Talk:Final Fantasy III

Merge

Resolved

This article and Final Fantasy III (Nintendo DS) should be merged.

• The first subsection of the Development section in this article is very short and efforts to find more sources and information have been difficult. The second subsection (Cancelled WonderSwan Color version) concerns both this subject and the subject of FFIII DS. The third subsection (Nintendo DS version) looks quite long but it's actually just a copy-paste of the Development section of the FFIII DS article. Overall, there is a lack of development information on FFIII Famicom.
• There is little to say about audio and visual since it's pretty much the same deal as any other Famicom game.
• There is literally no English-language review of the game at all. It's been pretty difficult to find any Reception information about this game and the two lines the section currently has is clearly not enough. Sales figures are also impossible to locate.

For these reasons, I think this article is not notable enough to have a separate page from Final Fantasy III DS. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "Final Fantasy III as a whole" is a non-notable subject. I'm saying FFIII Famicom itself is not notable as a subject separated from "Final Fantasy III as a whole". Moreover, the merge is a very smooth process here since the Setting, Characters and Story sections of both articles are pretty much the same apart from a few lines in Characters. Merging would definitely benefit the subject as a whole since it would reduce the amount of sections being exactly the same in two different pages. Kariteh (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge; it contract this subject to one article on the game releases and one on the music is a prudent measure, and we can hopefully get a combined FFIII article to GA, someday FA, and get our featured topic back. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And there is absolutely no other way to make the article a GA? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if there is either english language reception/development stuff that we have missed, or if we have someone who can read japanese who can dig up a lot of stuff in reception/development on the original, that would work to. Otherwise, this is it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So, having been consulted, and heard our rationale, do you have any oustanding objections still Link, or can we go ahead? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I still oppose it. There's too much content about the game that will go deleted in a merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please point out what had been deleted in the merge that we had performed.[1] Kariteh (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since there is no basis for the argument against the merge, I propose that we revert to the merged version. Kariteh (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll second to revert to the merged version. It won't take a huge toll on FFIII's page because only about half of the FFIII DS info is for development and such, anyway.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sony Playstation 2

Is there any chance this game will be available to play on Sony Playstation 2? I have heard Squaresoft originally wanted to remake it on the Sony Playstation 2. Please let me know.

Best wishes,

Albert Albert Cheng (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fat Chance

The Great Morgil (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! A guy can keep hoping though!

Best wishes,

Albert Albert Cheng (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Fantasy III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have gone off and passed the article to GA, as I did not find anything troubling while reading the article. Thank you to Gary K. who contributed to the article and did a fine job with describing the game setting/development. Congratulations.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Something's off in reception

Both 2nd and 3rd paragraph talk about the same remake and both begin with talking about its generally good reception. Either merge the paragraphs or figure a better way to transition between paragraphs because right now that line seems redundant.陣内_Jinnai 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Split remake out?

Personally, I think the remake is given undue weight as easily half of the contents of the article discuss the remake (most of the reception section deals with it). If work is done to find someone who can understand Japanese, or if more reviews have popped up recently, it shouldn't hurt the reception very much. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really keen on the idea, not to mention the reviews you have for the original are, effectively, all you're going to get. Splitting them would only result in a work in progress and a future GAR for this one.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh...I also am unsure. How would splitting it out affect the notability of the original work as it wasn't released in English. I'd believe it would seriously jeopardize it which goes against the VG article guidelines.陣内_Jinnai 06:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

To me it feels odd that the DS version doesn't have it's own page because of how much they changed in it. I am not all that familiar with the first version but from what I am told (and from evidence i have seen while playing the DS version) they did a lot more than put it into 3D. One main thing they did was add main characters instead of 4 interchangeable people, who you would think would possibly go in a "characters" section. 140.232.179.133 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally (as per Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS)), I think the artice should be split. I haven't played the Famicom version in Japanese but I have played a fan translation, and I can say that the two games are drastically different, beyond the transition to 3D. I would be willing to put a lot of work into the split, particularly into the original Famicom game's article. Keytar Shredder : Talk To Me 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New screenshot

I'm contributing a new screenshot. The old screenshot is okay, but I feel the new one better illustrates how the graphic elements of the combat interface evolved between Final Fantasy II and IV. Also, I don't think Square ever released an English language version of the game for NES. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed screenshot and caption:

File:Final Fantasy III NES interface.png

Like earlier games in the series, Final Fantasy III displays battle messages in text windows. Like later games in the series, it displays animated message sprites.

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, replaced. --PresN 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Western Release

It had never been released outside of Japan until a remake was released on the Nintendo DS on August 24, 2006. Until that time, this was the only Final Fantasy game not released in North America or Europe.[8]

As there was a time when other games in the series were unreleased in western regions, I feel that better phrasing might be "At that time, this was the only Final Fantasy game not previously released in North America or Europe.[8]" 202.134.253.55 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changed. --PresN 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Acording to Nintendo Europe, http://www.nintendo.co.uk/NOE/en_GB/games/vc/final_fantasy_iii_32100.html, Final Fantasy III is avalible on the VC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamsDreams (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That is actually Final Fantasy VI which was originally released as Final Fantasy III when it came out for the Super Nintendo. Since this is a download of the original Super Nintendo version they using the name that version was originally called in the western world. In fact the description text the game actually mentions that it is actually FF6.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Separate infobox for DS remake

I boldly created a new infobox for the DS remake as I felt the main one above became too confusing with all the labels for the two different versions. Prime Blue (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Iphone

The page lacks info about the iphone release (ie development, reviews, like this http://wireless.ign.com/articles/115/1157774p1.html ) --190.50.181.234 (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Split DS/iOS/soon to be PSP remake

Since there is enough information on both development and reception for the remake, i suggest spliting the article to "Final Fantasy III (2003 video game)". If this has already came up then sorry for wasting everyone's time.Lucia Black (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the significance of the year 2003? I'm not necessarily opposed to a split, but I'd like to see it first. Can you draft up something in your userspace to get an idea of how long the split article would be? Axem Titanium (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainly to not be bias as it is currently reworked for PSP. Btw i meant 2006 not 2003. My mistake. Anyways, im working on it. Still need to add info such as this version has specific main characters with names (unlike the original who had no main character with a specific name). So mainly it will look like this User:Lucia Black/sandbox#Final Fantasy III (2006 video game). Some mistakes needs a lead and a story section and characters and release section.Lucia Black (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I think your goal should be to write an article that is better than Final Fantasy I and II (compilations), which was merged in 2010. If this hypothetical article is meatier than that, then you should be fine to split it. Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS) is also a nice example to follow, though not ideal. I'm also not sure about the proposed title. Maybe "Final Fantasy III (rereleases)", or "remakes"? "Versions of Final Fantasy III"? Just throwing out ideas here. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unlike previous compilations ff3 was never remade upto minor features such as those. The game was literally remade for DS. Now its being reworked. I dont even know if you saw the sample on my sandbox.Lucia Black (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your sandbox but as of right now, it doesn't look like you've written any new prose. If the split were to happen right now, then it would merely be WP:CFORKing the DS material to a separate article and then duplicating a bunch of stuff, when the info would rather be in one central location. This article is not unduly long so there needs to be a considerable influx of information to justify a split based on length. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it content forking if the DS remake proves to be notable on its own? Reception covers significantly on DS version and there is enough development info aswell. Its a completely different media compared to the original? It has its own reception, its own development. There really isnt anymore i need to show to prove DS is a significantly different from the original. Ocarina of time and 3DS version is considered content forking because they share the exact same story? Or Final Fantasy IV (Nintendo DS)??Lucia Black (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't independent notability, because it is. It's that if you split without adding any new prose, you're just putting the information somewhere else for no reason when it could be centralized here. There's no length issue either. The current reception and development sections read fine and actually give a better sense of the history of the various releases. The bottom line is that if there's no new prose, there's no reason to split. This was the original reason to merge in the first place (see #Merge). Axem Titanium (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change.Lucia Black (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated a compelling reason for it to change. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You really didn't provide a compelling reason for it to be against it either. The only reason was for some reason, previous consensus didn't believe so. However, there's more than enough to be notable article. I just simply don't agree with old consensus. and a new consensus can change, and you sad it yourself, t can be independently notable, even with what we have now.Lucia Black (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I have, namely, that you shouldn't split content into multiple locations if you don't have to. It only serves to make it harder for the reader to acquire information. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that suppose to be convincing? how exactly is ti harder for others to read? It will make t easier, as ts been established as a different entity of the NES.Lucia Black (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SIZESPLIT. The current article has less than 4000 words and is well under 50kb. Further, if the material "would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it". Axem Titanium (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no summary, it was just merged back. WP:SIZESPLIT s usually to help if the "size" is the reason for splitting. Also, we can summarize the information even further in this article (assuming if any of this info was summarized in the first place). I'm sorry, but your just not bringing compelling reasons to not split, just subjective ones.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

In an effort to reduce the number of fair use images, I am suggesting that we cut the image used in the lead and replace it with the Nintendo DS box art (or for the sake of console-neutrality, just the logo). The Japanese box art is not an ideal identification method for most English Wikipedia readers, and there exists precedence for the use of a newer cover art in the case of a Japanese-only game being introduced to English for the first time (Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride). - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

image comparison?

i was wondering if we should add a gameplay comparison of the wonderswan (cancelled) version and the 3D version. Lucia Black (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Final Fantasy III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080622080425/http://www.ugo.com:80/channels/games/features/finalfantasy/finalfantasy3.asp to http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/finalfantasy/finalfantasy3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Final Fantasy III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090608171331/http://palgn.com.au:80/nintendo-ds/6546/final-fantasy-iii-review/ to http://palgn.com.au/nintendo-ds/6546/final-fantasy-iii-review/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080625120148/http://na.square-enix.com:80/ff3/ to http://na.square-enix.com/ff3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots of the 3d remake

@Judgesurreal777: I want to use either a screenshot of the DS or PSP version. I found this and that. I don't know whether I should use the DS version as the two-screen gameplay is not well implemented, especially in battles (aside from graphic effects). I probably think that it helps readers grasp the 3d effects. --George Ho (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: the first one looks beautiful, perhaps use that one. It's good to have a screenshot of the remake since it is all included in that article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to add a battle screenshot. However, if characters one is good enough, I already added one. --George Ho (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Final Fantasy III. 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/20080625040014/http://cheats.gamespy.com/nes-cheats/final-fantasy-iii/ to http://cheats.gamespy.com/nes-cheats/final-fantasy-iii/

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) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)