Talk:Final Fantasy XIII

Not another content dispute please?

I agree with Teggles. The "Toriyama-April Playstation Magazine" statement can be removed since it's more relevant for the Fabula Nova Crystallis article. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree and think the staus quo should be maintained. I think it is relevent to the article and builds upon the previous entry from which reported the comments from Sony about FF13 exclusivity being under discussion.Movellon 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Final Fantasy XIII, not Fabula Nova Crystallis. The information only pertains to FNC. How, I ask, is that relevant? It's not. Also, in one of your reverts, you claim that editors have agreed that it should be there. Can you show me this? --Teggles 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it adds colour and builds upon the previous point that was added regarding the comments from Sony and gives the reader both sides of a story, one that FF13 may be multi-platform and 2nd that this multi-platform may not be in relation to FF13 and might just mean that it applies across the series. I strongly feel that it should stay in the article. Please show me where consensus has been reached for you to edit it out because I certainly do not agree with that. I think the status quo should be maintained in this instance. So clearly consensus has not been reached.Movellon 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Okay, my solution. Both comments go out. The first comment doesn't build anything concrete the article, it only enforces rumors and speculations. Second comment does that as well. Wikipedia does not want these trivial comments as a matter of fact. It's better for both comments to be removed, and wait for a more concrete and more relevant statement. As for my stand: Remove both comments. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing both. The problem with this is people will consider the removal a "denial from fanboys". But I think the information is only there for the hopeful, simply stated to mislead. The only information on FFXIII's non-exclusivity is from the president of SCE France. This person has ZERO say in FFXIII's development. That kind of information from that kind of person is obviously misleading. --Teggles 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think removing both article that come from verifiable sources and are both relevant to the article is in violation of the Wiki code and they should be kept in. This is an article that is about a product that is still in development and disputes happen. It is very obvious to me that the removal of the article is intended to edit out the opinion that the FF13 is may be going exclusive. It is true that the Sony have cast doubt that it will be exclusive and they'd know as they are the one discussing it with square and it is true that Square have added comment about the series which adds colour to the Sony comment. I think both should stay in the article otherwise I think we should go through the entire article with a fine tooth comb and remove all references and points that don't meet this new criteria that you two have created for these two articles. Movellon 10:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting it's the president of Sony Computer Entertainment France. Hell, it isn't even Sony Computer Entertainment Europe. It's a sub-subsidiary of the company who still have little say on the issue. I don't know what you're thinking, but there's no "Wiki code" (lol) that every single bit of information is provided, even if the information is misleading and, in this case, the person commenting is unreliable. The quote you have made is actually a key point of the argument: "It is very obvious to me that the removal of the article is intended to edit out the opinion that the FF13 is may be going exclusive". That's exactly it. It's an opinion. An opinion from someone uninvolved in the project. --Teggles 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

True, an opinion. Not a fact entirely. People should be able to distinguish between opinion and fact at this stage, surely? Wikipedia builds itself upon facts. I cite this from WP:RS where: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources". But someone wants a consensus. It's clear we have a consensus here. 2 for removing both comments. That's consensus enough for me. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 11:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an opinion from someone unrelated to the production. I don't see how that's notable. --Teggles 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. The president of Sony Computer Entertainment France has said that to his knowledge FF13 isn't exclusive to the PS3 platform, with the greatest respect, I'm sure he would be more qualified to pass comment on that then you two. I'm sure that if that wasn't the case then SCEE or SCE or Square would have corrected him. They haven't. No, I think we should leave it in. Again if you want to be ultra strict with these entries then I suggest we go through the entire article and remove everything that doesn't fit this new regime you want to impose. You can't have it all your own way.Movellon 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are putting words in the French guy's mouth. He has said exclusivity is under negotations - that is all; just means Sony are negotiating to get exclusivity on their platform, not that "to his knowledge... isn't exclusive". So far, the facts are these: it is coming to the PS3; other entries in the FF13 collection are coming to other platforms. As for the FNC quote, that is fact, as other entries are coming to other platforms, and should go in the FNC article, not the FF13 article. 137.205.113.139 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the statement was made in French, it could be very possible to take it multiple ways. I'm opting for the slightly-less-opinoinated "To his knowledge, the game has not been stated as an exclusive." =D ÷ ¿Daisen¡i? ÷ 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been the practice of Wikipedia to ensure verifiability and reliability of sources. We are not "having it all our own way", we strive to create the article to the best of Wikipedia's standards, thus isn't one to source out speculation and rumors. All Final Fantasy articles have been checked into so. Most FF articles have, from their development section to game system, been cited from the developers themselves, and reviews & criticism from relevant and reliable game reviewers. That said, even if you protest on this, once the game comes out this article would be rewritten to the standard FF article for Wikipedia. For examples of standard Wikipedia FF article, see the other FF articles, the FA ones. We've made our stand, you've made yours. What should go, should go. What stays, stays. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is in those entries isn't speculation or rumour. It is true that Sony have said that FF13 being exclusive is under discussion, that is a fact and it's verifiable it is also relevant. It is true that the only thing that Square have said is that the FF13 series will include titles that will be on a range of different platforms. That is verifiable, relevant to the article and the sub-heading and is worthy of note. You even say yourself that MOST FF development sections contain citations from developers themselves, well most doesn't mean all, and this has one citation from square and one direct link to a quote from the president of Sony Computer Entertainment France who says that the platform that was supposed to get FF13 as an exclusive title isn't at this point. So it seems that the thrust that your argument boils down to is that the quotes aren't to do with development or that they don't belong in the development section. I think it should stay and I am prepared to negotiate how it stays; maybe we should have a new section on the article that deals with the continuing situation around the exclusive nature of the tittle. Movellon 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Movellon. We already have a Manual of Style for that, and we follow that, we do not follow your ways :) Good day. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case I think it should stay in the development section if you aren't prepare to even negotiate a way out of this then there should be no changes to the article as it stands. Movellon 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a consensus then.

• Not remove "I think it should stay in the development section," says Movellon. Opinion.
• Remove per unrelated to subject
• remove per opinion
• remove per not notable source unrelated to production,
• remove per following Manual of Style.

That settles it. Remove disputed content. 219.95.171.61 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two cents:

• The French guy is president of Square Enix France and IS an authority of the goings-on of SE, unless otherwise corrected/contradicted by SE itself, which hasn't happened.
• However, "Exclusivity under negotiations" does not mean that it isn't exclusive, so we cannot say that it isn't exclusive. Based on all official announcements, it is still exclusive, just because they are considering other options doesn't mean that they have actually changed their plans yet.
• Information about FNC not being exclusive is irrelevant to FFXIII. It belongs in FNC's article, not here.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the disputed passages were fine as they were and I think they should be re-instated. I think that the two people who want them removed have been a bit too quick off the mark and bit too eager to push this through. There needs to be reference at least to the fact that exclusivity is under discussion which was what the entry basically said. So it is far to early to call consensus on this subject as clearly there isn't and as movellon said the bit about Sony France should stay, I don't think the bit about FNC should though and that belongs in another section. I also like his idea of having a separate heading to contain the bit that some want removed, that seems like a nice compromise. I think some people on here are being a little bit gung ho about removing parts of the article. 90.195.154.128 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statment from 90.195.154.128 but I think that the FNC could be left there as well. I also think that a section on the ongoing exclusivity is a great idea movellon, I would support that. 163.156.240.17 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Development section's appropriate for that info, creating new sections just for that exclusivity just make it a trivia. It only looks to me like movellon's making it his/her article, making suggestions as if he/she created that article. Such inappropriate etiquette. 219.95.31.65 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me, if anything it looks like the other two are trying to stamp their authority on the article and that’s just a subjective experience isn’t it? This isn't something that I think we should be discussing here because we can’t possibly know the real motives behind why people are doing anything and we should be responding to the suggestions without throwing accusations at people. I think that some people on here need to step back a bit and chill out. For what it’s worth it looks like Movellon’s idea of a section on the on going exclusive nature of the title is something that I think is worthy of consideration and was a rather nice compromise and at least one other person who has commented agrees.163.156.240.17 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 219.95.31.65. It is not compromise, more like blackmailing people to follow their idea. besides, the exclusivity section is useless since there's only like little info on that. really more like trivia. this is a response to a suggestion, as we "should be" doing, if you dont mind. 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.31.37 (talk)

With the greatest respect making accusations like that is really out of order in my view. Was there any need for it? Does it add anything to discussion. Sure discuss movellon's idea about another section but please don't resort to name calling or getting aggressive. I think it was a perfectly reasonable idea and from the casual outside observer it looks like some older hands are trying to bully the new comer. It's not pleasant and it's not what Wiki is about. As someone else said I think there are quite a few people on here that need to calm down a bit. 90.195.154.187 07:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the article was okay until some people act up and want to put everything to this article like their the one doing the game. they should be patient and stop doing changes until the game realy come out. and then i'm sure editors should know what their suppose to do. exclusive or not they should just leave that out to gaming forums to discuss. milady 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that anyone here is trying to WP:OWN this article, they are all just trying to improve it as they feel is appropriate. The only problem is that some of the people making changes are forgetting WP's policies and guidelines. For example, there have been WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:FAITH, WP:3RR, WP:BITE and WP:NPA violations throughout this entire issue. And these are basic principals of conduct, they should be common sense. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be a bit late but I support keeping both articles in and I also support giving the exclusive "saga" it's own section. 81.151.118.100 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Support backed =D ÷ ¿Daisen¡i? ÷ 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Exclusivity in regards to the new trailer

1UP.com apparently reports that Final Fantasy XIII is to remain a PS3 exclusive based on the trailer shown at the Square Enix 2007 Party, stating that the trailer reconfirmed this. The problem is, as anyone who has seen the trailer would already know, that the trailer doesn't reconfirm this at all. No where in the trailer, having viewed it myself, does it state 'PS3 exclusive' anywhere at all. The only thing that could be interpreted as suggesting this would be the fact that the trailer gives the playstation symbol, or rather, the trailer says 'Playstation 3'. Obviously, whether FFXIII is exclusive or not, it will be brought to the Playstation 3, so the trailer is only stating the obvious. I honestly do not know how 1UP.com drew a 'PS3 exclusive' conclusion from that trailer, and it completely misrepresents the trailer. 72.49.194.145 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

Well if only the playstation logo was shown and this late in the game no announcements have been made especially at the 2007 SE party, *shrug* i dont know i'm on the fence on this one.~Corpse 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't exclusive doesn't matter. The trailer says PS3, and nothing else, logic tells us that this implies exclusivity. But while it would be OR for us to make such a conclusion ourselves, citing someone else who has made that conclusion is perfectly acceptable. "Verifiability, not truth." --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to assess the claims of the source that you present as verifiablity, especially when it comes from ONLY one source, namely 1UP.com. I saw the trailer myself at the show and I drew a different conclusion than 1UP.com yet I am not cited in the article as they are. The trailer DOES NOT, I cannot overemphasize this, it DOES NOT ANYWHERE OR IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM declare or state that FFXIII is a PS3 exclusive title. IT SIMPLY DOESN'T. There is no need for interpretation here, neither the trailer nor the Square-Enix representatives at the event stated the game was a PS3 exclusive. When the company itself DOES NOT say this, there is no reason to turn to a second-hand source. 72.49.194.145 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

Also, in regards to your statement that logic tells us the contrary. Many video game titles are developed on one platform then changing to multi-platform, just because a trailer shows only one logo, doesn't mean anything. If we took your point of logic, than we should say there will never be a PC version of Grand Theft Auto 4 because thus far, we have only seen logos for the Xbox 360 and PS3, despite the fact that Dan Houser and infact, Rockstar Games, has never stated they were not developing it for the PC. 72.49.194.145 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

If you see a trailer and it ends with "for the PS3", then it is logical to assume that it is not planned for any other systems, but that's neither here nor there since that is WP:OR (and I said so in my last post). What conclusions you draw are irrelevant, as it is unpublished and not a RS. Whether 1up is a WP:RS itself is a seperate point of contention. I know nothing about it, so I can't really comment on that point, but assuming it were not a RS then just delete the mention, assuming it is a RS then my point stands. If a RS draws a conclusion, then we may post that conclusion. If you are worried about maintaining WP:NPOV, then I suppose you can say something along the lines of "1up.com reports that it is exclusive, though there is not yet official word from SE." Your example of GTA4 just verifies my point. If they have only shown logos for Xbox 360 and PS3, then logically my assumption is that those are the only platforms they are planning on releasing it on. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that it will never be on PC, I will say that as it currently stands it will not be released on PC, that isn't to say they won't port it later on. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"When the company itself DOES NOT say this, there is no reason to turn to a second-hand source."

If this is taken into account, then maybe we shouldn't have quoted from the French Sony Executive? Just a thought. — Bluerで す。 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering he's not an executive for Square-Enix, and nothing was announced by Square-Enix, then yeah maybe we should'nt include his comment. Don't quote me to try and defeat me, you'll fail. Here's another thought, why don't you actually contribute to the assessment I'm trying to make instead of being a smart-ass.72.49.194.145 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

What bad faith attitude. As regrettably expected from an IP. You misinterpreted my query as some sort of a wisecrack remark? Don't be reckless. And why do you need to push your point up to disapprove FFXIII exclusivity? Will it help improve the article? — Bluerで す。 07:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then no game could ever be labled exclusive for the possibility of some PC or other port years down the line. We can only go by what was shown and what was not. The PS3 logo was shown. ~Corpse 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not just an IP, you have a name, USE IT. My name is Josh, it isn't some codename either like yours Bluerfn. Don't try and redeem yourself, it was intended to be a wisecrack and that's exactly what it is. The only bad faith is your lack of contribution to the assessment I was trying to make. Your quite meddlesome, so much so that I really don't want your input at all. So if you happen across another topic I start in another article, don't bother responding to it. Nice little welcome from a so called member that thinks hes above IP's, even though you clearly have my name. If you want, I'll give you more than a name, I'll give you my own myspace url and my vampirefreaks url, hell, I'll give you my cell phone # if you'd like to chat. I admit, I won't have anything nice to say.72.49.194.145 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

This is a reminder, editors. What we aim to create here is not a rumor-mongering, speculative gaming forum, but a verifiable and reliable encyclopedia. We do not inform readers beyond what is the told by our sources, because it is not Wikipedia's nature to do so. As for the said case, FFXIII may or may not be an exclusive title, but it is not for us to decide. We do not theorize, make claims and create assumptions based on our sources. If only the PS3 logo is shown in the trailer, then say it's for the PS3, but don't create a statement saying it is a PS3 exclusive if the primary source -Square Enix- says nothing about it. It is pointless to continue the exclusivity discussion if we are lacking reliable sources, so until it is confirmed by Square Enix, please end this talk immediately. — Bluerで す。 18:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One minute you resort to personal attacks against me, the very next you want to end the topic I began. Real smooth Bluerfn or whatever your name is. I didn't mean to ignore you Corpsedust, but as for what you said, YOU ARE RIGHT. I agree with you there. 72.49.194.145 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

You call what I'm doing "rumor-mongering"?? I cannot believe you said that or call me that. If that's the case, then I guess the Sony exec in France and 1UP.com are also rumor-mongering. I suppose then, the latest trailer is also a rumor-mongering source too.72.49.194.145 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

Wow, just wow. Please calm down, remember WP:CIVIL. No one is attacking you, there is no need to get defensive. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ Nicholai D. Bluerfn has been attacking me. All editors please note that I HAVE NOT changed, edited, revised, vandalized, or even touched the main article at all. I never intended to. Only to start a reasonable topic to get editors thinking about 1UP.com's recent statement, aswell as to get some viable opinions. So while Bluerfn is throwing a fit about a topic I created, the article itself, I haven't touched at all.72.49.194.145 18:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

My first remark was only a thought. An idea of sorts. My opinion, if you may. I never started an attack, but you thought I was being a "smart-ass". Doesn't that borders towards bad faith? That attitude made me thought that IPs tend to act this way. Why shouldn't I? After all, here I am giving my humble opinion, which I dare say would be ignored, and you thought I am bashing you. It's clearly a case of misunderstanding on your part. I'm done here. — Bluerで す。 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How has he attacked you? He started by asking an honest question based on an observation he made, and you responded by calling him a smart-ass. You have accused him of many things, including thinking he is above IP's, calling him meddlesom, and numerous offensive insinuations. From the way I see it, you are throwing a fit, he is not. He is merely trying to diffuse an otherwise volatile discussion that was made volatile in the first place by your reactions.

Now we can banter back and forth all day about who said what, and who did what, but it isn't going to accomplish anything. When concerns and side comments turn into arguments, it is best to take this sort of thing to User Talk pages, that's what they're there for. This page should be limited to only discussion about improving the article, not he-said she-said squabbles. So here's my advice: calm down, don't get overly-defensive, and let it drop. If you truly have a beef with Bluer, then take it to his talk page. If you have nothing more to say about improving the article, then don't post here. I'm done here as well. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 18:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It figures that you would side with Bluerfn. Thanks alot guys.72.49.194.145 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

I did not say he thought he was above IP's, he stated that by saying "What bad faith attitude. As regrettably expected from an IP." Apparently he can't make observations or input without attacking me.72.49.194.145 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

A few final remarks. Technically, he is above IP's, for at least two reasons, IP's are NOT members and they can be totally anonymous. I should remind you Bluerfn, members also can act in bad faith and excert the same attitudes. Also, I didn't ignore your opinion Bluerfn, I didn't like how you couldn't give your opinion without attacking me. Technically you are also right in your line of thinking with the opinion you gave. But please remember, the President of Sony France has much greater weight and authority than 1UP.com does, I would believe the former over the latter in regards to what is going on in the Sony world anyday of the week.72.49.194.145 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh