Talk:Final Fantasy Dimensions

Source

Interview with the producer and the composer - http://gamasutra.com/view/news/33763/Interview_Serializing_RPG_Storylines_On_Final_Fantasy_Legends.php --PresN 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Some info from famitsu that apparently has some bits on the original soundtrack. - http://www.famitsu.com/news/201108/08048167.html --Lucia Black (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Another one from famitsu. Also holds interviews but unsure if its the same one of gamasutra as it shows more developers - http://www.famitsu.com/news/201108/18048249.html --Lucia Black (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.famitsu.com/news/201206/08015998.html. One more.Lucia Black (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Will be expanding the Story

I just recently bought the game so i will be expanding story and character sections.Lucia Black (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

B-class?

Now that the article's main issue (the plot) has been cleaned up. I was wondering if this article meets the merits of B-class?Lucia Black (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's B-class, and have adjusted the templates accordingly. For GA, these are the things I think it needs:

• Gameplay: You say it's an RPG like FFV, but don't define what that means- it needs some more description of the gameplay itself. There are also unreferenced statements/paragraphs.
• Plot: looks good, though I just skimmed it.
• Development: A+ for including a music section. I wish the release dates in the table all had references, but I know that's a tall order for Japanese cell phone games.
• Reception: I fixed some minor issues, but note that you sometimes say "blah of IGN said" and sometimes say "GI said"- use the person every time if you have them, and say "the reviewer from blah" if you don't. Looked odd to not see the reviews template, but it's optional so whatever.
• References- looks alright, though a few redlinks- main issue is that you don't have the author's name in a few that I know have authors.

Honestly, you're not far from GA- a bit of poking and you could go ahead and nominate it. Good job all around! --PresN 18:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you for reviewing it. Ill make these fixes right away.Lucia Black (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is something I noticed. There is no character section, but we have an characters article for this game with seemingly no reliable sources other than the game. I would merge it back here, fixing both problems. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I split it. The reviews give some mention of the characters, i just been too busy to add anything to it. As for characters section, sometimes there isnt one needed if the plot covers the main characters.Lucia Black (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ive done a bit of cleaning. Once done, ill nominate it for GA and hope for the best.Lucia Black (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One other thing I see the reception section is a block of text, and could benefit from a scores template. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

ok im doing it now.Lucia Black (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok its done. Just a few more adjustments and ill wait 24 hours to nominate it.Lucia Black (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually i found release dates for the Japanese cell phone episodes, so i will add those in the table, then nominate it.Lucia Black (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks good now! You should put it up for Good Article nomination, I bet it would do well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I really want to. But the issue is, I can't find any more sources for the EZweb release dates other than the Official site. I'm unsure to use the official site as a ref. (Plus a lot of the info came from Andriasang.com and its not working, and I can't find any archive site that archived andriasang.) Its unfortunate these issues occur. Lucia Black (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You can probably get away with the official site for now, its a reliable source, so it should pass GA though FA might want a secondary source. Also, Andraisang is back up for now, so we could us Webcite to archive it now before it disappears forever. If we archive it, I think we'll be ready. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Talking of Andriasang, I think the archiving should happen across all links to the site, while it's up and running. There are some on a page I have been working on "the XIII characters page) which are not archived yet. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Ill use the official site for the EZweb release and nominate it for GA.Lucia Black (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Chapters 2 and 3

Right now, we've got a paragraph on the backstory, Prologue and Chapter 1 and a paragraph for each of the three sections of Chapter 4, but Chapters 2 and 3 are just sort of vaguely alluded to in a couple sentences of the first paragraph. IMO we could use at least a paragraph or two on chapters 2 and 3 (maybe split between the light side and dark side storylines to avoid bloat from excessive "meanwhile"s), with a sentence or two for each tale (such as "In The Memorist's Sorrow, the Warriors of Light find and team up with Argy, an amnesiac robot, and find and infiltrate an imperial shipyard to sabotage the construction of the Heliogabalus, a colossal airship."). That would work out to about 1-2 paragraphs and 8-16 sentences. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that the plot would get too convoluted and too long. Also, not organized by Chapters, but key aspects. Its too long to cover all the tales and its two plots being told are both happening simultaeniously.Lucia Black (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of "During the first three chapters, the Warriors of Light and Darkness travel the world, teaming up with various allies, fighting the Avalon Empire and their Four Generals, gathering crystals and trying to find a way to restore the sundered world. See characters of Final Fantasy Dimensions#Allies for further details."? A lot of the details on Vata could be shuffled over to the characters page as well. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Vata is a key character, more than the other generals. Also, "in the first three chapters" sounds far too guide-like. We really don't need to set it up like that. I don't think that's a good sentence as it already seems far too long. But I'll attempt a compromise.Lucia Black (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO chapters, acts, levels, worlds, discs, episodes and such are often convenient, concise points of reference for describing story structure in video games, and explaining when various overlapping story arcs and key events take place in relation to eachother. As for Vata, I think the coverage of the revelation of his backstory and motivation should either be more detailed and specific, or more concise with a link to his section of the character page. I prefer the former option, but suggested the latter option (the shuffle) as a comproise to maje sure the major story arcs which can't get shuffled into the character page (fighting the Empire, finding the crystals, fixing the world etc.) get better coverage. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Its too gamecruft to setup a plot by chapters. Do novel articles have their plots "in chapter X, Y revealed/happened"? Especially when its original release was not done by "chapters" but individual "episodes". Also, Vata's back story is detailed enough. Youre missing the point of the plot section completely. Its to summarize it as best as possible and still give enough detail so that first time readers can understand it. The "compromise" is somehow decribing chapter 2 and 3 for about a sentence or two. Keep in mind, this compromise is for your benefit alone and i could drop this if you push for something that will affect the plot negatively.Lucia Black (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we should go out of our way to shoehorn in details about which events happen in which chapters. I was arguing that chapter numbers can be useful tools for clearly and concisely establishing chronological context (as alternatives to explaining when things happen in relationship to eachother with needlessly vague, arbitrary, subjective, OR-ish measurements such as "roughly 3/4 of the way through the game", or needlessy verbose and convoluted prose which doesn't convey any additional informartion). I'm pretty sure that sort of thing doesn't fit into any of WP:GAMECRUFT's 11 categories of generally inappropriate / off-topic / unencypclopedic content. TL;DR: I don't think we should go out of our way to shoehorn in references to the chapters or episodes, but I don't think we should go out of our way to avoid referring to them either. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt have to be100% chronological to explain. especially if were only summarizing. referencing plot is mainly optional. Ive been busy. if you want to dd references fine. look up cite video game to use the template. but im against altering the.plot anymore than necessity. Lucia Black (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Appropriate length for the plot summary

I checked the plot summaries of the nine FA-class Final Fantasy articles. It looks like, between plot, setting and backstory, they range from 6k-15k characters, with a geometric mean a little under 9k. The plot section for Final Fantasy Dimensions is shorter than any of them, weighing in at a little under 6k characters including setting and backstory. Dimensions may not have the most elaborate, convoluted plot in the series, but it doesn't have the simplest, most linear plot either, and I think it's unreasonable to expect editors to write an FA-quality summary of the plot and setting with such a tight wordcount budget. Even the notoriosly short and linear Final Fantasy XIII has a bigger plot summary.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of this discussion, and I don't want to waste hours of effort writing up a plot summary that's just going to get cut or reverted. I can see several options to resolve this deadlock:

1. I could back off for a while and let the rest of you handle things here.
2. You could back off for a while and let the rest of us handle things here.
3. We could wait for some other editor to break up the deadlock.
4. We could go to SE project talk page to ask for a third opinion.

(And by "back off", I mean "try to avoid making or reverting major edits to the plot section".)

IMO any of those four options would be preferable the status quo. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Im going to try to reason with you one last time. Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 are incredibly detailed plots that.make very small key info to overall plot. This is the best way to have it. Not only that but the plot is also split between two parties with their plot being told simultaeniously. either we tell both stories in full detail or summarize the plot where it can be comprehensive. The only non linear issue is Elgo seemingly dying being prolonged a little more. And final fantasy XIII is anything but short.Lucia Black (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we've both made our cases, and it doesn't look like we're going to persuade eachother or reach a mutually agreeable comproise any time soon. I'm in no hurry, and don't want to get into an edit war, so I guess I'll go with option 1 and back off for a while. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy Dimensions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have decided to review this article for GA status. This will be expanded as I go along.-- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 02:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is pretty good so far.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The Checklinks tool has nothing that needs to be fixed.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   A lot of information presented here, but not too much.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The most recent history of this page shows no disputes.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I'm wondering if an image for the plot could be handy. Nope, I shouldn't think so.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Looks like a definite pass, just a few more checks. -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 03:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)