| Revision as of 17:39, 19 August 2009 edit99.16.199.68 (talk) →One of the greatest games of all time← Previous edit |
Revision as of 21:25, 19 September 2009 edit undoSjones23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,934 edits archiving older discussionsNext edit → |
| Line 49: |
Line 49: |
|
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Everydaylife}} |
|
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Everydaylife}} |
|
{{Archives}} |
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
==One of the greatest games of all time== |
|
|
|
|
|
Its clearly considered as one, it is X-Play's top must play RPG as well as #9 on IGN's Best Games Ever 2007. Gamespy called it mandatory gaming. If this language isn't allowed on this page, than remove "one of the greatest games of all time" from Final Fantasy IV's page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Kingdom Hearts II?== |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article, it menins how FF6 characters have reoccurred in other games by Square Enix, but I certainly don't remember any of the characters being used in any of the Kingdom Hearts games, and I've played all three released in the US. Frankly, it should be deleted. ] (]) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Acording to the ] article (I haven't played it, so I can only go by that), Setzer is in it. ] (]) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The article speaks the truth, Setzer was in it. ] (]) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Okay! I remember now! *smacks self* I've been focusing onthe Organization a little too much. *sweatdrop* ] (]) 17:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==PS3 remake?== |
|
|
Are there any plans to remake this game for a ], like the ]? ] (]) 16:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not currently, no. If any game was to be remade for a seventh generation console though, I can't imagine it being anything but 7. ] (]) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If there were 'any plans', they'd surely be mentioned in the article probably within hours of the announcement at a reliable gaming site. ] (]) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:If sales of Final Fantasy IV DS (In japan) reach high enough numbers it is very likely this game will be remade for a platform such as that in 3D. (FF3 also recived this treatment). This is speculation at this point but if they remake 5 You can probably be assured that 6 will be remade eventually. ] (]) 23:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Merging of Final Fantasy Collection == |
|
|
|
|
|
Same as on ]. I've merged the information in the Reception section, but I don't know if it flows well this way. I've noticed this section is slightly incomplete here, with a a comment about the sales figure of the game hidden because of a lack of reliable source. Anyway, the recurring problem with the Reception sections of games with multiple re-releases is that we don't really know whether the information should be given release by release or if everything should be blended together... I mean, if the order should be: |
|
|
#Sales figure of the original version |
|
|
#Reviews of the original version |
|
|
#''Then'' sales figure of the first remake |
|
|
#Reviews of the first remake, etc. |
|
|
Or if it should be: |
|
|
#Sales figure of the original version, first remake, second remake... |
|
|
#''Then'' reviews of the original version, first remake, second remake... |
|
|
The current order used in the various articles seems fairly inconsistent (in this one at least). The early FF FAs may need some serious revising in this area in terms of prose and standardization. Thoughts? ] (]) 09:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Non-free images== |
|
|
As far as I can see, the following images fail ] and/or ], with the overarching "overuse" policy of ] also involved here. |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] (separate article for this) |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
I have not mentioned the first screenshot because it could be argued that it is illustrating the "look and feel" of the game, although technically it could well fail NFCC as well. <b>]</b> 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've removed these images except for ] and ]. The former illustrates the layout of the battle system of the game, and the latter illustrates a different product altogether. Also I don't see why the first screenshot could fail NFCC, it is indeed used to illustrate the look and feel of the game; it seems that according to you nothing would ever satisfy NFCC at all. However, this needs more input and I wonder why no one else replied yet. ] (]) 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GBA Usa Release Date == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the Usa release date for the Gameboy Advance version was February 5th 2006. Here's a source... |
|
|
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/release.cgi |
|
|
Go there and select Gameboy Advance games for Usa. :-)] (]) 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Final_Fantasy_VI#Interactive_CG_Game == |
|
|
|
|
|
I was on the Final Fantasy VII article, when I clicked on a link entitled "See Also: Final Fantasy VI#Interactive CG Game" Some nutter calling himself "The Zodiac" has created a page with the above name, and completely hacked it. The background is black, an most of the screen is full of Japanese writing. When I click on discussion, it brings me to the Final Fantasy VI talk page, so I thought I'd comlain here. The Zodiac writes: 'The Zodiac talking. Tell the other websites that they are in for a big treat. Tomorrow I will be spreading my reign, but digress, I will not leave you, because you provide me with such comfort. I think you people should put little 申 boxes on your pages, because I own this website now'. As I said before, a complete nutter <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Merger proposal of Characters of Final Fantasy VI== |
|
|
The article is a massive repetition of the plot and character section of this article, and has about a paragraph of reliable sourced information that could be placed here, strengthening this article and eliminating a huge permanent stub. ] (]) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Keep but improve''' The cast of this Final Fantasy is one of the first to called iconic and notable. The rest of the Final Fantasy games from this one down have a list of characters, as do the characters several other video games. I can understand some of the older Final Fantasy games with characters that are less noticable, but I honestly cannot see why this one cannot be brought up to a better, more suitable level. ] (]) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I completely agree with Judgesurreal777; The plot should be edited out of the "Characters of Final Fantasy VI" article and replace the characters section of the "Final Fantasy VI" article. What's the point of having duplicate information about this topic? Besides, this is one classically famous game all console RPG fans should discover on their own. |
|
|
] (]) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Currently, the FFVI character page does little to establish itself from the main article as it's mostly in-universe plot info and very little on the actual creation, implementation, and impact of the characters themselves. My initial reaction is to merge it, but I'd like to think the article could be improved, since these are characters from one of the most beloved games ever. Does anyone know what, if any, inside sources exist on these guys? An Ultimania or sourcebook or developer interview or something? If we could find anything like (translated) that we'd be in business, since the reception section would mostly come from game reviews focusing on the characters themselves, and legacy info like Setzer showing up in Kingdom Hearts and a handful of characters in Secret of Evermore. It's fixable, I think, but only if we have something to build from. ] (]) 21:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Keep and improve''' on the grounds that the characters from FFVI are somewhat notable, but both this article and the character list are of some considerable length. Merging would most likely result in a loss of information, especially as the article which once described FFVI's world has been replaced with a simple redirect and none of its content actually merged in here. I fear that the same would happen to the characters article; in fact I'll go so far as to say that a successful merge proposal would pretty much be a death sentence for the content of the characters article. --] <small>(]|])</small> 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Confusion in the Original Translation? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I clicked on the citation and it just took me to a game review which says exactly the same thing without elabouration. The only confusion I can think of is Relm/Shadow in the cave in the second part of the game. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Final Fantasy VI's sequel, Shadows of the Light == |
|
== Final Fantasy VI's sequel, Shadows of the Light == |
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)
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.
