (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it will have enough coverage once released to allow its own article anyway; as with all of the other FF15 related media. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Release date for it announced today, but nothing regarding its inclusion in the article has changed right? I added the info to the lead, but it should be kept out of the infobox as it's really not the same game. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, totally different game. Kind of surprised no one's ever made an article for the mobile version. I'm guessing it'll probably happen soon, considering its upcoming release and general popularity. Then hopefully this will be a non-issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I could start on a stub. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Stub created, will expand the gameplay section later. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad someone did. I came on here to check if anything was being done, as the game is similar, but not the same. The actual plot seems to be identical. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)