Talk:Final Fantasy XIV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFinal Fantasy XIV has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starFinal Fantasy XIV is part of the Final Fantasy series series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 5, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
January 3, 2016Good article nomineeListed
December 28, 2015Featured topic candidatePromoted
April 13, 2017Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
April 13, 2018Featured topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 10, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Naoki Yoshida chose to completely remake the massively multiplayer online role-playing game Final Fantasy XIV as Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn in order to regain the trust of its players?
Current status: Good article

FFXIV: Heavensward's Reception and Scoring[edit]

The expansion pack FFXIV: HW had its own reception, scoring and reviews.. why hasn't all of that been added yet? Almkhrq (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProtoDrake and I are working on a draft for a separate article for Heavensward here if you're interested in contributing. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page?[edit]

Square Enix is now calling it just "Final Fantasy XIV" or "Final Fantasy XIV Online" now going forward, no "A Realm Reborn". I believe the page should reflect this somehow. Brayden96 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year late, but both the title and the body of the article need to be updated to replace "A Realm Reborn" with "Online", it's a bit misleading to call the current version of the game "A Realm Reborn" and Square Enix has been referring to the game as "Final Fantasy XIV Online" in all their official sources. See 1 2 --Manuelt15 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are secondary sources saying? WP:COMMONNAME is what should be followed, and we also need a natural disambiguation (if possible) from the original version. We don't necessarily follow official naming. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But if most contemporary sources are just calling it Final Fantasy XIV Online, then the article should reflect that, yes? The original Final Fantasy XIV could be moved to Final Fantasy XIV (original) if needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. That's the crux of my post though: What are they saying? Primary/official sources shouldn't drive a rename, contemporary secondary sourcing should. -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of difficult to empirically prove, but there does seem to be more consistent coverage of "Final Fantasy XIV" when searching since 2014 as compared to Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, which was used more around the time of its announcement in 2012. The use of "A Realm Reborn" goes down even more the closer you get to the present day (very few of the headlines or quoted passage in the previews seem to mention it on Google News post-2017), so if this was a proper requested move, I would support moving this page to "Final Fantasy XIV" and moving the original game to Final Fantasy XIV (original) or Final Fantasy XIV (2010 video game). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To echo dissident, the problem here would be that the name "A Realm Reborn" is not completely deprecated, despite it not being an expansion the usage of that name has switched to something similar to expansions, level 1 to 50 content is referred to as A Realm Reborn content, just like Heavensward content (50-60) and Stormblood content (60-70), but as seen in those links the secondary sources refer to the game as a whole by just "Final Fantasy XIV" [22] [23] [24].
Going by WP:COMMONNAME the title should be renamed to "Final Fantasy XIV", without the Online part, and "A Realm Reborn" should be removed from the body of the article in any text that is referring to the game as a whole and not just 1-50 content.
As for the title disambiguation, following the video game title convention the article for the first game could be moved to Final Fantasy XIV (2010 video game) and this one to Final Fantasy XIV (2013 video game), although I'd say this isn't a conventional case as:
1) The second game fully replaced the first
2) The first game is no longer accessible and at this point its article is more of a backstory for the second game
3) I would say people searching for Final Fantasy XIV are more likely to be seeking the article of the currently active game, not the historical one.
With this considered I'd say this article should either keep the title Final Fantasy XIV, or that title should turn into a redirect to Final Fantasy XIV (2013 video game) --Manuelt15 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. If moved, this article should not go to Final Fantasy XIV (2013 video game), just Final Fantasy XIV. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll perform the technical move later if no one objects to (2010 video game) for the original in the meantime. Feel free to go ahead and make that a redirect to the existing original article and update links. I will overlay the redirect during the move. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing plot tag[edit]

I am removing the plot tag because I believe this MMO story falls outside the scope of WP:MOS/VG's guidelines as written. The guidelines decree no more than 700 words for a plot summary (a sentence which was added to MOSVG in 2013 as a "suggestion" with zero discussion at the time and considerable pushback in the years since). However, the director has repeatedly compared this MMO to a "television program" with the base game and expansions acting as seasons and the patch storyline as episodes within those seasons. Though I have not explicitly delineated "episodes" in the Story section (that would be OR), the section as a whole roughly matches the word count recommendations in MOS:TVPLOT, which allots 200 words per episode if we consider the base game and patch storyline as episodes (which were released episodically on a 3 month schedule!) in a larger season. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with this. Even if you take in account an exception to it being episodic, the fact still remains that it's a massive section within the article and provides little-to-none real world significance. It may not have to be under 700, but it definitely needs a trim. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll not deny that it could use a trim. I've requested peer reviews in the past because I'm still too close to the prose and can't see it with fresh eyes. It's been on my docket to at least try to tidy it up what little I can given that limitation. But that being said, I think you and I can agree that the current MOS guideline has too narrow a view of what forms a video game story can take. It reduces all of that possibility space to a single number limit, which I think suggests that the guideline as written could use an update. Here is not the venue for that, so I'll settle for an exception. Also, I will quibble that "real world significance" has never been a requirement for a plot section by its very nature. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also support a discussion regarding the plot on WP:MOS/VG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No issue with the general 700 word limit in MOS:VG. However (and I've mentioned this in some places, like Minecraft Story Mode), then guideline has no... er, guidance.. on episodic or perpetually maintained/expanded games. In short, we incorporated MOS:FILMPLOT but also needed MOS:TVPLOT. I think this will be non-controversial, someone just needs to start the discussion at MOS:VG. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endwalker sources.[edit]

--ProtoDrake (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what are the sexual themes the game has in its warning?[edit]

ESRB Rating: TEEN with Blood, Language, Sexual Themes, Use of Alcohol, Violence. Visit www.esrb.org for rating information. EU Rating: PEGI 16

Why aren't the ratings listed in the article? If there are sexual themes, I would expect there to be coverage of this, but I'm not seeing it anywhere. Dream Focus 03:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can see explanations for ratings on the ESRB's website - in this case it's the typical low camera angles and some suggestive dialogue, this isn't an 18+ game or anything - but this would typically not be something we would cover on WP unless sources discuss the rating. See WP:VGSCOPE #16--AlexandraIDV 03:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duty Roulette[edit]

I added two sentences about Duty Roulette under "Character progression", as it's one of the main methods players gain EXP in this game. I know it extends further than just instanced dungeons but I wasn't sure what language to use to encompass all the categories within the Duty Roulette.--Lumiose (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YC5039 (article contribs).

Patches and Expansions[edit]

This section is both incomplete and unnecessary. It is inconsistent to list the 2.1-2.5 major patches but not list 2.45/2.55 minor patches or 3.X major patches. Realistically the best solution is to leave the blurb there about the concept of major/minor patches, as well as the expansion list, and move all detailed patch information to its own separate page, where the rest of the patches can be listed, as desired. 75.52.156.154 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dawntrail localization source[edit]

ProtoDrake (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Final_Fantasy_XIV&oldid=1220553641"