Talk:Final Fantasy XI/Archive 3

message: Cleaned up the talk page and put in the first archive for the Final Fantasy XI talk. Please add more to the archive if any of these topics are no longer current. And vice versa if I've archived something that is still current. I've left the userbox here for other uses to take advantage of if they want. čĥàñľōŕď 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: Battle is not mentioned at all. Mrmoocow 08:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle System

message: For anyone who is interested:
	FFXI	This user plays Final Fantasy XI.
:Hahaha, that's terrific.  :)  RaCha'ar 19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!  --ShakataGaNai 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: Well, I see the article needs a major rework (is it really that important, that the servers where down for four hours somewhen?). I don't know how different sources are handled, but if you are interested in numbers straigt from SE instead of IGN, the business reports (annual and otherwise) are a wealth of information and show that FFXI has been fairly stable at 500.000 users about the last three years. --Anibas 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User base

message: Currently the setting section isn't very good, it starts with stating what Vana'diel consists off (making it sound, like that is all of Vana'diel, ToAU has shown us that we have seen only part of Vana'diel and the map of ToAU implies a rather large contient over there) the next to sentecens start of with it. After that the sections starts right into Servers, Worldpassas and Worldshift only to come back to what Vana'diel consists off.
In my opinion the server and character creationg things don't have anything to do with plot or setting, they should be put elsewhere, not necessarily together. How about a tech section explaining the intricacy behind running FFXI, how many servers (short mention of Atmos test server), servers actually server banks, how to get onto the servers passing mention of efficiencies of having players from all over the world on the same servers leading to a consistent number of minimum people on the server and having the server load spread evenly out over the day. Maybe go a bit into the problems and curiosity of having people people from different cultures communicating with each oher (auto-translate).
And I object to "Like previous games in the series, Final Fantasy XI is presented in third person perspective," you can play in first person mode if you wish.  --Anibas 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting 

message: Wow, nominating this for GA was EXTREMELY hasty.  There's still a lot of work to be done.  Who put it up already?  There's more information but it's still a mess, and I know I would have appreciated some discussion here about whether it was ready before it was put up.  I'm a little boggled.  -RaCha'ar 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA?!

message: In my opinion this article fails to be a Great Article for the following reasons:
*Part of the introduction reads choppy and does not add useful general information about the game
*The Gameplay section is not very coherent, jumps from topic to topic and contains outdated information (Character creation, minimal information about fighting, minimal information about quests and missions, subjobquest, what is a subjob - with information that hasn't been set up beforehand, i.e. 2hr - sudden talk about abilites and unexplained modifiers - Agi, Dex - G5 for the new jobs has been added, far too much attention on G1-5 and most especially Merit system as compare to the rest of the Gameplay section) Merits are starting at 75, one can mention them, but the explanation how they specifically work shouldn't be here .
*Game Economy places far too much attention on exploits and RMT. Currently it is unclear where the money comes from, if so few money can be obtained from Beastmen, how can there be so vast amounts hinted at in the article. No sources.
*PvP section too long, compared to importance in the game.
*Outdated information in plot section (Vana'diel is larger than one landmass), unexplained (potentially useless) character information (Mind, Intelligence, unexplained game terms), There are many Mobs beside the Bestmen who server as antagonists, there are other important races besides the Zilart.
*Plot: wrong focus, lengthly rant about Dynamis, no talk about the main storyline or other quests (normal and AF, etc)
*Development doesn't even state when the development started or the game was announced or who was responsible.
*Audio doesn't explain what is so special about the Star Onions (developer's band) as compared to the unnamed soundtracks.
*Expansion: jumps from date to date and system to system, gives redundant information (and the price isn't really needed)
*Release: contains information for other sections (anticpiated-reception), does not talk about topic
*Updates: In general does not talk about updates (introduction of new quests, gamepay concepts, jobs - Smn was available before RoZ came out). Does not give the reason why the specific date and length of the update is relevant (despite being the first for a console, which can be mentioned, but not like that). The servers and auction house where shut down on various times for various reasons, why is that one auctions house shut down relevant or in the update section? Why is there another RMT secton, which has nothing to do with Updates
*(Merchandise is a bit small, there is a lot more, including the game guide, soundtracks, Vana'diel Clock, display model, plushies)
There is a disparity between the references, some sections reference almost every sentence, while others have almost no references.
Furthmore the article fails the fifth point of the GA criteria, it is by account of the nominator not stable. --Anibas 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to all of the above.  I was planning on putting a couple of good hours in tonight to making a more coherent article; this gives me some good focus for that. -RaCha'ar 19:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that very extensive and helpful review. I did not expect it to be reviewed so quickly! All of it will be taken into account before renomination :) Judgesurreal777 20:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA 

message: There's a ton of text that isn't showing up in the article, but can be viewed in edit mode.  Anyone know why? -RaCha'ar 23:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First suspect in such cases are the references, which I learned when I translated FFX. I fixed one, haven't looked for others. you have to make sure that a second reference to the same source follows this scheme , it was <ref name="official"> before and that stole your text. --Anibas 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THANK YOU.  I was freaking out. I'll try to check the references but I don't really know how to do them. -RaCha'ar 23:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, it had me frustrated, too. My suggestion would be to have your browser or text processor search (Ctrl+F for my browser) for  shortcut. --Anibas 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Something's wrong...

message: I tried to answer some of the criticisms and add some missing information, as well as removing others, to flesh this out a little.  The sections still aren't in a good order I don't think, and maybe I shouldn't have subdivided it as much as I did, but I think I did okay.  Further tweakage to follow... -RaCha'ar 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reorganized the order of sections.  I'm more satisfied with it now. -RaCha'ar 23:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Added a small section on the battle system - somehow I never noticed before that it wasn't there before.  Add or trim as necessary. -RaCha'ar 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Gameplay section rewrite

message: Just FYI, the release section is about the build up to the release of the game, like any publicity or expectations before it was released. See any of the Star Wars FA's for an example. Judgesurreal777 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release section

message: I archived a bunch of stuff; it was long past due.  Talk:Final Fantasy XI/archive2 -RaCha'ar 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page archive

message: this game doesn't work on Windows Vista. It has a "known compatibility issue" according to the vista OS. I'd like to incorporate this into the article somewhere, where do you recommend I do this? McKay 21:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably under "Updates" Judgesurreal777 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That vista part seem negative, providing Vista isn't offically released yet.  I think it should be reworded slightly. 64.130.135.25 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admittedly, I wrote it while I was frustrated because I can't play, so I'm not suprised that it has a negative tone. The Release Candidate for Vista has been released, which means that unless they find any glaring errors with the release, this is what vista will be like. Also, if you think that it should be reworded, feel free to do so, be WP:BOLD. McKay 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista 

message: WoW has a Criticism section, I say FFXI has one, for instance things about the outlawing of alt-tab and windowed mode. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donatj (talk • contribs) .
:Go for it then. If you'd like more fuel for the fire, let me know. Or I'll add it to  your section when you're finished. McKay 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add support for the criticism section, and add that it should include not just criticism of nuances within the game itself, but a description of how Square Enix has treated the game since its infancy, and thus the successes/flaws/shortcomings that have resulted. I would do this myself had I more time. 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Is this addition appropriate for the article?  It seems like too much information, especially when people have been questioning whether including the genkai information is appropriate at all. -RaCha'ar 07:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leveling system addition

message: This section is for discussion of why the Gameplay section was just tagged as fancruft.  Since I did so much work removing the cruft I really want to know where it remains so I can take it out. -RaCha'ar 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancruft tag

message: are there any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerthewise (talk • contribs) 
:I moved this for you. And no, there are not.  It's MMO-only. -RaCha'ar 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One player modes and free 2 play modes? (moved from article)

message: According to this link, there's a made-to-order only version of the OST being published. Add to article? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FFXI soundtrack announced 

message: I just wanted to point out that I noticed that nowhere in the article it indicated the price to play the game. 199.216.126.50 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... I have no idea when this was removed from the article.  I'll see if I can find a good place to re-insert it. -RaCha'ar 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price to play? 

message: Folks, when making additions to this article, please keep in mind that it's supposed to be encyclopedic and not a game guide.  If you cannot cite your additions with anything other than "well everyone knows that!" then please do not add them to the article, or at the very least, bring them here for discussion first.  This article is too long as it is and our focus should be on streamlining information, not adding more details. -RaCha'ar 17:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Any private servers out there like on WoW and Ragnarok Online?70.132.31.72 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Servers? 

message: On quick change is needed: you have to 'setting' headers. Change one to zones or whatnot. I'll then look it over for spelling and pass it as GA. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 16:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
In short, a few sections need references and there is one fact tag in the article. I may try to contribute to get some more references if I can. When this is complete, contact me on my talk page or feel free to pass the article yourself. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you - I'll see what I can do to fix it up.  Much appreciated. -RaCha'ar 12:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
I would like to congratulate anyone who has helped getting the article this far and good luck on making your way to FA! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WOOHOO!!!  Thanks Greeves!!  ::happy dance:: -RaCha'ar 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! As I am fairly new to reviewing GAs (not good article review, review was just the best word I could think of) please tell me on my talk page how I can do better - this is only my third review! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nom

message: I really do want to pass this article - and it is really close too - but a few things need to be done first.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
In short, a few sections need references and there is one fact tag in the article. I may try to contribute to get some more references if I can. When this is complete, contact me on my talk page or feel free to pass the article yourself. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I'll see what I can do to fix it up.  Much appreciated. -RaCha'ar 12:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on Hold

message: I try not to be too picky but I think that the references just passed; if anyone would like to correct me on that, feel free.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
I would like to congratulate anyone who has helped getting the article this far and good luck on making your way to FA! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOOHOO!!!  Thanks Greeves!!  ::happy dance:: -RaCha'ar 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! As I am fairly new to reviewing GAs (not good article review, review was just the best word I could think of) please tell me on my talk page how I can do better - this is only my third review! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: Looks like this article is not too far away from a FA push. Looks like we have three major game projects going on right now: II, XI, and XII. However, this is pretty much the only FF I have never played, so I will not be able to help out as much with this one. — Deckiller 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA push 

message: I added information regarding Final Fantasy XI: The Vana'diel Collection 2007 for Windows, the latest release from last November which contains all expansions packs. The article only mentioned the 360 version.
--AZ'sReincarnation 23:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy XI: The Vana'diel Collection 2007 for Windows