Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy X

Final Fantasy X

Self-nomination: I would like to nominate this article for FA status. A great deal of effort, including a thorough Peer Review, has been given to turning it into a quality article that I feel meets the criteria of FA, and should be among those pages that hold this status. Ryu Kaze 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Co-nom/Strong Support, as one of the writers of this article, I personally feel that this is in the top five gaming articles on Wikipedia. I'm sure Ryu and all the other outstanding, intelligent writers feel the same. It's time for this article to shine. — Deckiller 01:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: as a contributor to the article, I can vouch that it is well written, informative, and neutral. ~ Flooch 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Support. Two things. First, I'm a stickler for FAs following wikipedia standards, including WP:LEAD, which states that for an article this size, the lead section should have at least three paragraphs that summarize the article, and you have only two. Second, sections consisting of nothing but a list of facts, such as the "Trivia" section, are highly depreciated in FAs, as lists are not considered "Brilliant Prose". Fieari 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It looks like the trivia section could easily be integrated into the rest of the article. There are only four points, two of them about gameplay and the other two are about character voices, which you already have sections for. Maybe the first point about online play could do with a reference too. --darkliight^[πalk] 08:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll expand the lead and incorporate the Trivia section into the main body of the article. Ryu Kaze 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, guys, see what you think. I've dropped the Trivia section and incorporated the info from there into the new lead, the Battle System section and the Characters section. Ryu Kaze 11:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also dropped the Voice Cast section (the other list section) and just put a link to the IMDb page in the See Also section. Ryu Kaze 11:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm satisfied now. Good work! Fieari 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your advice was really helpful. Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: One of the best game articles on Wikipedia, covering every aspect of the game clearly and adequetely. ~ Helmandsare 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. In its current state, this article is excellent. In my opinion, Fieari's objections no longer stand, but we'll see. RyanGerbil10 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - Reception section much too short. Whereas I like that it has sourced sales figures, there's nothing on the critical reaction of the press to the game. Metacritic? Famitsu? I know the readers poll put it at number 1, but what did the magazine actually say when it was released? - Hahnchen 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and found that information. I'll add it in. Ryu Kaze 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Added. Please let me know what you think, and thanks to all of you so far who have offered suggestions for improvement. Ryu Kaze 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What you've added is good, maybe one or two reactions from Western sources would be good. You could just link to metacritic or gamerankings. - Hahnchen 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, cool. Thanks again. Ryu Kaze 19:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Added. Ryu Kaze 19:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Objection struck, I'll give a proper read through the article later. - Hahnchen 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - User:Ryu Kaze has done some excellent work bringing the quality of this article to a point where I can't see any obvious ways to improve it. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: WPFF has produced some great articles, but I think this time it's one of the best game articles out there. The prose is all very informative and I feel even if I hadn't beaten this game I would be able to understand all of it. I personally would like to see a screenshot of regular gameplay (not in a battle, on the menu, or in an FMV), but I certainly understand that those kind of screenshots can be bland (and in this article, there might not really be a good place to put one). And another minute thing: is it possible to get a better scan of the North American box art? The black part at the top looks like someone messed with it in paint or something. Click on it and you'll see what I mean. But all in all, great work, everyone! – warpedmirror (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It looks taller than it should be and there's some kind of brown crap on it. I'll just save the image, cut off the extra black space, make it all black up there, and then reupload it. Thanks for the support and for the suggestion. Ryu Kaze 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm going to just have to try scanning my game's case. This isn't working as well as I expected it to. Ryu Kaze 01:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, new scan up. See how that one looks to you. Ryu Kaze 01:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! – warpedmirror (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the help. Ryu Kaze 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment thanks for the nice supports guys! — Deckiller 00:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Thanks to all of you for comments and/or support. Ryu Kaze 01:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object Images need fair use rationale and references should come after punctuation. IGN references have formatting problems. Pagrashtak 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of those. Ryu Kaze 01:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the first things you mentioned are taken care of. I'll go check out those IGN references now. Ryu Kaze 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IGN references fixed. Thanks for noticing that. Ryu Kaze 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Missed one, but got it now. Ryu Kaze 03:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Wow. I thought that The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker was the pinnacle of video game articles, but this blows it out of the water. Well sourced, comprehensive, and true to the game; this is one of the best nominations I've seen in a while. Dee man45 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Ryu Kaze 11:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ^_^ — Deckiller 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive, well written. Nice work. Thunderbrand 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object - some poor writing. Examples:
  • In the intro For instance, event director Motomu Toriyama has remarked that — because of the voice acting for Final Fantasy X — dialogue became the basis for scenes, accommodating the time span of spoken scenes with the time required for the spoken dialogue to be conveyed in a realistic manner makes no sense at all
  • Nor does Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action as was previously the case...
  • Final Fantasy X deviates from previous Final Fantasy games.. - you can't deviate from a game.
  • ...he desired to forego... - very poor phrasing
  • The player acquires five mandatory aeons over the course of the game - eh?
  • As examples, she's cited the masks.. - unencyclopaedic style
  • Curiously, in Kingdom Hearts II, Selphie Tilmitt of Final Fantasy VIII fame pronounces it "tie-dus." - who says it's curious?
  • In additional to its sequel, the game's success prompted Square Enix to produce a sequel a two disc DVD machinima film of the game's story - makes no sense.
• There are weasel words such as The soundtrack is said to reflect an Okinawan atmosphere. See also section is redundant with links in the main text. And I think the story and character sections are far too detailed and should be summarised much more. As they are they really put off a reader who isn't a serious fan of the game already. Worldtraveller 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix some of these things. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 17:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I changed:

• "For instance, event director Motomu Toriyama has remarked that — because of the voice acting for Final Fantasy X — dialogue became the basis for scenes, accommodating the time span of spoken scenes with the time required for the spoken dialogue to be conveyed in a realistic manner...——>"For instance, event director Motomu Toriyama has remarked that — because of the implementation of voice-overs — dialogue became the basis for each scene. The duration of a scene would be drawn out to last as long as required for its included dialogue to be spoken in a manner considered true to life..."
• "Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action as was previously the case..."——>"Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action..."

• This one still doesn't make sense to me. Think of your reader as educated but ignorant and think what they want to know and what you need to explain to them to get them to understand what you mean. You're using words in a sense in which a committed gamer might understand them but most other people won't.

Okay, good point. How's this?: "Instead of the desired summon appearing to perform a single action..."——>"Whereas in previous games a selected mystical creature would appear to perform a single action...." Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Final Fantasy X deviates from previous Final Fantasy games..."——>"Final Fantasy X's gameplay deviates from that of previous Final Fantasy games..."

• Still not entirely happy... suggest 'differs' as a better word to use.

Okay. Added "differs" in place of "deviates." Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• "...he desired to forego..."——>"...he wanted to implement a world map concept with a more realistic approach than..."
• "The player acquires five mandatory aeons over the course of the game..."——>"The player acquires five standards aeons over the course of the game..."
• "As examples, she's cited the masks..."——>"For example, the masks..."
• "Curiously, in Kingdom Hearts II, Selphie Tilmitt of Final Fantasy VIII fame pronounces it 'tie-dus.'"——>"...while Selphie Tilmitt of Final Fantasy VIII fame pronounces it as 'tie-dus' in Kingdom Hearts II."
• "In additional to its sequel, the game's success prompted Square Enix to produce a sequel a two disc DVD machinima film of the game's story..."——>"In addition to its sequel, the game's success prompted Square Enix to produce a two disc DVD machinima film of the game's story..."

• I think this is still grammatically confused - 'its' appears to refer to the game, and not to its success as intended. Suggest 'The game's success prompted both a sequel and a two disc film etc etc'.

Good catch. Addressed. Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• "The soundtrack is said to reflect an Okinawan atmosphere"——>(dropped for redundancy)

I didn't attempt condensing anything of the story, as — after repeated condensing — I personally feel that if it is condensed any further, it may lend to do nothing more than confuse readers, as I myself can't see what else within reason could be trimmed and still maintain overall clarity; with the character section, I don't feel that it's very long, and that — since the inclusion of more details was a conscious objective of the creators — it requires more words to describe those important subtleties. However, if there are specific parts you can point out to me that you feel are extraneous, I'd make an effort to trim them. Thank you for your input so far. Ryu Kaze 17:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Flooch has trimmed the Characters section down some and done a fine job of it (the info on the characters was repeated on the individual character pages). Is this more appropriate? Ryu Kaze 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What I suggest is what I mentioned above - assume your reader is ignorant about computer games in general and this one in particular. What do they really need to know? How much about the plot does a general reader really want to know? I think much much less - from my own perspective as not much of a gamer beyond playing a huge amount of Timesplitters, the story section here really does not interest me very much. Other sections are interesting but the plot description seems likely to appeal mainly to people who already know about the games. I've spotted some more problems of possible excessive detail elsewhere, such as Instead of characters gaining pre-determined stat bonuses at the transition to the next level..., which really doesn't mean much to a non-gamer. The edits that have been made to the characters section have hugely improved it, and if something similar can be done to the plot I think it would also greatly benefit. Worldtraveller 22:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you're trying to say. I'll try to address this as well. Ryu Kaze 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, "Instead of characters gaining pre-determined stat bonuses at the transition to the next level..." has become "Instead of characters gaining pre-determined strength and ability bonuses after a certain number of battles..." and I've also tried to address the issues you mentioned with the story section to make it sound more open to the uninitiated. See what you think. Ryu Kaze 23:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If we could get some more feedback from you on this, it would be most appreciated. The Story section has been tweaked considerably to sound more open toward the uninitiated. Ryu Kaze 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've appreciated your very positive response to my suggestions. I have to say I still believe the article is too long. Some sections are nice and concisely written - for example, Game play, Field map, Development, Critical response, Subsequent impact (although the latter is a tautology - impact can hardly be anything but subsequent!). Other sections still seem overly detailed, like the story description, and geographical and cultural aspects. The overall length of the article is 45K, and that alone is likely to put off a lot of readers. I generally try, with articles I write that I nominate here, to keep them between 20K and 30K in length, as I think this sort of length allows for a very thorough treatment while ensuring you're not outstaying your welcome, as it were. I really believe that if an article about something like Mercury (planet) can be comprehensive at 33Kb in length, then an article about a recent computer game must be too long if it's 45kb. I am not saying an article on a computer game is not worthwhile or should not be featured, just that it should be an appropriate length, as required by the FA criteria. Worldtraveller 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your follow-up, Worldtraveller. You've offered a lot of quality criticism that has helped to better the article. I'm not sure what else we could do here... maybe some of the geographical information could be shifted over to the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page and a summary with a little more brevity placed here since that's the "daughter" article. Even so, that's probably not going to condense the page much further.

Personally I don't think that the article violates FA criteria of appropriate length because it doesn't offer a required kb count, though it does require the article to be comprehensive. Since there's a lot of content here, that means there's going to be a lot of stuff to cover. I do see what you mean about the Mercury (planet) page, but they're obviously two drastically different subjects that have to be approached in different ways. Trying to shorten some of the sections just for the sake of kb count would leave them worthless in my opinion, as it would be impossible for the uninitiated to glean anything of value from them.

For instance, with the Story section, we were told that it should encompass the story from beginning-to-end, as other video games with FA status do. But there's a lot to this game's story, and what we've offered there might look like a lot, but I assure you, it's like a cliff's notes of cliff's notes of cliff's notes. We don't even make note of several major characters and subplots there, and what information is present is required in order to gain any kind of understanding of the plot. For example, it couldn't be mentioned that Tidus vanishes at the end without explaining what he is and why his home city exists. Sin's origin and inevitable return likewise can't be explained without that information, nor can the reason Tidus' father became Sin.

Also, doesn't the article size page say that length is no reason to sacrifice valuable information? I will concede, though, that we could probably shorten the Geography section a bit by transferring all the info there to the daughter article and then summarizing it here on the main article. Also, I'll be sure to change "Subsequent impact" to "legacy." XD

By the way, despite the Story section's length, is it any easier to read in your opinion for someone who is unfamiliar with the game? That was one of my major concerns after your previous follow-up. Thanks again, and have a good one. Ryu Kaze 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've now shortened the Geography and cultural aspects section, and fixed the "Legacy" header. If the Story section is really the only one you still feel is too long, I hope I can convince you that it's actually an example of extreme brevity. XD Ryu Kaze 16:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I've observed, protected, and sparcely edited the article for many months now, and have never seen it in such good shape. ~ Hibana 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support. Ryu Kaze 19:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object Final Fantasy sucks. It would be devastating to Wikipedia to put that garbage on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.47.193 (talk • contribs) anonymous,and not an appliable excuse

Not liking the subject material isn't a valid argument, and any well written article is capable of appearring on the front page. Dee man45 15:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great article, the only problem are big sections. But reminds me that my favorite FF(and one of the few I've played) had lost the FA :(... igordebraga ≠ 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Do you think the sections might be too big too? Worldtraveller said that about the Story and Characters sections, but I honestly can't see what else could be trimmed. That may well be an effect of looking at the page for so long, though. I mean, I can acknowledge that they're not small, but I really don't see how we could trim Story any further without losing clarity. With Characters, I feel like there's a lot of very valuable, relevant info there, and that it would be more damaging to the article than beneficial to lose some of that. Like the Wikipedia Article size style guide suggests, sometimes valuable information is more important than kb count, and I personally feel like that's the case here. But like I told Worldtraveller, if you can point out to me some parts that you really feel don't contribute anything, I'll try to trim them. As someone who's researched so much information on this game, it's sometimes hard for me to distinguish relevant info from non-relevant info after looking at it for so long, which is why Peer Reviews and FACs can be so helpful. Anyway, thanks again for your support, and if you feel like there's some information there that is really extrinsic, I'll see about trimming something. Ryu Kaze 23:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Igordebraga's comments on Character section length, and have done a trim of the article in response. ~ Flooch 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And a good job of it you did. Nice work. Ryu Kaze 02:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Never my opinion was THAT important... but the trimming was nice, some sections flow better. igordebraga ≠ 12:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: as a contributor to the article and part of the Peer Review, I can vouch that the article has been through many watchfull eyes and revisions to be the best it can be Renmiri 00:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I remember working on this article a good while back, when it seemed rather sloppy and confused. It's much better now. I'm tempted to support, but I would like to see better referencing, more in-line cites. I don't want to be overly strict about it, because this is nicely written, organized and illustrated, but surely each section should have at least one direct citation—I noticed some that had none, and others that were pretty weak on it. Everyking 10:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object.

• article often contains muddled writing, e.g. CTB sounds exactly the same as ATB from FF9 to me, how specifically is it different from previous FF battle systems?
• many instances of poor writing eg "This desire for battles that would feel as though they were part of the story also led to the implementation of the new system summoning seen in the game" - what is a "system summoning"?
• this sentence is especially terrible: "With this in mind, when penning Final Fantasy X, he wanted to attempt establishing a connection between the player and character such that — since both are finding themselves in a new world — the player's progress through that world and growing knowledge about it would be reflected in Tidus' own ever-developing understanding, a connection allowed to the player through Tidus' first-person narration of most of Final Fantasy X, in which the player (controlling Tidus) advances that narration". whole article needs to be copyedited by an "outside" editor.
• the article misrepresents much information, e.g. "Final Fantasy X also borrows heavily from the mythical beings of other cultures, such as Arabian (the aeon Ifrit), Hindu (the aeon Shiva)" without mentioning this is nothing specific to FFX but common throughout the entire series.
• Reception section is especially poor, just listing scores is meaningless, give specific examples of what individual critics liked and disliked about the game, were there any general consensuses about what worked and what didnt? specific quotes are required from reliable respected reviewers (e.g. not "the official playstation magazine"). this sections needs to be a whole lot longer. there is a serious neutrality problem, not one criticism on the whole page? reads like a fanpage. where does it sit in the FF games canon? the best? the worst? all reviewers comment on this and yet there is nothing about if consensus is its better than FF7/FF6/FF4 etc.
• quality of the sources used is poor. 90% primary source and square's own promotional materials. needs decent critical secondary source material, like for example edge magazine (which notably didnt rave about the game, yet is never mentioned here).
• a noticeable lack of citations for dubious assertions e.g. "Due to its intense popularity, Square Enix released a direct sequel" - how do we know they didnt always have plans to release a sequel, where is the source that confirms it was due to intense popularity?
• there are numerous other assertions that need citations. "Different versions" section for example doesnt have a single citation.
• dont specify image sizes in image tags.
• "Development" section is much too superficial. where are the details about technical aspects and programming? there is nothing. questions like how big was the development crew, when did dev start and end, what about the voice dubbing and translation are not addressed at all. the "Development" and "Reception" sections should be the biggest sections as the rest can be got by just reading the instruction manual and playing the game. there is very little "added value" in this article if those sections are not improved and extended.
• finally, what impact did FFX have? how did the competition react? did the dragonquest series do anything in response to the technical innovations of FFX? did any former enix guys comment on the game? other industry people? have there been any references to FFX, or borrowing of its technical innovations in other games? article lacks any mention of its long-term legacy in this respect. Zzzzz 10:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that's what I call real feedback. I will attempt to address have addressed some of these issues. Would you be willing to be the "outside" editor, Zzzzz? ~ Flooch 10:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that some of the editors tried to do too much with the writing, and it came out a bit awkward. I'll try to fix some. — Deckiller 13:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll try to help in addressing some of these things, particularly where citations and the References section are concerned. Ryu Kaze 13:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for Final Fantasy X's reception spawning the idea for making a sequel, I've got that reference. There's an interview with the producer and some other main development guys on page 191 of the Final Fantasy X Ultimania Omega). Yoshinori Kitase says "Speaking conversely, FFX received a splendid reception and made us think of adding to it." This extended not only to a sequel, but also to developing a plot-related link with Final Fantasy VII, one of their other very popular titles. There's also an IGN interview where the game's popularity was confirmed as the reasoning for them making a sequel. I'll try getting more information about those other things. Ryu Kaze 13:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Zzzzz, if you have the issue of EDGE magazine where they reviewed the game, that would be a lot of help. Since it's a UK magazine, the only three issues of it I've gotten are those I special ordered, and I didn't get that one (I got the one with their review of Final Fantasy VIII instead). All I know is that they felt it didn't really expand on much of what was done in the previous console generation. Ryu Kaze 13:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Zzzzz, Flooch has taken care of the wording cases you mentioned, and I've added various additional references, info on the online elements that were dropped, expanded the Development's lead, and gotten a reference on the contribution Final Fantasy X's reception had to the later development of Final Fantasy X-2 and the FFVII-FFX/X-2 connection.

I still need to get some more information on other criticism (if anybody here has that issue of EDGE magazine, don't be shy), but I think this addresses the large majority of what you've brought up. Please let us know if there's something we're overlooking. Ryu Kaze 15:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have any info on how Final Fantasy X may have inspired the competition (I will try to get that kind of information), but as far as Final Fantasy X's legacy goes, the Reception section now makes note that its popularity led to the development of the first direct sequel to a Final Fantasy and the development of the connection with VII. I'll see about getting that other info, though, and try to find out if anything from X in particular was utilized in the development of later Final Fantasy titles (though there's not been very many produced since then). Ryu Kaze 16:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way again, I added something on the Sphere Grid's development to its section. That's something else I meant to mention before: some of the developer info is in the Gameplay sections. Ryu Kaze 16:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've now added a quote from EDGE magazine that provides a little bit of a counterbalance to the Reception section. I hope that will be sufficient, as -- in all honesty -- most critics did give Final Fantasy X hyped reviews. EDGE is one of the only game critics out there that doesn't buy into hype and makes a conscious effort not to advertise it either.

I'll now see if I can find anything else on a legacy, but everything's been addressed at this point to some extent or another. Please let us know if you feel that this has accounted for the shortcomings the article had before. I hope this will satisfy your concerns with the article. Ryu Kaze 20:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to look at a few of things, but I'm confused as to what specifically is wrong with those things that are still up. Could you, perhaps, be more specific? For instance, this one:

"quality of the sources used is poor. 90% primary source and square's own promotional materials. needs decent critical secondary source material, like for example edge magazine (which notably didnt rave about the game, yet is never mentioned here)."

I'd say at least half of the sources used are outside of the game and Square's promotional materials, and where they are used are in places where they obviously would have to be (information that the developers themselves offered about the game's development was usually in their own stuff).

This one's a bit confusing too:

"'Development' section is much too superficial. where are the details about technical aspects and programming? there is nothing. questions like how big was the development crew, when did dev start and end, what about the voice dubbing and translation are not addressed at all. the 'Development' and 'Reception' sections should be the biggest sections as the rest can be got by just reading the instruction manual and playing the game. there is very little "added value" in this article if those sections are not improved and extended."

All of those things have been added.

This also:

"there are numerous other assertions that need citations. 'Different versions' section for example doesnt have a single citation."

There is a citation in there for the only thing I can see that would need one. I don't really see what needs citations otherwise. The existance of certain books -- which is all that isn't sourced -- shouldnt' require a citation.

I still see room for improvement in some of the other things that haven't been struck as well, but with these things, I'm quite confused. Ryu Kaze 16:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've now gotten rid of the image size specifications. Ryu Kaze 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the wording of the Battle system section to explain why CTB is so different from ATB. Ryu Kaze 16:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added some more info to the Development and Reception sections, and changed up the Different versions and merchandise section. See what you think. Ryu Kaze 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more criticisms to the Critical response section in the Reception area. Check them out. Ryu Kaze 13:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking things over again. If at all possible, though, could you give us a more specific idea of what isn't clear about the CTB description at this point? I basically completely redid that paragraph previously, and added distinctions between the ATB and the CTB within. Perhaps another editor should check it out in case I'm missing something.

By the way, I did actually add some programming information. There wasn't a lot that I could find, but I found that they motion captured human movement, fed the raw data into the computers, and then manipulated it etc. I also added a bit more on the legacy info, in that those same motion capture and voice-over techniques became a Final Fantasy standard, as did the use of proportional field maps in place of an overworld map. Again, thanks for coming back to look things over, but if you could add a few more specifics about what's not quite clicking for you, I'd be more than happy to try to address them. Ryu Kaze 01:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way again, I'd like to add that I'm going to order the issue of EDGE magazine that had the review of Final Fantasy X. I'll be able to add more critical response info once I get it. Ryu Kaze 20:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording on the CTB up some more to try further emphasise its differences from ATB. If you could get back to us on whether or not there's still any issues with any of these things, it would be highly appreciated. Ryu Kaze 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support Seems like a great article to me Jedi6-(need help?) 04:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 04:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Although I am a member of the WikiProject, I have hardly contributed to the article (unfortunately), but I think it's up to standards. —Mirlen 21:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Mirlen. Ryu Kaze 02:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great job, very comprehensive. jaco♫plane 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's appreciated. Thanks for the compliment. Ryu Kaze 03:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support: This is a great article! Very informative and comprehensive, and an easy and understandable read for those new to the series. Great work! Onlynameicanget 05:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a whole lot. That's what we're hoping for. Ryu Kaze 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. But, I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but why do you need the three other smaller cover-arts? Isn't that taking a bit of a liberty with fair-use? But anyway, support. Cvene64 13:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that they're there since each one is from a different region and Wikipedia doesn't have any one region of members, even if the majority are probably from North America. Or maybe it's just to showcase the various versions. It's the standard template used for each of the Final Fantasy titles, actually, and was implemented before I even joined Wikipedia. Perhaps it's something to discuss at WikiProject Final Fantasy, but to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't push the fair-use thing any further.

Thanks for your support! Ryu Kaze 15:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought they were just special editions/limited edition covers or something. But your explainantion makes sense. Great article!

• Comment: Thanks for all the support! — Deckiller 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, and interesting. I really think that it looks like superior material. I even learned some things about the game, such as the fact it was supposed to have online gameplay, and I thought I knew nearly everything important about it. And the sections are coherent and I think everything is there. My only concern would be the story section, I don't know if it is necessary to summarize all of the game story, I remember a comment about it from the FFVI failed FAC saying that there was no need to summarize the whole game story. But if no one has any objection about it this time around, please keep it since I can't say that I hate it. --DarkEvil 22:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the support. Concerning the story, we'd actually originally only had it as an introduction to the story, but during the Peer Review, we were told that it should actually summarize the whole thing since the three video games that already had FA status did that. Thanks again! Ryu Kaze 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Supportja Usually they mangle Final fantasy articles.. - Malomeat 03:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot for your support! Ryu Kaze 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd just like to thank everyone who has offered support, and also add that attempts have been made to resolve the two Objections still up at this point (those from Zzzzz and Worldtraveller) but that we're still awaiting responses. I left requests on their talk pages for them to follow up, so the attempt has been made. Just thought it should be put out there in case anyone felt like we were ignoring those Objections. Ryu Kaze 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we've gotten a new response from Worldtraveller. Thanks a lot! Ryu Kaze 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and comprehensive article, one of the best gaming articles I've read on Wikipedia thus far. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support! Ryu Kaze 23:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)