Talk:Final Fantasy XIII/Archive 10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Embargo ended last night, and there are a ton of new reviews from websites that Square Enix sent review copies out to, notably:

RPG Site (85%): http://ps3.rpgsite.net/reviews/42/207/final-fantasy-xiii-review.html The Lost Gamer (9): http://www.thelostgamer.com/2010/03/05/final-fantasy-xiii-review/ Eurogamer (8): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/final-fantasy-xiii-review CVG (9.2): http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=237078 IGN UK (8.3): http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/107/1074227p1.html EDGE (5): http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/review-final-fantasy-xiii?page=0%2C1

Definitely worth somebody adding these to the page. I can't, as I am anon and the page is protected... but somebody should! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.8.67 (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

someof those arent really reliable sources. so i tihnk we can only use the last two or three.

) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Eurogamer, IGN and Edge are a standard choice of citing reviews.

talk

) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of these are ending up similar i.e most/all are commenting positively on presentation and battle system, mostly positive on story/characters, mixed response to interactivity, exploration etc. Probably worth doing the reception taking each element in turn and using quotes for each, rather than the current which is just listing review after review with a sprinkling of quotes. SynergyBlades (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

By all means, reception section usually go through certain aspects of the game and opinions on them... currently we have review quotes as they came in.

talk

) 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

i agree doing the reception taking each element in turn and using quotes for each. The current style is repititive and stupid.--Geregere (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a go, so feel free to go from there as a basis. It could do with a little more detailed commentary on the battle system and plot. That said I wouldn't be surprised to see any semblance of neutrality being adjusted to turn it once more into "best game ever"-style material with corresponding glowing quotes, but hey, can't say I didn't give it a fair try. Am off to play it myself now so see you in, I dunno, a few weeks probably! ;) SynergyBlades (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty good at the moment. It includes the usual affair of positive remarks while still emphasizing the negatives and contrasts to it. And yes thank God that it hasn't been hijacked by fanboys who would want to put the game up on top of the podium.

talk

) 01:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It still is kind of biased. I know that both positive and negative reviews are included but there seems to be a desperate attempt to save the negative reviews from being pure negative. "Reviewer says it's too linear or boring, HOWEVER THEY DO PRAISE THIS THIS AND THIS! So therefore his bad review is a good review even though he gave it a 5/10." Just let a negative comment sit. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We have to consider which reviewer is a legitimate enough to have his review here. the obvious being IGN, or Eurogamer. we cant just add any review on it

) 15:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It's a game. It's not like movies where some are (supposedly) more qualified because they may have gone to film school or books where people can get degrees in literature. One magazines review shouldn't be less valid than an others.129.139.1.68 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

because that's bias, and it's from reviewers who are not professional viewers. that's the problem. and game reviewing is taken very seriously. mysterious IP user, i suggest you look up the rules.

) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"game reviewing is taken very seriously." Easy there chief. By whom? and "because that's bias." So you're saying that only allowing reviews that you consider legitimate is impartial and isn't biased. I suggest you look up the definition of the word bias.129.139.1.68 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fourteenth, you're forgetting about FFX-2.--99.225.28.182 (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you count every single Final Fantasy spinoff, you're looking at the 70th installment. We don't count them all. ★Ffgamera★ -

Talk to me!· Contribs

08:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that X-2 isn't a spinoff then, but a proper FF game. It's the 14th instalment. 203.211.123.115 (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't played Final Fantasy X so don't shout at me if I'm wrong (just correct me), but judging from the name "Final Fantasy X-2", isn't that game a contuniation of Final Fantasy X? Should it really be considered as a whole new installment? Indigochild 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I believe X-2 is the direct sequel to FFX, not a continuation of the main series.--The Taerkasten (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember the devs saying that it was almost a side / expanded story for FFX. They even mentioned ONLY doing it because they felt the ending to FFX was unsatisfactory. They did not count it as a separate installment for the series. If you include FFX2, then you have to include the FFXII side story for the handheld game systems (yes there is one).

Also the crystal chronicles has its own line now. Tactics is its own line also. There are numerous games that are continuations. FFVII has a whole line of games: pre-crisis (turk's formation), crisis core (zach and cloud), FFVII (cloud and team), and the TPS game ?title? (vincent's story), and the movie Advent Children. --Cflare (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont forget about FF4: the after years too, two more FF13 games and numerous FFXI upgrades! Talk about innovation from the company at coming up with new products. 129.215.113.85 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Development" section mentions usage of Playstation 3 screens to promote the Xbox 360 version of the game. Microsoft did something similar when sending out footage in their Xbox LIVE community newsletter. The trailer they included was composed of Playstation 3 footage. http://electronictheatre.co.uk/index.php/industry-news/4356-microsoft-using-playstation-3-footage-to-promote-final-fantasy-xiii-on-xbox-360 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Boers (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The info-box claims 1080p on Ps3 and 576p on Xbox 360. This is based on two different sources. By the looks of the second source, which is where the 576p came from, it seems the PS3-version is 720p and the Xbox 360-version is 576p, but both can be upscaled to 1080p. This is also in-line with what the article it-self says, so I'm updating the info-box to reflect this. I'm not sure what the "policy" for editing sources/references is though (since the nr1 is a bit redundant when nr2 is better. I'm improvising. For the record the originals references I'm reffering to: ^[1] and ^[2]. I also have little experience in reffering to them in talk-pages, so we'll just have to see how it turns out. KristianLyngstol (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about native resolution. As far as I can see, the first source was different to the original, which was the PS Blog, the JumpStart URL doesn't belong there. I've restored it to the accurate version. But essentially, what you're saying is true. The Xbox 360 is 576p native, PS3 is 720p, both are able to upscale to 1080p. As for people changing the information and references, it seems that they think by changing the data on the Wikipedia entry, that makes it true. --The Taerkasten (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Japanese names are not important to vast majority of readers. They often disrupt the flow of the article. I suggest placing the Japanese names in the footnotes. This would prevent the names from interrupting the article, but still provide the information to those who would like to know. Jwesley

18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Usually something like this will still stay in the article. i think it's easier just to place a nihongoe template onto the names.

) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia administrators are getting paid by Square-Enix to censor information regarding a software bug that can break your PS3 or Xbox 360. Look at what they did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy_XIII&diff=351651405&oldid=351632546 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Fantasy_XIII&dir=prev&offset=20100324000107&limit=2&action=history . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.33.207.117 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Avoid assuming bad faith. The section was badly sourced. Most of its sources were selfpublished (youtube videos, forums, etc) and they were all used together at the end making it confusing.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I still think you guys were bribed because your arguments are crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.33.207.117 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be polite. The section's content did not follow guidelines and thus was removed.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So you removed it because of some idiotic and retarded bureaucratic rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cie'th (talk • contribs) 02:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally disagree with it is irrelevant. It's Wikipedia policy. And please try to stay

civil. --The Taerkasten (talk

) 16:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Game cathegory

I disagree about the cathegory "console role playing game" on the game genre, specially when Mr. Kitase said it was not an RPG. http://www.gamegrep.com/previews/30446-final_fantasy_xiii_not_an_rpg_says_producer_new_1up_exclusive_screens/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.76.109 (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)