Talk:Final Fantasy XII

Ultimania development information

The following sources should be translated and used to expand the current incomplete article:

Final Fantasy XII Battle Ultimania

FFXII Development Staff Interview 1 – Character Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 2 – Program Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 3 – Battle Section

Final Fantasy XII Scenario Ultimania

FFXII Development Staff Interview 1 – Art Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 2 – Movie Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 3 – Sound Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 4 – Scenario Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 5 – Map System Section
FFXII Development Staff Interview 6 – Directors

Final Fantasy XII Ultimania Omega

Creator Interview
Special Column
Voice Actor Interview Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5
Hitoshi Sakimoto Interview
Movies Text Commentary

Anyone willing to help translate even one page is welcome! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links per WP:COPYVIO. – Allen4names 17:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this?

It's like it was written by a super-fan, there's hardly any criticisms in this article, and this game should have a whole lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk • contribs)

What part of the article are you talking about? Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I thought the same thing. The whole article simply reeks of the "best FF ever" attitude I've seen displayed here and there on the internet. Especially on the FFXII GameFAQs message board, where they practically queue up to bash other FF games... which is weird, cause back in the old days, if you were an FF fan, you liked all the games. I guess VII changed all that. Regardless, this is a very biased article and needs to focus on more of the criticisms, such as going into better detail why some thought the soundtrack wasn't as memorable, or discussing how hard the game tries to distract you from the plot with a multitude of sidequests and excessive backtracking coupled with lengthy hikes through enemy-filled locations. The latter of which often requiring you to hold down a button to avoid battles the entire way through. Nothing wrong with wanting to boast about a game's good features and aspects, but you gonna include the blemishes, too.--Dakmordian (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, count me with Sjones23 - which parts are you having problems with? A quick look through at least the first half of the article (through Gameplay) reads as pretty bog-standard for describing what's going on, without any particular support or criticism either way of how good the game is (or isn't). umrguy 42 20:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I totally forgot I'd written this or I'd have responded since my original comment (this is Dakmordian). What I think wasn't clear in my comment is that there really isn't any sign of negative criticism within the article. There's a minute comment, almost tossed in, about GameSpot regarding "back and forth" wandering around but that doesn't even begin to cover the amount of criticism I have seen people bring up; they're not hard to find, but probably not from proper sources. Even reading back through it, I still get the feeling there's a lot of bias in favor of this game. Considering the length of the article, I guess it just feels one-sided.--68.111.242.222 (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels about standard for a WP video game article- a bit enthusiastic feeling (no problem there) and a reception section that glosses over the negative bits. Most vg articles are written by people who like the game, so they don't focus as much as they should on criticisms as opposed to praises. The game was well-received, but even the reviewers that gave it high scores had points that they didn't like, and the reception section right now does a poor job of expressing what they were. If anyone wants to pull in some quotes from the reviewers used in the article about what they didn't like, feel free. --Pres N 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page needs to be redone. There's a lot of negativity surrounding FFXII that this page doesn't address, same as the FFXIII page. Be patient, I'm working on rewriting the entire FFXII page (it's my fave FF) and including all criticisms (I know them all from being on the GameFAQs board for the game since it came out) and how the development staff have responded to them according to the Ultimania interviews. I've been too busy in the real-world since early September so haven't been on Wikipedia for 2 months. In the mean time, read the section on FFXII on the Daisuke Watanabe page. G-Zay (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future note for would be editors: Criticisms can only be added if they're from a reliable source (read: a professional review site). Nobody cares what gamefaqs says. --68.123.159.155 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox cleanup

Updated the infobox with the current formats and changed the credit fields as they did not use the currently established conventions:

changed to order shown in the game
scenario writers first, story writers last
added Miwa Shoda as scenario writer, removed Jun Akiyama (not a scenario writer)
removed producer (only people who worked on the original version are credited)
removed programmer (field only used for notable people or single programmers with significant new concepts/technological breakthroughs in older games)
removed some composers (only main contributors to the soundtrack are listed, Matsuo and Iwata are also both debatable, but I left them for now)
removed Ivalice Alliance (only independent standalone articles on game series allowed in series field)

I also removed the link to Final Fantasy X-2 at the top of the article as I just don't think people have problems distinguishing the two games, hyphen plus arabic numeral and all. Prime Blue (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Product Development Division 4.

There is no hyphen used in the official logo.

Image for proof: http://img713.imageshack.us/i/pdd4.png/

G-Zay (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is the official logo. It's taken directly from the event where FFXII was officially announced by Square Enix.

Video of FFXII announcement event

So can you please stop reverting my edits calling them "G-Zay's usual stuff" when you're the one putting incorrect information on Wikipedia. Thank you. G-Zay (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Final_Fantasy_Tactics_Advance&diff=prev&oldid=419643075 . Last I checked, you're the one that keeps getting notifications for inserting unsourced stuff and pro-Ito opinions in articles. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I insert what is fact. The only problem is that there's no available sources for people that want citations before it can be accepted. When I obtain sources for my contributions then people thank me for them. This was the case in how I managed to obtain sources that prove that there are now two Hiroyuki Ito's currently working for Square Enix.

Anyway, the FFTA intro does not have the official logo. We're looking for how it's officially written. Further still, in the Japanese URL reference provided on the FFTA and FFXII pages, there's no hyphen. Regardless, here's further proof that there is no hyphen in the official logo of Product Development Division 4:

Famitsu magazine job advert for FFXII

FFXII announcement event booklet page 5

FFXII announcement event booklet page 6

FFXII announcement event booklet page 7

This and the previously mentioned video are enough proof that there is no hyphen in the official logo. All you have in your argument is the FFTA intro which is not even how it's officially written. My proof is there and solid and you're being stubborn and ignoring it. If you still continue to revert then I will have to send you a warning. G-Zay (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

....is this seriously worth getting worked up about? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. This debate is over. It's important to me that accurate information gets provided to the readers, though. G-Zay (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review table.

The current table with stars doesn't appear bloated to me. Further still, it can be hidden and therefore disappear off the page. I don't see how it's bloated or page consuming when the ability to hide 95% of it is given to the reader.

This is like Gambits in FF12 all over again; people complained that Gambits made the game "play itself" but the developers gave the ability to turn them off for all party members. Similarly, the table is not even that bloated or long; the entire thing can fit on the screen at once. Further still, if you wanna remove it from view then the ability to do so is there for the reader with the "Hide" command. I really don't see how a reversion to a table with far less information for readers is an improvement to the page. If anything, it's a downgrade. G-Zay (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously since YOU see it that way, you're obviously right, huh? Depsite the fact that it seems that everyone on this page and on WT:VG disagrees...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always edit pages thinking of the reader. The more information, the better. How is less information a good thing? The claim that there are too many reviews is also not that solid as the whole table can fit on the screen at once. It's not like the reader will have to scroll to see the whole thing. Lastly, there is a "Hide" command, so if they feel the table is in the way then they can just make it disappear. All that taken into account, the table is fine the way it is. It has lots of reviews, all from famous publications and they're all referenced. G-Zay (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there is no consensus to include so many reviews in the review table. Not only are there at least four people here who disagree with you, the accepted usage notes on Template:Video game reviews/doc explicitly direct to keep it down to 5-6 reviews which represent a wide variety of sources (region, print vs. web, platform-specific, aggregate, etc.). Axem Titanium (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will never stop reverting the table as the table on the FFVI page is even longer and yet there are no complaints about it. If this FFXII table has to get reduced then so does the one for FFVI. If the FFVI table stays as it is then the FFXII one is worthy of staying in its current form. G-Zay (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You can not make arguements based on other articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands. If the FFVI table can be even longer than the FFXII one and stay then the FFXII one is fine the way it is. I don't think people took the FFVI table into account when the original consensus was reached so I hope this can be redone and fair agreement reached this time. Honestly, this is just overblown. The table is fine how it is. We need to drop this and move on to more important issues. G-Zay (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should drop this. As in, you should stop this idiotic long-term edit war. This table is too long. So is FF6s. The solution is not to say that this one stands because that one is too long. The solution is to cut both of them, which I will now do- review tables should have 6 representative reviews or so at most, and should never contain any reviews that aren't in the text. --Pres N 00:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably some ten people now who you oppose and keep reverting. Consider this your final warning. Prime Blue (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy 6 is now down from 3 aggregates/18 reviewers (some with several reviews per reviewer) to 2/8; I left a bit extra since there's 2 and a bit game versions included in the table. Agree with Prime Blue above- your reverting and long, slow edit warring is really getting out of hand. Keep it up and I'll block you; you've done some good work here, but for the past while you've done nothing but waste everyone's time by continually going against consensus and staying just shy of 3RR on 10 articles at once. If you don't like the consensus, get it changed, don't keep fighting on your own. --Pres N 00:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Final Fantasy XII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070822061525/http://www.gaming-age.com:80/news/2006/9/13-21 to http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2006/9/13-21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]