Talk:Final Fantasy XIV (2010 video game)

Article Outdated

This article is outdated and needs to be updated with information about the current version of the game, not the release version; especially the Gameplay section. Valeriya (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you know what you're talking about with respect to how the gameplay has changed. I'd be happy to help out where I can but I don't know enough about previous versions to say what has changed compared to before. I think a good course of action would be to transplant the old gameplay section into the development section for now so we can illustration the evolution of systems. Looking forward to some WP:BOLD changes from you. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Gamescom Community's Choice

Some unexpected fan appeal from all the media buzz at Gamescom. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion: Split the article into FFXIV and FFXIV:A Realm Reborn?

Since Square Enix is touting A Realm Reborn as virtually entirely new, would it be better to create a new article, or just update this one? --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't really much to salvage from this original article, most of it is a mess and needs deleting, then info on the races and setting can be carried over for ARR. I think it might be best to just to use this page for ARR. Maybe the article should read something like this?:

Gameplay

Interface

Basic Gameplay

Party System

Armory System

Crafing

Game Economy

Plot

Setting

Races

Story

Development

Original Version

Relaunch: A Realm Reborn

Music

Reception

Original Version

A Realm Reborn

Patternofknives (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it would seem rather untidy to me, especially since Square wants to distance it from the original XIV.I think a new article would get the job done better. The article could discuss for example the development history of both ARR and the original version leading up to its relaunch, then it could incorporate the gameplay and plot sections. Ultimately, FF XIV will cease to function, and A Realm Reborn will replace it, which is why I think the relaunch should have a standalone article.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it might be a bit untidy. But with a bit of work I think it could be smoothed out.

I feel Square Enix trying to distance A Realm Reborn from the former XIV isn't reason enough to warrant a new article. That's really part of their PR and marketing strategy, so wiki shouldn't need to follow it.

While the relaunch will bring a substantially different game, it's still Final Fantasy XIV Online, just at a different stage in its life cycle. MMORPGS all naturally change a lot through their lifetimes and some, after patches and expansions, (like FFXI after Abyssea and the Level 99 cap) don't resemble their launch game at all, but Wikipedia still keeps them contained to one article giving a very broad summary of the current game - there's no legacy section on the original gameplay etc. So after the launch of ARR, which will then just be FFXIV, there won't be much needed on the original game - just a reception section. It'll all ultimately just become part of FFXIV's and ARR's development history :)

I'd say for now it's probably best to contain it to one article and see how that works out, then if need be it can be split into two. We could do with a few more opinions I guess.

(I'm glad there's someone else out there thinking about the article! I think it'll be getting a lot more traffic early next year, so it would be nice to have a more presentable and relevant article by then.) Patternofknives (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not overly convinced about splitting the article. It would certainly avoid a little confusion, but then when people go to find Final Fantasy XIV, there will be two articles for them. I mean, the PSP re-release of Final Fantasy III didn't get its own article, since it is roughly the same story. In a way, A World Reborn is simply a story-disguised reason for Square Enix to take the current game off the air, for reason I need not remind you of. So, thinking about it, I'm coming down on the side of the fence saying that we should not divide the article in two. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Final fantasy III is just the Nintendo Ds version. The reason why that version isnt split is because the original version wont be notable on its own. A Realm Reborn has new updated upgrades and changed some gameplay elements. If split, the article will already be notable on its own.Lucia Black (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree to the decision in splitting the Articles. The two versions of the game are very different in terms of Interface, Classes, Battle style and the largest notable difference between the two versions, Reception. The reviews for the Original Version have been mostly negative, if not all, whereas the review for the Renewed Version has been positive, though one review is not enough to comfirm that, it is still the only review as far as we know. I'll say again, the article will be better if we split nicely to avoid confusion of the game(s) to the readers.--Bumblezellio (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand why some want to split the article: to avoid confusion. However, once the game is re-released, will it be necessary to have an entire article devoted to the old, discontinued game? Would it be sufficient to have a "Background" section explaining the game's first iteration? Would it be necessary to have all the old information about the interface, about the battle system, the classes, the world, and everything associated with it? Or would it be sufficient to explain that critics overwhelmingly didn't like the first attempt, so the game was re-imagined? I know nothing about the first attempt at the game, but I know these games have a lot to them, in sheer terms of knowledge, but how much information about the old game will be encyclopedic once the game is live again? fds^Talk 20:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so. Once the game is released it will have a separate reception. Personally i think its safer to merely call it "Final Fantasy XIV 2.0" as A realm Reborn is just the default story.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I vote for there to be two separate articles. They are two totally different games, after all. --G-Zay (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a bold split based on the tone of this discussion and because unlike other evolving games (WoW, FFXI), there is a hard break between XIV and 2.0. It's a completely new piece of software with no relation to the old, except via lore, whereas WoW and FFXI expansions come in the form of patches and updates of old software. Also, 2.0 will have its own reception completely separate from 1.0. Feel free to help with the new article and if it feels like it needs to be remerged, we can discuss when we get to that point. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Also we dont know if more expansions will be made and not have "A Realm Reborn" next to it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What to call the version of FFXIV before A Realm Reborn.

As the pre A Realm Reborn version of FFXIV has no official designation, we could do with a label for it on the wiki - for ease of distinguishing between the two versions. At the moment I've unified the article to refer to the pre A Realm Reborn version as the 'Original Release'. However I don't know if this can be a bit confusing at times, as people may think it just refers to the original release date? Does anyone think maybe 'Original Release Version' or just 'Version 1.0' would be more appropriate? I'm beginning to lean over to calling it Version 1.0 more I think, it's semi-offical (judging by patch names and ARR originally being known as FFXIV:2.0) and doesn't leave any room for confusion. Thoughts?

Thanks, Patternofknives (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There's two versions of FFXIV: the original version and A Realm Reborn. I don't see why the article can't refer to them as just that, when it needs to distinguish between them. There's no need to invent names like 'Original Release' or 'Version 1.0'- we're really not supposed to invent names for our own use on Wikipedia. --PresN 23:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Original version works for me. I'd never thought of putting those two words together for some reason.Patternofknives (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Name the original version as Final Fantasy XIV and the renewed version as Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn. ;The terms "Original Version" should not be included into the title as it would mean "to invent names for our own use" per PresN. --Bumblezellio (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To Bumblezellio, sounds good. Nothing fancy and nothing that might go against Wikipedia's policies. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no ad hoc inventing of the term "Version 1". That's exactly what Square Enix officially calls it. "Original version" is the ad hoc term, which is not to be used. Particularly when the software itself is referred to, Version 1 and Version 2 are the official designations. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture change

Since this is the page for the original version of FFXIV, maybe we should have the original cover art back, with the Hyur and the logo on white, and all that. A Realm Reborn is a different game, as has been stated many times, and its cover belongs in its own article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it'll get fixed once the split is concluded.Lucia Black (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

3D Ready Benchmark

this one http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/benchmark/ is listed at the according wikipedia page. you might want to add it to the article as well. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn

Hi, what about merge this page with the article about Final Fantasy XIV? Now we have:

Final Fantasy XIV (2010) (Original game)

Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn (2013) (Patch that remixed and added new content)

Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward (2015) (Expansion Pack)

A page with the style of the article about Final Fantasy XI would be perfect in my opinion (Original game plus 12 Expansion Packs) Druntamah (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please only open discussion in one place, so that comments are not scattered. Use the original discussion you opened at Talk:Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn#Merge proposal. -- ferret (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Final Fantasy XIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913233207/http://www.squareenixmusic.com/musicnews2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1252948500&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2& to http://www.squareenixmusic.com/musicnews2.php?subaction=showfull&id=1252948500&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/news/nobuo-uematsu-returning-final-fantasy
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-xiv-beta-postponed-due-to-critical-bugs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002234318/http://www.gamespot.com/news/square-enix-considering-ffxiv-online-for-microsoft-hardware-6210518 to http://www.gamespot.com/news/square-enix-considering-ffxiv-online-for-microsoft-hardware-6210518
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/features/ffxiv-interview-phoenix-fallen-mmo
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamesradar.com/final-fantasy-xiv-go-pay-play-next-year/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q4-2012/111312c.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/reviews/final-fantasy-xiv-review
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcgamer.com/final-fantasy-xiv-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Final Fantasy XIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521030355/http://susancalloway.com/story/ to http://susancalloway.com/story/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6agPFWbwa?url=http://www.1up.com/features/ffxiv-interview-phoenix-fallen-mmo to http://www.1up.com/features/ffxiv-interview-phoenix-fallen-mmo
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/pl/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Final Fantasy XIV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ahY76UTS?url=http://www.1up.com/news/nobuo-uematsu-returning-final-fantasy to http://www.1up.com/news/nobuo-uematsu-returning-final-fantasy
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140728115706/http://forum.finalfantasy14.eu/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1407 to http://forum.finalfantasy14.eu/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1407
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6agPphxEO?url=http://www.1up.com/reviews/final-fantasy-xiv-review to http://www.1up.com/reviews/final-fantasy-xiv-review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Killarnee (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Final Fantasy XIV (2010 video game) → Final Fantasy XIV (2010 version) – The idea that FFXIV's 2010 version is a separate game is incorrect. A Realm Reborn is simply an update, if a very major one that vastly modified how the game worked. There is no question that the primary topic is A Realm Reborn, but it should have a disambiguation that accurately sums up what it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Opposed Not really a typical disambiguation we use, and secondary reliable sources give every indication of treating them as separate entities. This includes separate database entries in all major platform, complete reviews, and more. The original game was fully shutdown before the replacement launched. "Simply an update" is really discounting the sheer scope of what happened, with sources all stating it was a complete rebuild. I guess my final point is: What confusion among readers is this solving? -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure how re-reviewing the game means it is separate. An unrelated example that would appear to discount this point is No Man's Sky, another game that has been drastically modified by patches. It has been getting contemporaneous reviews up until now, for example this one in Polygon, and is for all intents and purposes a tremendously different game, but isn't considered a separate entity.

  The simple fact remains that the developers did not deign to call the follow up Final Fantasy XIV-2 or something along those lines. That overshadows personal opinions about just how drastic the reboot was. They clearly wished for it to be considered the same game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not making a personal opinion of how drastic it is. We have reliable secondary sources and interviews saying it was rebuilt from the ground up. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Ferret. 162 etc. (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.