Talk:Final Fantasy XIII/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

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)

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 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

As it stands 1UP isn't a reliable source and Josh does have a point that until exclusivity is confirmed it is disingenuous to include it in the article. I suggest that all editors take a step back and the section of the article be removed. 163.156.240.17 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(section moved to following thread to segregate topics of discussion.) --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tangent on Community Behavior

(section moved from previous thread to segregate topics of discussion.) --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:27, 5 June 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)

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. 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

To be fair to Josh I think he has a point. The choice of words that Bluerfn has used are regrettable. There seems to be a trend on this article where a couple of editors are attempting to WP:OWN this article and it’s obvious which ones they are. As far as I can see Bluerfn and Josh have been guilty of violating the guidelines around WP:CIVL. Let remember this is a console game and Wiki is supposed to be an open, collaborative project, not a battle ground or an area to flex ones muscles. 163.156.240.17 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

<--- reset indent

Now I'm confused. Aside from Bluer's singular statement "As regrettably expected from an IP" (which by the way happened after Josh began using personal attacks), how has he violated WP:CIVIL? And how does that compare to Josh's many WP:CIVIL violations? It's also interesting to note that as of my time stamp Josh has attempted to completely delete this discussion three times. This isn't necessarily an uncivil action, but it does demonstrate Josh's ignorance of WP standard practice.

And what's more, who is WP:OWNing the article and how? I see a lot lot of WP:CIVIL violations, I haven't seen any WP:OWN violations. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You editors are astoundingly stupid hypocrits. Stop talking about me, just stop. As for Bluerfn and the other guy, one look at their profiles and you'll see they are Final Fantasy Fanboys. bye bye. 72.49.194.69 21:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Josh

You have confirmed only that you either cannot or will not support your accusations. Please avoid personal attacks. If you have a specific issue with one of the editors, then you should be direct and clear about it. Vague insults and general asides do nothing to explain what your concern is. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 06:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he has a valid point, the way that Bluerfn seems to jump on some of the new editors is rather OTT in my opinion. However this could have been communicated without the fanboy comments.90.192.2.128 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that this discussion is actually talking about a contributor, and not the article. Please refrain from doing so, the comments may be deleted as per talk page guidelines. Additionally, much comments on the contributor are made by IPs, it's understandable, but IPs are encouraged to refer to the talk page guidelines, and follow them as necessary. Thank you for your time. — Bluerで す。 10:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bluerfn, I am sooooooo sick of you. Stop posting in this thread, and don't ever respond to any discussion I start, not ever again. You can take WP Civil and SHOVE IT.72.49.194.69 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Josh

It's amazing how stubbornly unCIVIL you can be, Josh. You need to drop it and let it go. Perhaps taking a break from WP and relieving some Wikistress will help you to get a fresh perspective and a calmer head. You can post whatever you want to get the last word in, but I won't respond any more to this particular subject matter concerning Bluer and your attitude.

To 90.192: I'm not sure what you mean by OTT, the only OTT I know is Wikiproject:Ottawa (WP:OTT), and I'm pretty sure you're not referring to that. Remember WP:WOTTA: not everyone knows what your acronyms mean, it helps to provide links at all times. I also don't see how Bluer has "jumped on some of the new editors". As I tried to say before, vague assertions aren't doing anything except spreading negativity. Please be specific about what problems you are seeing. What specifically has Bluer done to anyone? I have seen one quote that is questionable, and I've already acknowledged that. If there is anything else, then say so and be specific so that we can correct whatever negative behavior there may be. If you either can't or won't say anything specific, then perhaps you should follow Bluer's advice in his last post and refrain from commenting. I segregated this thread so that we could settle this matter in discussion and improve the editing community, not so we could bash one editor without saying anything substantial. If I truly am the only editor who wishes resolution as opposed to continued unbacked accusations, then perhaps this thread should be deleted as unproductive to article improvement. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 17:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I believe it has come to thread deletion. — Bluerで す。 17:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example, there was a suggestion a few months back from an editor regarding the multi platform drama and how this could be dealt with by giving it its own section and I remember the rather instantly dismissive and condescending attitude that Bluerfn appeared to take and looking at it objectively it seemed that this was counter productive and I felt this made the situation worse. There was no attempt to gain consensus only an instant dismissal of the suggestion. Subsequent to this it became apparent that several members supported this suggestion. This isn't a personal attack upon Bluerfn it's just some feedback that I think may be useful for lubricating future interactions on Wiki. I'm also rather puzzled by this rather counter productive "IP contributers" are second class contributors. I think it's counter productive to the ethos of an open collaborative Wiki and their could be a million and one perfectly good reasons why some members don't register and instead choose to contribute using an IP only account. Frankly the comment by Bluerfn feels a bit divisive particularly when taken in context of this discussion. For your clarity when I used OTT I meant "over the top" which I gather is a rather common abbreviation, however I apologise if some people felt alienated by the use of this common abbreviation as you were. I hope we can move this along and I really hope that Bluerfn will take this feedback in manner in which it is intended and not as a personal attack. 90.195.154.99 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand how well meaning this message is. However, you must realize that all I did was based on Wikipedia policy. WP:Verifiability: An argument on the game going to Xbox360 started, and basicaly edit wars occur. WP:Civil: When a response was made on my statements, the response I get are hostile: read up Josh's comment on me being a smart-ass, and subsequent comments and Daedalus' responses above. Even if a person acts like something you must always have good faith that they're not. If you have read Josh's comments, you'll see how he acts impolitely. I have made a bias statement, I admit, but it was triggered only by Josh's hostile response. If he had been polite, this discussion would have gone a better way than at present. 90.195-, I have nothing against IPs, but do not blame me if I regard IPs as second-class due to Josh's response. And again, 90.105-, the talk page isn't an arena to give feedback on editor behavior, this is the article's improvement arena. I hope you and those wishing to give more responses to take my feedback in the manner I intended. — Bluerで す。 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s rather interesting that your response to the feedback appears to contain sarcastic responses "I hope you and those wishing to give more responses to take my feedback in the manner I intended." which appears like you are mimicking 90.105 and you haven't really understood the example that 90.105 raised. Also you have risen about the importance of staying civil when communicating with other editors even when it appears that they are not and you go ahead and do the opposite anyway? 163.156.240.17 12:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the actual source of this -> Josh. The way everyone's been acting, it's as if Bluerfn is the one at fault. But, there's always two sides of the story. The discussion actually started at a previous thread, now archived, I think you should be reading the previous thread. Bluerfn's being uncivil only once, but Josh is being uncivil and unprofessional in many occasions, calling people smart-ass, disruptive. And the way I see it, you only join the discussion without even knowing the situation. You find Bluerfn reply sarcastic, because you don't think well for other people. That's what Josh and many other respondents lack. Ferrick 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Josh said he started the thread "Only to start a reasonable topic to get editors thinking about 1UP.com's recent statement, aswell as to get some viable opinions." Bluerfn isnt wrong about giving his reply. But Josh made the false step when he called Bluerfn a smartass. That's not very clever of him. 218.208.115.25 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied from below as it is relevant) Josh was only trying to add to the contribution and at the same time when Bluerfn jumped on him Josh shouldn't have responded in the way he did. Bluerfn however does have a history of being a bit sarcastic and jumping on the newer editors and I can understand if people get a little miffed by this. 163.156.240.17 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stop being so emotional about this. Especially Josh. You start a discussion, but when people give response you dont want to see, you say this -> Don't quote me to try and defeat me, you'll fail. Here's another thought, why dont you actually contribute to the assessment I'm trying to make instead of being a smart-ass <-. Even I dont like people respond to me that way. If anything, its Joshs fault, I agree with Bluerfn he should not be rude to peoples comments. I think Bluerfn was OTT when he said -> As regrettably expected from an IP. <-, if I were him/her I would not say that, but maybe he had some bad experience with IP contributors you see a lot of them are vandals and do bad edits. Again, if only Josh acted in acceptable manner it would all be fine. milady 04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some sense and postively phrased feedback from this discussion, it is long overdue. To 90.195, thank you for clarifying. It may very well be a common abbreviation, I would just seem to represent the minority that doesn't recognize it at first glance. Thank you for being understanding. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 07:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I only see people bullying Bluerfn in this thread, and nothing talking about FFXIII. 218.208.115.25 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No on is bullying anyone and having just looked over the debate Bluerfn doesn't come off very well, Josh was only trying to add to the contribution and at the same time when Bluerfn jumped on him Josh shouldn't have responded in the way he did. Bluerfn however does have a history of being a bit sarcastic and jumping on the newer editors and I can understand if people get a little miffed by this.163.156.240.17 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To recap: Josh's responses have been outright unacceptable. Bluer's single negative comment was innappropriate, but also it was merely "over the top" and pales in comparison to Josh's many personal attacks and uncivil comments. No one has yet to identify any other violations that Bluer has committed. There have been vague accusations about some editors WP:OWNing this article, yet nothing has been proffered to support this or to identify who exactly is owning. There have been vague accusations of Bluer "jumping" on Josh, though I still don't quite understand how this could be the case when it was Josh whom started this whole mess.

Now that everything is laid out on the table, what is further discussion going to accomplish? All the fingers have been pointed, all the accusations have been made, all the namecalling has been done. This is not a judging panel, there is no punishment that will occur. Bluer has already been warned more than sufficiently that his comment was a little innappropriate. Josh has been warned many times that incivility is unacceptable and that he can be blocked if he continues. What further change could this discussion possibly effect? My suggestion: Let's move on to other things. We are beating a dead horse. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree however it's not true that Bluerfn has only done this the once, I have given a separate example of an occasion where he did something similar to another editor and you are right this is a horse that I think is well and truly beaten. I think it is time we moved on to actually working on the article. 90.195.154.6 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)