Talk:Final Fantasy VIII/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Final Fantasy VIII. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I took out one line added to the introduction ("...the game is significantly shorter than the others.") Yes, it's possible to finish the game quickly but any other title in the series can be completed in less than fifteen hours. Not entirely truthful and irrelevant as well. -Jonas

Sry, i deleted the t-rexuar picture from the gameplay section, it was seriously displacing the text from the header for the gameplay section, if anyone can get around this revert it and make it look right. -Tik

The "allegory" and "fanbase" sections strike me as unnecessary: the first is dodgy speculation from "fans" (a bad indication if there ever was one), and the second is self-aggrandizing, unsubstantiated cruft which makes the article appear highly unprofessional. I propose that both are deleted.

I see a lot of this stuff in the articles about FF, anime and things like that, so much that I made a Wikiproject about it yesterday. Please take a look if you agree with my general sentiment. Harp Heaven 10:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree strongly about the "fanbase" section: Final Fantasy VIII is likely one of the more controversial installments of the series, and making a note of that fact, as well as why it is so, is as important as anything we do here. It does need to be cleaned up substantially, though. I've done a little bit, but there's still quite a bit left to do. The "allegory" section, OTOH, would probably fall under the rubric of original research, and should probably be removed. – Seancdaug

I'm deleting the "allegory" section. Since you objected to taking out the "fanbase section, I'll leave it for now, but I still think it needs to go. I'm rewriting it so it sounds a bit better. Harp Heaven 16:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting "rewrite" you've applied there, deleting the whole section. I understand that you mean well, but it's generally considered inappropriate to remove sections as NPOV without explicitly clarifying your objection to the material. As the section has been substantially rewritten since your initial complaint, your sudden and unexplained removal of the section (after you'd agreed to leave it for the time being) was uncalled for. – Seancdaug 03:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article states: "Some elements in the game show that Ultimecia is in fact Rinoa in the futur." Now, last I had heard this was highly controversial, and probably not correct. I'll go look up some info on this later, unless someone knows outright. If it is incorrect, I'm removing the line. Baryonyx 05:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Apparently, this is too heated a conversation for most FF fans to have. In my brief checking on this, I'm shocked by how nasty this gets, so, if it is staying in, as I think it should because it's so big a debate, it must be NPoV. I propose: "There is a contentious, heavily debated theory that Ultimecia may in fact be Rinoa. This has been debated, with point/counterpoint discussions, for several years, though the ultimate veracity of the theory would depend on Square-Enix's confirmation. As none has been forthcoming, this remains hotly debated." Baryonyx 16:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

This debate is age-old. I have no idea what the general consensus is. It's such a big debate that it's worthy of a mentioning in the article, although you must keep in mind that there has never been produced any concrete evidence. All arguments that say Rinoa is Ultimecia are circumstantial. Of course, I may be wrong, as I haven't been paying attention to this particular debate for a long, long time, but I doubt that any new evidence has been found. --Michiel Sikma 16:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The Final Fantasy VIII Ultimania Guide, an official publication of Square-Enix, states that Witches have ordinary human lifespans. In other words, Witches aren't immortal, that being the core assumption of the "Rinoa is Ultimecia" concept. Meaning that she can't be her. Further, it's heavily implied both in-game and by the Ultimania Guide that Ultimecia is simply a Witch from the future who wished to circumvent her prophecied fate to die at the hands of SeeD. Go here to read more (it's an original research analysis compiled by some fans of the game):

http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/file/final_fantasy_viii_time_ultimecia.txt

Here, by the way, is a scan of the Witches section of the book:

http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scan6gm.jpg

Ryu Kaze January 26, 2006

This discussion was had, at great length, over at the late-and-not-very-lamented Ultimecia article (the majority of which consisted of a lengthy treatise on this wildly unencyclopedic topic). I'm not sure where this argument starting getting floated as some sort of conclusive counterpoint to the R=U theory, but I do feel compelled to point out that time travel plays a rather major role in the game, especially towards the end, and that there is absolutely no reason Rinoa needed to live linearally through the intervening years to reach the time period from which Ultimecia originated: lots of characters are sliding back and forth through time during the endgame sequence. I can't help but feel that this case intentionally misrepresents the whole R=U hypothesis in its attempt to debunk it (see straw man fallacy). Which, to be sure, I don't particularly care about one way or the other. But what does bother me is that it essentially inserts Wikipedia into a partisan debate over self-evident fanon, violating NPOV in the process. I would agree that its notable enough as a fandom phenomenon to deserve maybe a sentence or so, but the problem is that every previous attempt to introduce it as a fair but factual footnote or bit of trivia has inevitably spiralled into a hulking behemoth of unencyclopedic fancruft (such as this). The ultimate problem is that it seems impossible to even mention this in passing without making it a beacon for trouble. As Michiel Sikma says, it's noncanonical and there's been nothing to suggest that the connection was ever intended by the creators of the game. Honestly, I don't believe it's noteworthy enough to deserve the headaches that its inclusion will cause. – Seancdaug 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not relevant enough to mention on this page, though I felt a slight mention of it should be added to the Rinoa page and went about placing it there in a rather NPOV manner, if I do say so myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinoa_Heartilly

As for your point concerning time travel, that's going extremely far afield, except, of course, in terms of FanFiction. Time travel only occurred on one occasion, and only while the structural integrity of the entire timeline itself was being compromised and fused into a single point by the Time Compression Spell. The point being made is that going on only what the folks at Squaresoft stated in-game and in the Ultimania Guide, there's absolutely no reason to believe that it could be the case, especially when the core assumption of the theory is outright contradicted by official materials. Of course, being that you don't see any reason to believe in the matter either, I don't have to convince you of this (though I will point out that the main characters fight and kill 11 other Witches on their way through the future to Ultimecia's era, which, in itself, doesn't lend to the belief that the same Witch hung onto the Embodiment across however many generations that was).

That said, again, I agree that the matter's not relevant enough to mention on this page which should serve as a general interest entry on the overall game, with little to no specific details as far as the characters go. That should, of course, be reserved for the individual character pages. In said spirit, I do feel that it's relevant enough to mention on the Rinoa page, as it is possible to bring up the issue in an encyclopedic manner. You're correct in stating that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to take sides on the issue, yet if the matter is brought up at all, it should be done so in such a way as to be informative without necessarily sounding biased.

Ryu Kaze 10:49 January 27, 2006

Well, I think the fanfiction comment is extremely telling because, of course, this entire argument isn't much more than fanfiction. But I didn't make this one up: the most common version of the "theory" I've ever heard involved Rinoa assuming the mantle of Ultimecia as a result of the whole time compression business, jumping ahead directly to Ultimecia's home era. I'm sure that's not the only version of it, but I'm also not sure it's any more of a stretch than any other version, especially considering that the game sort of fudges on the details, meaning that a lot of the ending is open to interpretation. Interpretation which, as a rule, we should stay the heck away from.

The reason I desperately want to avoid bringing up this "evidence" is because: a) we don't need to. This is noncanonical fanfic material: it's only "important" (one way or the other) to a group of devout fans who probably comprise a miniscule fraction of the number of people who would have interest in reading a Wikipedia article on the game. Beyond that, I also feel that b) it always seems to lead wiki brinksmanship. It's one thing if we stick to absolutely inarguable facts. Fact 1: there are some people who have played the game who feel that the R=U theory has merit. Fact 2: there is absolutely no reason to believe that the developers of the game intended gamers to identify any connection between the two characters beyond that which is explciitly shown in the game. The repeated citation of the Ultimania Guide is not relevant here: it is (or is likely to be interpreted) as a straw man misrepresentation of the theory, which throws us into solidly POV territory. Also, unless there is a section of the work that I'm unaware of that actually deals with the R=U theory (and there isn't), it's essentially original research, and it doesn't belong here on those grounds, either. It's also a little self-indulgent to link to a talk page discussion as a citation for an article, as was being done in the recent Rinoa edit. – Seancdaug 05:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You make good points and your revision to the section sounds decent on the whole, though I think the "there is no reason to believe..." line may need to be expanded upon slightly (I'll take care of it) so as to be sure it sounds NPOV. I see your point on the citation of the Ultimania Guide not being necessary within the scope of the article and not being necessary due to the plot holes statement covering that. This would also be true of the matter of the 11 Witches fought while SeeD travels to the future and true of Ultimecia's goals bearing nothing remotely relevant as far as a similarity to Rinoa is concerned.

That said, though, I do need to point out that in my almost seven years of watching the "R=U" debates, every single incarnation I have ever witnessed -- and there have litterally been hundreds -- had the "Witches are immortal" concept at its center. The concept you mentioned doesn't fit any incarnation of the theory I've ever seen, quite simply because Rinoa goes back to her present era with the others. That, and time travel's not something that can be done all that easily. While Time Compression was occurring is the only time we ever saw anyone physically move through time, and only then with it being six individuals who were focusing on one another, each maintaing the existance of the other through their interrelated concentration. The concept of Time Compression's left vague enough -- and what we know of it is too difficult for most non-devout players to really theorize on anyway -- for it to have ever become much of a point of debate on the matter, and when it has been brought up, it was always in a manner that contradicted the goal the game and the Ultimania Guide tells us Ultimecia had.

Anyway, I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Just not on the Straw Man Fallacy, because that HAS been the core concept of the theory for the last six and a half years. Check any site from RPGamer through GameFAQs to any Final Fantasy forum that has ever had a debate on the matter and you'll see what I mean. If you go looking for them, you won't have to look very hard to find one or two or a couple of dozen, I promise.

I think that was the core concept of the theory, by the way, because even the most non-devout of the game's fans probably picked up on how unlikely the notion is if one has to go assuming that some unexplained and unimplied time travel occurred, or that Rinoa was in suspended animation for hundreds of years. It was probably far easier to build a case when assuming that nothing was being contradicted or pulled out of one's ass in supporting the theory. I admit that before the information from the Ultimania Guide became relatively well-known here on the Western front, most every serious debater on the issue from Sir Bahamut and Squall of SeeD on down to Random Forum Member With "Cloud" Somewhere In His Name conceded that the matter was a stand-still as far as debate goes. The unconfirmed issue of the immortality of Witches was really the dividing line between there being a measure of plausibility in the theory and there being none.

Anyway, I've kind of gone off on a tangent and we're on pretty much the same page anyway. Good talking with you.

Ryu Kaze 05:57 January 28, 2006

I've redirected a number of recently created articles regarding individual characters from Final Fantasy VIII to this main article. All of them were virtually substubs, and said nothing more than "so-and-so is a character from Final Fantasy VIII," less than was actually on this page. It brings up the question of what characters actually warrant individual articles: certainly the main characters (Squall, Rinoa, possibly Laguna), but beyond that? It's my personal inclination to avoid article sprawl: information about Final Fantasy VIII should be here, on the Final Fantasy VIII page, and not spread over dozens of pages all across Wikipedia. In extreme circumstances when there is simply too much information to fit in the main article, then you can spin it off into its own seperate page, but that did not seem to be the case with any of these examples. I left the page on Quistis as it was, because it did have a reasonable amount of detailed information, but I'm inclined to attempt to merge that into this article anyway, and leave the seperate articles as an exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts? – Seancdaug 22:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. A vocal minority turned Final Fantasy VI into a fancruft-fest of the worst order; I'm glad someone's trying to turn back the tide here. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Holy cats, that's a long list. Maybe it needs an article of its own? Something along the lines of:

"The roles of the sorceresses in the game lead to many logical consistencies, as summarised in the list of plot holes in Final Fantasy 8. Sockatume 23:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The list shouldn't even be there to start with. Certainly, the name "plot holes" is hardly NPOV, and the usage is incorrect ("unanswered question" does not necessarily equal "plot hole"). And many of the entries are just... odd. The name "Lunatic Pandora," for instance, while not making a great deal of sense, is hardly a plot hole within the context of the game. Some of them are positively grasping at straws: the lack of churches and/or temples is no more a plot hole than the lack of bathrooms in most RPGs, or the fact that there generally seem to more people wandering around towns in most console RPGs than there are houses for them to live in. While there are some decent points buried in there, most of them should be incorporated into other sections: the Rinoa/Ultimecia and related information, such as time compression and Griever, could be mentioned in the "Fanbase" section, as much of it is now, or even in a new subsection specifically dealing with the subject. But even then, most of it would need to be heavily rewritten to be suitable for a general interest resource like Wikipedia. – Seancdaug 01:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, I only read the first half-dozen or so, and those seemed fairly reasonable. I guess it slides after that. Sockatume 16:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If you've seen the Xenogears/Xenosaga page, you've probably seen the extensive plot encyclopedia under construction. FF8 is my favorite game (next to, not surprisingly, the Xeno-series in general), primarily because of its excellent storyline. So, I propose that we maintain a plot encyclopedia of all elements (we can link to preexisting pages and add items not yet discussed). If you guys hate the idea, feel free to delete it. It seems to have worked fairly well on the Xeno pages.

PS: I'm Deckiller...just not logged in ^_^

• A non-registered user just added this section to the encyclopedia. I'm woundering if we should keep it, or disperse it throughout the article?--ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Ok, that got posted as I was making my last post. so scratch what i said. Deckiller, log in next time, so we can see who does the posting. The FF8 article from what i see just from an initial scan of the plot encyclopedia, (while i'm at work), is that some sections of it can be dispersed through out the entire article. For instance, Supporting character's could be put into the Character's section of the article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• As it stands now, it's just a list, and not an especially informative one, at that. It's only going to be meaningful to people who've already played the game, and, quite frankly, they are not the audience this article should be written for. And the extra wikilinks, frankly, encourage fancruft: "Dollet," for example, really doesn't deserve its own article. If we're going to discuss any of the things in this list, they should be integrated elsewhere into the article. And a lot of items simply don't justify inclusion at all. For an in-depth fansite, (say, Final Fantasy Wiki, this material would definitely be relevant. For a general interest encyclopedia, it is not. I'm gonna delete it. Sorry. – Seancdaug 15:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • sounds like a smart move. That was the general idea i was getting, but i wanted to hear it from someone else as well.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the story for this page if vague and more back cover of a book type material then the other Final Fantasy's. I think it needs to be completely redone. Do I have any support in this?

It could definately do with some more material, just to expand it to the end of the plot, but try to keep it fairly short and to-the-point. There's an unforutnate tendency for plot summaries to expand into novelisations here. ;) Sockatume 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the Limit Breaks section of this article is getting out of hand. Shouldn't the game's article provide a brief explanation of the mechanics instead of every single limit every character has? They should probably be in to the individual character articles anyway. Anyone agree? ~ Hibana 17:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that. The existing introductory paragraph covers them pretty well. Gamemaker 09:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read from the chocobo article that FFVIII is compatible with the Japanese PocketStation and that it allows you play a mini-game called Chocobo World as Boco to give your Guardian Forces extra abilities in the main game. How can this be integrated into the main article? ~ Hibana 18:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the link in the Game Reception section talks about the game's overall sales in 1999, which are stated at the top of the section. But there is nothing sourced for information on the game's popularity boost due to RPGs. ~ Hibana 05:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to speak too fast, but I think there is no source because this is pure speculation from the person who put this. It is said: "These two games in the Final Fantasy saga, arguably the two most popular, are perhaps benefitting from greater interest in RPG's altogether, such as World of WarCraft, Neverwinter Nights, Guild Wars, and the upcoming Final Fantasy XII." Please note the words perhaps, this is a sign of speculation most of the time. I suggest this part is removed.--DarkEvil 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I just removed another section that I felt was just repeating information and highly opinionated. If there isn't any objections to the factual dispute, I'm removing the popularity spike comment soon. ~ Hibana 19:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I can piece together from the version history of the article and the version history of the talk page, I assume you're talking about the "criticisms and fan reception" section. While this section is inherently opinionated, it is the opinion of quite a large segment of FF8 players. Many of these criticisms I've seen over and over again on various reviews and various message boards. It also seems rather strange that the "Fanbase and criticism" section has no criticisms at all. Viltris 21:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that most of these articles have been catagorized, but some people seem to ignore that catagories. I figured that putting these lists and articles together in a section will help some newcomers to Wikipedia find information quickly. Feel free to delete if the majority of you don't like it. Deckiller 00:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If someone reads the article, they can find the wiki for all of those other topics. That's just not the format of these articles. ~ Hibana 00:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The fanbase section has some POV. I'll try to clean it up when I get the chance. Deckiller 21:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following lines from the Reception and Criticism section, on the grounds that they are POV and unverifiable: "Perhaps the game's most revolutionary feature, its compelling love story, has provided the basis for the claim made by many that the game is "the Titanic of video games." More so than any game that preceded it, Final Fantasy VIII weaved an epic romance that tugged at the heartstrings of gamers worldwide." Who exactly calls FFVII 'the Titanic of video games'? If a source/reference for that quote can be found, it can be kept, but otherwise there's no justification for keeping it. Similarly, the phrase 'more so than any game that preceded it...' is arguable - there were several games with detailed and involving romantic plots before FFVII, though they may not have been as influential. - Terraxos, 19:31, 29 January 2006

I just removed it again. It was just re-added by User:64.203.10.156 still without reference or explaination. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if I was god of Wiki, I'd make it so that one had to sign up to edit. Also, I'd suggest strict guidelines for vandalism; one warning. Oh well ^_^. Deckiller 21:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Try to assume good faith. This user may well just be a newbie. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it back. I should have checked the talk page first. :) --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Numerous of my attempts to modify the Final Fantasy VIII article have been met with unfounded opposition. Amongst one of my edits was the replacement of “large and widespread” with “gigantic” when describing Final Fantasy VIIIs fan base. The fan base of Final Fantasy VIII is gigantic. This is noticeable from any forum discussion which deals with the genre. Why do I have to cite a source for the claim that the fan base is "gigantic" while the individual who added "large and widespread" remains free of harassment? I do not appreciate this blatant discrimination which a few long-standing members of this decorum feel they can exercise as a method to implement their opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vost (talk • contribs) .

Vost, I understand your concern; they haven't been reverted for the term "gigantic", but for the "Titanic of video games" part; we need to cite a source for that to be crediable. I do agree that the fanbase is large, although we may need to base that (whatever the term is) on some data if we want to get this article featured in the future. Deckiller 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a source or two for that titanic part, I would be more than happy to keep it. It is a very interesting observation and it is a good addition to the section, we just need it cited. Deckiller 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. It can also be replaced with "Final Fantasy VIII featured a fanbase comparable to that of Final Fantasy VII", which is neutral, reasonable, and fair. Deckiller 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Numerous of my attempts to modify the Final Fantasy VIII article have been met with unfounded opposition. Amongst one of my edits was the replacement of “large and widespread” with “gigantic” when describing Final Fantasy VIIIs fan base. The fan base of Final Fantasy VIII is gigantic. This is noticeable from any forum discussion which deals with the genre. Why do I have to cite a source for the claim that the fan base is "gigantic" while the individual who added "large and widespread" remains free of harassment? I do not appreciate this blatant discrimination which a few long-standing members of this decorum feel they can exercise as a method to implement their opinions.

UPDATE

I have discussed this with several of the persons who are involved with the subject of Final Fantasy VIII's fan base. Even though I believe that "gigantic" is the most accurate word/phrase to describe the fan base of Final Fantasy VIII, I concede to the point that this word does bring up serious issues on neutrality. I've therefore changed the descriptive phrase "large and widespread" to "quite large and widespread," as a means of incorporating the idea of a huge fan base, but with a less offensive tone. I am sure some people may not agree with this addition of the adverb ‘quite’, but since I have made every effort to explain myself, I would appreciate it also if further edits to this section of the article would be explained. Thanks.

P.S. Various websites on the internet show proof of Final Fantasy VII and VIII’s popularity. One of these websites I used to base my edits from is eyesonFF.com. The threads and topics there (for a section devoted to a single game) are most numerous for Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy VIII. ~ Vost 13:39, 3 February 2006 (PST)

Drawing conclusions from raw data and placing it in articles breaks the WP:NOR policy. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note regarding the recent changes/reverts in the Reception & Criticism section. There were already entries that were worded in the "some fans love it, some fans hate it" style; as well as not representing the middle ground (which does exist), all these earlier versions, including the latest attempt, use weasel words, which Wikipedia policy advises are avoided. >Gamemaker 10:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

A middle ground exists for virtually every topic which warrants opinion. By stating that this game was recieved with a PRIMARILY love/hate reaction better reflects and represents the controversy and general feel towards the VIIIth installment of the Final Fantasy series. Also, the game IS a sequel in the broader sense of the word, and it is this broader sense of the word that is cited as the primary defintion by such dictionaries as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. My edits are accurate and do not require reversion simply because of bias against this game. Thank you. User: Vost- 13 February 2006 1851

When you make points, please do not deem other editors "biased" for no reason. Thanks. Deckiller 03:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but I can't help to notice the editing history of this article, and how it reflects continued polarization against and for it. I'm not going to implement the same edits again in the "Reception and Criticism" section if they are once again reversed. I still support the truism that most RPG-players with an opinion on this game either love it or hate it and that the game technically is a sequel within the Final Fantasy universe. The difference between X-2 and the other installments is simply that X-2 is a direct sequel. But, like I said, if you guys do not want that edit to stay in the "R and C" section, I will not include it again in the same context since it seems (so far) that several people disagree with that last sentence. Vost 2102, 13 February 2006 (PST)

JiFish, your reversions of my edits on the Final Fantasy VIII article are unfounded and contradictive. Firstly, ALL Final Fantasy games in the main series after Final Fantasy I ARE sequels. They need not be directly related since the primary definition of sequel according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is "something that follows, a continuation." I have already stated this in my posts but you have once again abused your position at WikiPedia to revert an accurate and correct edit. There are many other video games and movies which bear sequels that are unrelated to the original in terms of characters or main story line. Here are some examples: The horror movies House and House II are not related. The action thrillers Prophecy 4 and Prophecy 5 are unrelated to Prophecy 1, 2, and 3. The horror movie “Curse” had about 2 or 3 unrelated sequels which followed it. The Namco series “Tales” has subsequent installments unrelated to the previous.

Also, if you reference the article “Computer and video game clichés” on Wikipedia.org, you will see that it is explicitly stated at the end of the “Sequels, midquels, and prequels” section, that the Final Fantasy games ARE sequels. The basic idea of the sequel is that it has the general “feel” of the previous installment evident in its plot, and that it usually bears the same title. Please reference this article and correct the changes you made on the Final Fantasy VIII article, otherwise I will be forced to take further action.

Secondly, why do you require me to cite a source for stating that the game harbored polar opinions, yet DO NOT require sources or have problems with the current revision of "the game caused mixed reactions"? It is a COMMON fact that this game was received with a love/hate relationship in the gaming community and it is a much more accurate statement than saying the game received mixed reactions. Someone who is reading the "Reception and Criticism" section of the article will understand the gaming community's reaction much better than by simply stating "the game had mixed reactions." I believe you are biased in this regard and should revert your edits back to mine. I have chosen not to change the Final Fantasy VIII article due to your continued abuse of your position here at WikiPedia, but will take action if you do not correct your current disposition.

Thirdly, as mentioned above, the fact that Final Fantasy VIII created a polarization of opinions is commonly known. I can gather at least 30 websites where the reviews, forums, and polls of respected game review organizations and the gaming community in general reflect this fact. But why should I do this when I am up against certain bias and abuse of authority on a public web board which blatantly portrays a misuse of power? You need sources for my edits, but you do not have problems with the edits to which you have reverted, not to mention that my edit is of an axiomatic nature. This is not what WikiPedia is about, and I hope you will correct yourself and change the article to reflect once again my accurate revisions; otherwise I will be forced to take further action with administrators and/or edit the article myself.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. -VOST 1123, 14 February 2006 (PST)

EDIT For those who are new to this argument, the sentence in question is the final sentence of the second paragraph in the "Reception and Criticism" section of the Final Fantasy VIII article. The sentence now reads "These changes caused mixed reactions within the fan community." The sentence I changed it to before it was reverted by JiFish was "While many fans of the series cite this as their least favorite installment of the Final Fantasy sequels, others defend it as the greatest of all."I believe this statement possesses greater accuracy than the first, yet still retains a neutral point of view regarding this game. The response above this edit contains a more detailed defense of my edits. Please comment your support or opposition so that I have a better idea of whether or not I should keep changing this sentence in the face of a few individuals who consistently revert such edits. Thank you.

-VOST 1143, 14 February 2006 (PST)

My thoughts: I would avoid using the word "sequel." On one level, yes, Final Fantasy VIII is a sequel to Final Fantasy VII, in that one was released after the other, and both were released under the Final Fantasy banner. But the first sentence of the sequel article here on Wikipedia states that a sequel "is set in the same 'universe' [as the preceding work] but at a later time." This is patently not the case for subsequent installments of the Final Fantasy franchise. There are other ways to state the same idea without any of the resultant confusion, and fighting over use of one largely unnecessary word is WP:BJAODN material, IMO.

Both statements of popularity have the same problem. We shouldn't use either one of them without citing our sources. If we're going to say that the game was criticized, we should provide a (reputable) review where the game is criticized. I don't think we need "at least 30 websites" to bring this point across, but a couple for each position would be a good idea. Wikipedia "is about" neutal point of view, and the criticism section should not be (or even give the appearance of) a forum for a dozen or so editors to air their personal opinions on the game. Technically speaking, we're writing an encyclopedia, not contributing to a "public web board." Beyond that, while I do feel that the "mixed reactions" sentence is a little more elegant, grammatically speaking, I don't think the two are so different that it's worth edit warring over. They both say the same thing, to my eyes.

Finally, VOST, while I understand your frustration, it is inappropriate to accuse established editors of bias, or to threaten to them with administrative intervention, the first time you bother to engage them in discussion. Stay civil, and try to keep an open mind and come to some sort of consensus. – Seancdaug 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise that I don't have time to write a more complete reply, but I don't have full accsess to the internet at the moment and can only edit in brief sessions.

As for if FF8 is a "sequel" or not, I confess it could be considered as a sequel in some respects. But the use of that word here is misleading. It is generally considered that Final Fantasy X-2 is the first Final Fantasy sequel. The games are not refered to as sequels on any other article. (At least, not that I know of. Else, I would have altered it.)

As for the second issue I believe we can say "mixed reactions" more readly than "some say best, some say worst." A Mixed reaction is pretty much true for any game ever released, but to suggest that everyone either thought the game was the best in the series or worst needs to be sourced. In fact, I dispute that the game was recieved with a love/hate reaction. Many fans simply saw it as another installment of the series.

Although you are both right, technically either statement should be sourced. If it's really that much of a big deal, I suggest removing it completely.

Finally, please do not threaten me with administrator action again, otherwise I will not respond to your posts in future. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. My biggest qualm with the statement 'mixed reactions' is that it implies a sort of indifference to the casual reader, signifying that the game in question really possessed nothing special or significant. This of course is false, as statistics from numerous sources show Final Fantasy VIII being one of the most popular installments in the series. The phrase itself bears no 'elegance' to me, but I believe you meant to say 'eloquent.' In this case, I still prefer my edits over the sentence about mixed reactions, which sounds dull, clichéd, and arguably just as misleading and controversial as stating most people either loved or hated the game. Also JiFish, the Final Fantasy games are referred to as sequels in another article, as mentioned in my above post, and as far as the love/hate relationship goes, I am confident that if a general poll was done from a variety of related venues, the results would show overwhelming polarization.

Regarding this place being a web board, technically speaking this is a public web board. Its purpose is the creation of an online, user-edited encyclopedia.

Anyways, I'm no longer continuing this since it seems more people prefer the article the way it currently is, and what is generally accepted by a majority takes precedence unless the minority produces evidence to initiate change. Since I do not have the time or the desire for conducting source research for my claims, however axiomatic they may be, I rest my position for now, so to speak. :)

I apologize for bringing up administrative action- I misinterpreted your reversions as baseless and possessing ulterior motives, but please don’t continue the cycle by saying you will not respond to my posts. I posted to get my points across, not solely for your acknowledgement.

-VOST 1649, 14 February 2006 (PST)

Just a quick note to point out that you shouldn't do primary research to prove any fact on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collection of already researched facts. See Wikipedia:No original research. I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, so I apologise in advance if I have mis-interpreted you. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to conducting research of my own. I was referring to gathering the sources which supported my edits, which are various literary works that already possess researched fact. It was easy to misinterpret because I worded it rather vaguely. Also, I am well aware of WikiPedia policy, thank you. -VOST 1114, 16 February 2006 (PST)

G'day all,

I didn't want to just jump right in and throw edits around when I just got here.

Original article says: Squall's weapon is the gunblade, and he is undoubtedly the strongest of his comrades; his Lion Heart limit break is capable of doing up to 130000 hit points of damage, and is the only attack that can do significant harm to Ultima and Omega Weapon.

However I suggest changing that section to: Squall's weapon is the gunblade, and he is undoubtedly the strongest of his comrades; his Lion Heart limit break is capable of doing up to 130000 hit points of damage, however the most powerful attack in the game is Selphie's very rare limit break "The End" which can kill the strongest bosses in one hit.

Omega Weapon laughs at one Lion Heart limit break, however The End takes him out first go. Any thoughts?

(Or do I just need a life? ;))

Pete --Ozyowie 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it there's a whole lot of cruft and rubbish in that particular section! As you say, The End is perhaps more effective but to be honest I don't think its necessary to mention any of it here. I'd change that sentence to somthing more generic like: Squall's weapon is the gunblade, and his Limit Breaks see him perform powerful sword sequences. Btw, you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy - perhaps we'll see you there! >Gamemaker 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought about it a bit after my previous post here, perhaps just taking off his Lion Heart limit break is capable of doing up to 130000 hit points of damage, and is the only attack that can do significant harm to Ultima and Omega Weapon. section might be best way to go. Then a change to the Limit Breaks section.

The Limit Breaks section currently has As in Final Fantasy VII, every character has a unique special attack, called a Limit Break, that is only available under certain conditions during battle.

Most of the Limit Breaks are attacks, but the girls also have healing and defensive breaks: Selphie's Full-Cure and Wall, Rinoa's Angelo Recover, Reverse, and Invincible Moon, and Quistis' White Wind & Mighty Guard. Just thinking while I'm typing here. Would not put the list in, but maybe something like Every character has a unique special attack, called a Limit Break, that is only available under certain conditions during battle. Some characters have healing and defensive elements as part of their Limit Breaks.

Might think about it some more before I go near it :)

--Ozyowie 12:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted a slew of edits made by an anon editor yesterday. Forgive me for not noticing this sooner. Deckiller 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the second revert, I was just about to do the same thing =) >Gamemaker 23:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome ;D That was a pretty strange series of edits though, eh? Deckiller 23:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Incidentally, a short while back an edit to the Characters section crept in that compares the FF8 story to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, even if it wasn't a bit of a tenuous link, doesn't it qualify as original research? >Gamemaker 23:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, unless sources can be cited, it's OR. Deckiller 23:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any worth in merging Lunar Cry here as the article currently stands. There is a case for rewriting the story section, to cover the entire story in suitable brevity, in which case the lunar cry would obviously get a mention. Until then, there are enough references already (particularly in List of Final Fantasy VIII locations) that I'd recommend redirecting/deleting the standalone article (especially given the quantity and quality of its innacuracies ;) ) >Gamemaker 12:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I want to see this article transwiki'd and then deleted. I tried to {{prod}} it to that effect, but someone removed the tag. (Mind you, I don't think i've ever seen a {{prod}} tag that wasn't removed.) Take it to AfD? --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend just a redirect to the List of Final Fantasy VIII locations or this page. It'd be most at home at the locations page, but whatever the measures taken, the Lunar Cry warrants its own page about as much as the Sister Ray did. If that much. Ryu Kaze 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd strongly recommend against a full story summary of FFVIII unless it could be very concise. Very. Ryu Kaze 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, that would be the point =) I was thinking along the lines of the story section in the recently peer reviewed Final Fantasy IV article. >Gamemaker 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I worked to compress the storyline sections of Final Fantasy IV and Final Fantasy IX into succinct sections, and I'd be willing to give it a shot for FF8. Deckiller 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Something like that looks good to me. If you'd like to try to it, give it a shot. If not, I can give it a go sometime in the next day or so. I've just got to review the Rikku page first and see where the wording can be tightened and references added. Let me know here or on my talk page. Ryu Kaze 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, plenty of takers, eh? I'd love to do it too, FF8 is my speciality, but to be honest I don't know when I'd get the time. Still, there's no rush. If you guys beat me too it, I'll just have to meddle with your work ;) >Gamemaker 23:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the things one must bear on Wikipedia, eh? XD I've spoken to Deck, and I'm going to whip up something in the next day or two. I'll link you both to it once it's ready so you can offer additional comments. Ryu Kaze 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I managed to dig up some old work I did on the FF8 story events; in its original form its far too detailed for Wikipedia but I think it might serve as a good starting point for a decent summary. I'm having a play around with it now - feel free to have a look in my sandbox and grab anything you think you could use. >Gamemaker 13:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dammit. Thanks, Game, but I've managed to come up with a completed summary already. I wish I'd looked in there first. Maybe I would have been inspired to do something different. Oh well. See what you think of it as it is. Ryu Kaze 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Tightened the wording up a bit. Ryu Kaze 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's excellent! It's perhaps still a little long, but I congratulate you on cramming the FF8 story into such a small ammount of excellently-written words! There're a couple of edits I would make: the penultimate para omits the reason for Rinoa's coma, which is a little jarring, as is the mention of her sorecerss'ship - the battle with Edea is worth a mention to clear both of those up; also, it seems a little odd (for someone who knows the plot) that an FF8 story summary doesn't mention Ellone and Laguna! I understand the reasoning behind omitting their plotline though; its hard to see how they could be mentioned without a lot of extra wordage =) All in all, though, top job! >Gamemaker 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest, I was surprised that I was even able to describe the plot like that without bringing up Laguna and Ellone. I almost did at one point, but then decided to restrain myself to see if I could make it at all work without them. I agree that they're vital, and probably deserve a mention, though.

Also, you're certainly right that I should mention why Rinoa becomes a sorceress/goes into a coma. Would also add a touch of drama to the description. Thanks for the feedback! I'll get back to you once again after I try to edit, and, again, thanks for the comopliments! Ryu Kaze 16:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad my edit fit in okay =) I've made another minor one, just moving the spoiler tag so that we can have non-spoiler introductory paragraph. This is looking highly usable now; even the size isn't too bad on reflection, its only slightly longer than the FFIV story summary, which details (I think) a much less convoluted plot. >Gamemaker 17:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The length is actually damn impressive considering what an intricate plot FFVIII has. Not to pat myself on the back, but I really didn't think it'd be possible to pull it off with so few paragraphs. You made some really good edits, and I'll attribute it to that. XD

I think we could use this. Should we bring it up on the Wikiproject page? Ryu Kaze 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just go ahead and replace the section. It's not like losing what's there is going to be a great tragedy =) Add a pointer and an RfC at WPFF, though. >Gamemaker 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, cool. I'll go ahead and do that then. Ryu Kaze 18:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to throw in a couple of action oriented-shots, though, to replace the Ultimecia and Rinoa-Squall-feathers ones. Tell me if the otehrs were preferable. Ryu Kaze 18:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Great work overall, Ryu! I've a question regarding the image of Squall & Rinoa inside the Sorceress Memorial though - what's wrong with her face?? I can't remember ever seeing her obscured that way. >Gamemaker 10:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's just the way her hair was flowing at the time since she was running forward and then came to a stop. Since it kind of looks like a still-motion shot, though, I think it makes her look kind of cute. Ryu Kaze 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

o_O That image must have flicked the switch in my brain that stops one from seeing things correctly (like when you look at a cube and see its pojection inverted) - all I see is Rinoa looking our way with her face all smeared out. Looks like something from that horror film whose name I can't recall =) I'm going to have a hunt for another pic form that sequence that doesn't freak me out! >Gamemaker 17:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll get one. Sorry for the nightmares. XD Ryu Kaze 05:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Promoted! This is a great article, perhaps one of the best I've seen on video games. Nice job. Air.dance 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First, awesome article. Closet-fan of FFVIII. I would like to see the story expanded. I feel the ending wasn't detailed enough, as I was confused about the specifics of what happened in the ending movie. Pardon me if this has been mentioned previously. Thanks for the awesome article! Jakswa 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this deserve its own section? I mean, there's a bit of the technical stuff at the beginning there and pictures for the cover, but is that really all that's needed? Were there no changes? What about the PocketStation thing with the chocobo and that red lion thing? Weren't those included in the PC version? I don't have the PC version (it's too expensive and hard to find), or else I would add the section myself. --Eternal Trance 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

About the only thing notable is that you no longer require any extra peripherals to play the Chocobo World mini-game. Aside from that, it's a plain port, no other changes. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure so I thought I should ask. If the factual content of the article calls into question the validity of the criticism itself, then should the criticism still be included? The "Story" sections explains how the character goes through a significant change throughout the course of the game. The quote "he appears to undergo little visible character development" seems to make little sense. On the other hand, if it doesn't matter whether or not the criicism is justifiable, just that it was actually made, then I would personally like to know where that particular criticism came from.

Varmintx 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Several of these comments are unreferenced and have no place in the article as of yet. However, it's likely that these criticisms have been made by prominent sources. I'll simply add the citation template to the needed areas for now. ~ Hibana 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this article is already quite close to featured status, I think I'll work on tightening the article, adding a couple sources, and nominating it for featured article status. We may need a peer review first. — Deckiller 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A few things to add:

• Very slight (10 percent max) expansion of the story section
• Compression (10-20 percent) of the character section
• Chart and perhaps 1-2 more sources and sentences for the criticism section

More later. — Deckiller 06:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a peer review first. Check out this massive sentence:

Final Fantasy VIII is a further development of the RPG engine seen in its series predecessor Final Fantasy VII, and comprises three main modes of play: the world map screen, a fully 3D visual display in which the player may navigate freely across a scaled-down rendering of the game world; the field map screen, consisting of one or more 2D pre-rendered backgrounds that serve to represent environmental locations such as towns and some forests, with overlaid 3D characters under the player's control; and the battle map screen, a fully 3D visual of a discrete location such as a street or room, where a fight between the player and CPU-controlled enemy parties takes place. Pagrashtak 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear god; I thought I split that sentence up TWICE. — Deckiller 02:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I had to play the "find the semicomma" minigame to read that sentence. I did some copyedit work on the lead — look it over and make sure I didn't mess anything up, I'm getting tired. I didn't do anything to the last sentence of the lead, but it needs work; it's not informative to the casual reader and needs to flow better in the paragraph. Pagrashtak 02:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this sentence trying to say? Final Fantasy VIII is a further development of the RPG engine seen in its series predecessor Final Fantasy VII,... That the FFVIII engine is based on the FFVII engine?

Yeah, I always had an issue with that sentence. I tried to change it for clarity, but it may still sound awkward. — Deckiller 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The story section needs work. See Talk:Final Fantasy X for some good criticism of how we're handling plot summaries. — Deckiller 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I included most of the major story arcs (with a few script references and 1-2 more arcs to go). Now the challenge is reducing it by 20 percent. — Deckiller 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)