| Revision as of 21:27, 9 September 2010 edit75.131.35.252 (talk) →Very positive reception?← Previous edit |
Revision as of 18:07, 22 September 2010 edit undoBlitzSage (talk | contribs)26 edits →Outdated Ranking?Next edit → |
| Line 69: |
Line 69: |
|
::''Shadows of the Light'' appears to be a ] ] (]) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
::''Shadows of the Light'' appears to be a ] ] (]) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
:::: It's neither of them, I've found the truth. A website made an April's Fool in 2000 saying that Square planned to make this game but cancelled it, and many people believed it was truth. A now-extinct brazilian games magazine (Ação Games) made a story about it... that's why many people here in Brazil believe the "Shadows of the Light" rumor. There were even pictures of the so called sequence on the internet back then... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
:::: It's neither of them, I've found the truth. A website made an April's Fool in 2000 saying that Square planned to make this game but cancelled it, and many people believed it was truth. A now-extinct brazilian games magazine (Ação Games) made a story about it... that's why many people here in Brazil believe the "Shadows of the Light" rumor. There were even pictures of the so called sequence on the internet back then... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
== Outdated Ranking? == |
|
|
Hi, I've never edited Misplaced Pages before. I have noticed that you have FFVI's ranking on IGN's 2005 "Top 100 Games of All Time" list, which was 56th, but there is a newer list with a much better ranking for the game. Here is a link: . It is the same list updated for 2007, on which the game (which they call FFIII (US)) is ranked at #9. I think that would be much better if added. Also, there is another IGN list, the "IGN Reader's Choice Top 100 of all time," where the game is ranked at #14. Here is the link for that: . I think it would be better if these lists were included instead of the 2005 list, because it shows FFVI as one of the greatest games ever made, and as the top-rated Final Fantasy game, but it seems like people have disregarded this list. Do you guys think we could change it? I don't wnat to edit your page, I just saw it and thought it'd be better to change. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)BlitzSage |
|
|
:You can go right ahead and change it, you don't need anyone's permission. --''']]''' 01:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Very positive reception? == |
|
== Very positive reception? == |
Is this true or not? I first read about it on a Retro-gaming story about Final Fantasy VI. There were some images to what would be FFVI's sequel, a game called "Shadows of the Light". The main character would be Shadow and most of the game would happen in the one year period between Kefka's growth to power and fall. Is that true? If it is, it should be on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.142.58.18 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
First off let me just say don't crucify me for questioning this (I know what some fans are like) but when compared to other featured articles for games with equal or greater receptions like Shadow of the Colossus, StarCraft, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, even other Final Fantasy articles etc to same only a few, the reception is a string of "one of the best ever" style comments. Now granted I am aware of the game's impacts, legacy and overall praise and that there is one line of criticism. I'm not suggesting shoveling useless and trivial cons for the sake of diminishing creditability, yet I am rather surprised that a featured article barely reflects any other note beside undying praise making this game more of a 99.999999% than 90-93%. Stabby Joe (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
