| Revision as of 16:55, 3 September 2010 editMegata Sanshiro (talk | contribs)14,373 editsm →Very positive reception?← Previous edit |
Revision as of 11:09, 5 September 2010 edit undoFrankly Man (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,389 edits →Very positive reception?Next edit → |
| Line 80: |
Line 80: |
|
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 ], ], ], ], 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%. ] (]) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (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 ], ], ], ], 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%. ] (]) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
:I've noticed that most of the FF featured articles tend to be like this because they were mass-written and mass-promoted in succession and in short amounts of time. With other featured article pushes the main pusher tends to focus on only one article, for a very long time, even after it is promoted to FA. But with the FFs it appears that the objective was always to take on the next numbered FF article ''as soon as'' the pushed article is promoted. So the reception sections tend not to be as in-depth as in other featured articles, maybe. It also doesn't help that every FF has hundreds of possible reviews to consider. ] (]) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
:I've noticed that most of the FF featured articles tend to be like this because they were mass-written and mass-promoted in succession and in short amounts of time. With other featured article pushes the main pusher tends to focus on only one article, for a very long time, even after it is promoted to FA. But with the FFs it appears that the objective was always to take on the next numbered FF article ''as soon as'' the pushed article is promoted. So the reception sections tend not to be as in-depth as in other featured articles, maybe. It also doesn't help that every FF has hundreds of possible reviews to consider. ] (]) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I know what you mean. I've worked on numerous reception sections for massvely popular games, sometime I've even written the whole thing to prevent it becoming a string of praise. Without having to change anything or start an edit war, I'd just insert one or two lines of genuine criticism. For example the aged graphics for the GBA version, or perhaps something completely different. ] (]) 11:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC) |
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.
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)
