MoS coloursEdit


  • #4169E1
  • #DD4300

I chose to use the same header colour as FFXI because they're similar games, and the FFXIV logo does have a similar blue. Thoughts? Better choices? I don't really like the orange that much, and the colours I've chosen look like they'll look very odd in tables. Better suggestions, plz?  ILHI 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The top section seems deliberately FFXI-ish, but I think we should try our best to have different top colors for every game so that if the two navs come together they won't seem overly related. So far other than the MMO-part, these games seem to have as much in common as the average Final Fantasy. Also, instead of red, the more dominant color seems to be orange. --BlueHighwind 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Agrees with Blue, FFIV is allegedly set in an entirely different world, so a different header color should be used. Of course, this logo gives us everything from navy to turquoise to orange to purple to red ._. We have several light blue/blue pairs already (FFI and FFXIII), so maybe incorporating a different tint of darker blue and... reddish-purple? Orange looks odd with blue. Maybe:
  • #003399
  • #CC6699

Eh.. yeah, the purple isn't really there in the logo much, but orange would look odd. If nothing else, it would be nice if the subheader color was light enough to allow black colored text. If we want orange:

  • #FF9933

is nice. 8bit 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The quandary is that ILHI's color choice happens to be a perfect match with the top color. Perhaps instead we can go with the lighter blue along with 8bit's orange. I think a good suggestion for that might be:
Though whatever we go with, its probably not going to be a problem for quite awhile. With only two articles (both pitiful stubs), its not like we need a Nav Template at the moment. --BlueHighwind 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That seems a little light. Still might work with the orange, though. How does
  • #33CCFF


  • #66FFFF

look? 8bit 23:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually happy with any either mine or the top one. The bottom one is a little too FFXIII. One edit to the Manuel of Style and it is set in stone. --BlueHighwind 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to get the opinions of some other people first... let's input more colorz o.O 8bit 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual blues in the logo are #5C62AC and #53B1BB. The orange is #F3651B. Master Conjurer 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

5C62AC 53B1BB F3651B

Let's try them out:
  • #5C62AC
  • #5C62AC
  • #53B1BB
  • #F3651B
I kind of like that darker shade of blue. It's different; none of the blues we use are quite as "violet". I think we'd need white font for that. The orange also seems to work well, but so does the other suggested orange shade. The lighter blue looks nice too, it might even go better with the darker blue than an orange... but orange has grown on me >< 8bit 03:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should use #5C62AC and #F3651B. To the MoS! Oh, and while you're there, could you add it to your watchlist or something, or just actually read the talk page. Project talk is an important namespace, especially if the Project page is protected.  ILHI 18:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The darker blue looks pretty good with white text. Put it next to the orange, and it's a match made in Heaven Eorzea: #5C62AC#F3651B. I must say, ColorZilla is the most worth-it add-on I've gotten. Master Conjurer 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the program you used to extract the logo colors, MC? That's awesome ^^ I also like that color pairing. I'll put it on the MoS for now (which is now on my watchlist...hehe.) 8bit 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Excuse my inactivity here for a while, but I can't help and say it. I didn't think they'd keep going after XIII o_O....and there's XIV, are you serious? ChocolancerCL-528 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

AND it's going to be another MMO? Yuck! C'mon Square! Enough of the MMOs! T-T Xenomic 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Enough with the MMOs? This is only the second MMO I've heard of them doing.
FFXI was no only a Ps2 game, but it was very early in the Ps2's life. A next-gen game was inevitable. It's not like more MMOs are taking away from the main games. XIII and XIV are coming out very close to each other. --Zephyrus11 01:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a while back they rented lots for websites for as far as FFXV. --NeoBahamut 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And FF16 was bought by a fan I read. Could that one person end the Final Fantasy series at 15? Unlikely.  ILHI 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a PS3 exclusive one, so there's a hope it hasn't a monthly fee. Good going on returning to exclusivity Square! :D - Henryacores^ 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, if you want my honest opinion, as much as I love the series and all, it's gone pretty downhill from what it used to be, and I think it's time that the series retires. It did what it needed to do and saved Square, and it brought us some really good stories and games, but now it just needs to go away sadly. But that's my opinion..... Xenomic 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems pretty ridiculous to me. Instead of anouncing new games, they should work on their current projects. Silas Harvey

They're working on them all at the same time. SE's work force is big.  ILHI 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Playstation loyal, so it's a relief to know that it's a PS3 exclusive, but that still doesn't stop me from rolling my eyes whenever a number after XIII comes out. The trailer doesn't interest me either... ChocolancerCL-528 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
According to new FFXIV official site, it will be released on Windows aswell MMLN メーマウリアン 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, they've started on this one already?!  Armageddon11! Dissicon ff12 Gab2 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This is so stupid. You are condemning the game and it was just announced! I am tried of hearing this crap like this all the time from you people. You are stripping the game down for only one aspect! Personally, I don't care if it's a MMO, as long as it's a good game. Plus we don't know anything about the game. Blazelord

We are not judgeing the game per-say, some people just feel that the series should end, while others are a bit shocked to hear about this being started when FF13 is still a year from release.  Armageddon11! Dissicon ff12 Gab2 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It's good that Square it putting this out now. This ends the musings of people who think XIII is the last game in the series, and if Square didn't start work on XIV now they would probably end up releasing it around 2015, which would be sad. 8bit 23:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a completely different team that works their MMO division so it takes nothing from FFXIII. They have been working on it since before XIII I think. I enjoyed FFXI even with its little annoyances i.e. waiting to engage adds after combat ended on a mob while taking shots to the face and the fact you can't lv past 40 without a group. If they make the game the same but remove these faults I will be all over it. If you think it needs to retire stop buying it and playing it, let the rest of us enjoy it without having to hear you /cry Eribos

Is this truly PS3 exclusive? The official site states that it's coming out on Windows as well.

Then it's coming out on Windows, then. Speaking of which, expect upcoming vandalism on this page... ChocolancerCL-528 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FFXIV? Mo' like FFXI-2. They even have the same races! They could've at least thought of different races to use instead of rehashing Galka, Mithra, etc. TheMasterFighter 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason there couldn't be other races in addition to the ones from XI. And as for the name, X-2 was confusing enough, and there's no reason not to include a major game in their numbered series. --Zephyrus11 01:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
But the EXACT same ones? Every other numbered entry had completely different premises, stories, characters, etc. and only a few things similar to make it a series. How many people work for Square-Enix? And not one tiny group of people can brainstorm enough to think of more races to use? TheMasterFighter 01:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For those upset with announcing FFXIV before FFXIII is released, you realize IX, X, and XI were all announced at the same time, barely after VIII was released? Did any of those games turn out terrible? Okay, bar IX, they sucked, actually. —BfD (talk·contribs) Confirm deletion|01:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Another MMORPG? Seriously? SE, I'm losing faith in you. All I'm going to say is that FFXV better be the best damn FF ever. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 02:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobuo and Amano are back? Well now I don't know what to think.... Drake Clawfang 04:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
well i don't know about you guys but i quite well like mmos and i'm very eager to get this. only problem is i'm not able to get the money for a monthly sub, so here's the very poor hope there wont be one.Akbaroth 06:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that's the problem isnt it? We've paid for the game disk. Paid good money. Now we gotta pay monthly to actually play the game?!! Why the fuck did we bought the game in the first place then?! Leon5550 07:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's ridiculous. It's like buying a phone and having to pay money for phone service. Or buying a t.v. and then having to PAY MORE to get cable. Those jerks. --Zephyrus11 08:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that's different. A handphone and a phone company's different. And you can still use a TV without cable. But what good does a bunch of disks does if you cant even use them for the money they'r worth? The best thing I can think of is use the disks to carve a hole at those greedy bastard's chest or something. Leon5550 10:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I find that using the sharpness of the disk's to cut a hole large enough for the air to escape in the wheel's of those Corporate Cat's cars a more useful use for them than your's, Leon.  Armageddon11! Dissicon ff12 Gab2 10:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Drake Clawfang, Amano was never gone in the first place. Bluetash 11:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
And Amano only did the logo. The Art Director for this is Yoshida. - Henryacores^ 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yay, Uematsu's composing the full score ^^ Hopefully the soundtracks for XIII and XIV will be beautiful. Also, while I have never played a pay-to-play online game, the MMORPG bashers seem not to realize that XI is updated constantly and that online games require more monitoring, server capacity, and a bunch of other extra costs. And the trailer is sweet ^^ 8bit 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The game and the game company are also different. You don't play from the disc, you play from the server that SE has to keep active 24/7 with thousands of active characters at times. They also have to hire game master's to deal with players problems ingame. Unlike a normal game, you also get Updates to the game in set intervals that add up to the experience. This is why there is a subscription fee. It also stops 10 year old retards from ruining everyone's experience.

Jesus Christ, it's one game. If you don't want it don't buy it. It's not like the world will freeze over if you don't. There are other games in the world and other games made by SE. Play them. Your bitching is quite litterally the stipiddest thing I've ever seen.--Werefang 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Monthly fees are a part of online gaming, you want a great game but without the money coming in they can’t maintain/improve it, they have free mmos out there and some are ok but most suck and no one plays them. I see it this way, I buy a normal FF game, I finish it, maybe replay it a few times then it’s over, I go buy a new game for $60+ at least once a month. With an online game you pay #45ish for the PC disk pay a monthly fee of around $13 a month and keep playing it for years, I save money with the monthly fee. Eribos

This topic is hilarious. Oh wait, I'm not in the forums, I'm on an article talk page.
Regardless, I go off to play some Star Ocean and this is what happens when my back is turned? Jesus. Diablocon

As Diablo pointed out, we kindly remind people that Talk pages are not forum pages and should be used to discuss relevant issues to their article. As nothing further has been revealed about FFXIV, if people continue to treat this page like a forum thread I'm going to have to protect it. Faethinverba volant 14:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You blackmail us?!
EDIT: Kidding ^_^  Armageddon11! Dissicon ff12 Gab2 17:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

May I dump this section onto The Blackjack? Master Conjurer 06:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

5.5 out of 10 from IGN...This is a joke to the series. SquallRocks 20:18, October 110, 2010 (UTC)

Leviathan edit Edit

It was indeed leviathan, but the creature with the cannon on its belly was an Airship (not a creature.)

Trivia Edit

I think this sets a new standard for pointless debates here at the Wiki. Drake Clawfang 20:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I never thought something like that, can became the reason of the fight :P MMLN メーマウリアン 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are fifteen characters visible in the logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) . Please sign your posts with ~~~~.

Why don't we just take the trivia out until somebody can come forth with a quote from a developer (or, hell, God-King Amano himself) that says there are purposefully a specific number of characters on the logo? In the meantime, trivia can be recognized as just what it is by definition: trivial. Eric Ryan Jones 20:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of doing. --Silver Mage 03:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Main Series Edit

I don't exactly think it's debated whether or not FF14 is part of the main series. So why hasn't it been added to that tab on the sidebar yet? I would do it myself if I knew how.

It's XIV, numbered. And it doesn't have a sidetitle. Certainly a part of the main series. ZaFlareStar 13:37 (rofl at the time, seriously) 8th of June, 2010 (UTC)

Release Date Edit

Sephiroth Dissidia Artwork
Earl Tyrant
Eric Ryan Jones, Master Epopt — 13:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you rather a crappy game came out in less time? Have patience, and you will likely be rewarded for it. Besides, until the games get definite release dates, saying things of that calibur is simply foolish.
How long was XII in development? Like six years wasn't it? How long was DNF in development? Twelve years and then the developer went bankrupt, and then they tried to get sued for not finishing the game, a bankrupt company. That was funny.

So yeah, stop whining. I'd rather wait five years for a game the developer has had time to work on, and think through, and put everything in they want to, then to have the same game released in two, with loads of DLC and glitches just because they rushed.  ILHI 16:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Sephiroth Dissidia Artwork

Official nameEdit

The only official name is Final Fantasy XIV Online, not Final Fantasy XIV.

Nope. Final Fantasy XI is the official title used by Square Enix. The "Online" part in the game's logo is not part of the title. Moguta 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I brought this up on Final Fantasy XIV's talk page [1]. Nobody really bothered to show me any proof that it was otherwise. But what do I care? --BlueHighwind 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] "FINAL FANTASY XI" everywhere. Moguta 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Worth to mention?Edit

Is it worth to mention on the main site that there was a playable alpha Version of this game this year at the gamesCom09 in Collogne (Germany)?

Hard to pronounceEdit

Seriously, is or will there be any kind of English informative video on this game at all? I'd like to hear the names of these people and places spoken aloud. Final Fantasy XII already had too many unusual names to remember, but this is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose Duelist (talk) 20:26, November 27, 2009. Please sign your posts with ~~~~.

Well, the game has been promised to release in both America and Europe, so I'm sure we'll get trailers in our own language eventually. As for when... well, the game is still early in development, so we should at least give them time to have something to show, no? -- File:FFIII-nes-sage.gif Saethori (T / C) - 00:39, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Though isn't it agreeable that sometimes the names are so exotic or ridiculously spelled that it makes difficult, if not impossible to recall people and places beyond "that guy with the ___ who ___?" or "that one place with the ____?" Rose Duelist 19:20, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

360 version announced? Edit

IMO not until Square officialy announce it MMLN メーマウリアン 08:40, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Black Mage V

Uematsu's Return Already Seems Brilliant Edit


OST leaked onto internet Edit


Enemies Edit

the Genus list

  • Ahriman
  • Aldgoat
  • Antelope
  • Apkallu
  • Bat
  • Beetle
  • Boar
  • Bomb
  • Cactuar
  • Chigoe
  • Coblyn
  • Crab
  • Crow
  • Dodo
  • Dragon
  • Drake
  • Elemental
  • Firefly
  • Formor
  • Funguar
  • Gnat
  • Goblin
  • Goobbue
  • Hippogryph
  • Imp
  • Jellyfish
  • Ladybug
  • Mammet
  • Mole
  • Mordol
  • Ogre
  • Opo-Opo
  • Orobon
  • Peiste
  • Primal
  • Puk
  • Qiqirn
  • Ram
  • Raptor
  • Rat
  • Roseling
  • Sahagin
  • Salamander
  • Slug
  • Snurble
  • Spriggan
  • Swarmfly
  • Toad
  • Treant
  • Wolf
  • Yarzon 22:38, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Subscription... Edit

You know, I was reading around on some other wikis and I read that Guild Wars 2 doesn't have subscription, just like Guild Wars. Now, I'm not trying to advertise cuz I love Final Fantasy. I would totally get this game if it didn't have subscription. I'm just trying to say if SE could make no subscription that would be EPIC :)

Playstation 3 version has been delayed Edit

Just to warn possible editors: The PS3 version is NO LONGER set for release at march, and the new date is still unknown. So, don't put March 2011 back there =P.


"Regarding the PlayStation 3, it is not our wish to release a simple conversion of the Windows version in its current state, but rather an update that includes all the improvements we have planned. For that reason, we have made the difficult decision to delay the release of the PlayStation 3 version beyond the originally announced date of March 2011."

DiamondEdge 02:07, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee, Directors messed up. Jimcloud Cloud Chocobo 02:10, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Subscription Edit

I know that the $12.95 subscriptions were canceled due to the game being so bad. But does anyone know if this is just temporary or is it permanent? I'm waiting until Final Fantasy XIV comes out for playstation 3. I was just curious if I would only get the 30 day trial with it, or if it is going to be free for longer than that. Johnlanigan 20:09, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

  • Temporary, but no one knows how long the free period will last, and no fixed date has been given yet. The best way to describe it is literally "game is free until fixed". PS3 users likely will have only the 30 day free trial.

DiamondEdge 20:45, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

........ Edit

Oerba Dia Vanille by Badka neechan

Images Edit

FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS

Reception Edit

Is it really necessary to have the reception of the game? No other Final Fantasy game on the wiki has this. -- 18:26, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Some games have it, but basically it should be much better written than what is done on this page... Just listing review scores means nothing. Only one that might be relevant is maybe the metacritic score.Keltainentoukokuu 18:46, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Weird new PS3 release dateEdit

The German amazon page claims that FFXIV for PS3 will be released on June 24th. The other amazon pages do not. Does anyone maybe could have a clue, where they got this information from? Or are they just trolling us? --Haitani 01:01, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

That date is absolutely false. I have no clue where they got it from, but it is wrong; there's no announcement whatsoever on both the lodestone and the official forums, and they wouldn't release the PS3 version just a few days after patch 1.18, neither during the whole set of updates planned for summer.

DiamondEdge 14:18, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

It's not "real" or "false", it's just a placeholder date. Emphasis on placeholder. It's just there because they need one in their database. June 24 is the last Friday (end of the week) of June. It's similar to sales sites having a placeholder date of December 31 (which just means "end of the year") for some games. In fact, past June 14 that page will probably be updated with a date of December 31 instead. Kappa the Imp 15:18, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I thought so. I was just curious, because they just added this date. 2 weeks ago it still said "TBA". --Haitani 13:24, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

outdated? Edit

Id replace this myself but not sure what to write in its place: "Final Fantasy XIV is currently on an extended free trial period, scheduled to end in October 2011." Clearly, it should not be there. i just have no ideas for replacing. 14:42, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

If you see stuff that is clearly outdated you can just take it off altogether. Still better than having old stuff on the page. Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately not too many people here play this game, so our coverage on it isn't stellar.Keltainentoukokuu 15:33, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a real problem. There are plenty of outdated articles and a lot of stuff that we don't even have articles. Personally, I've tried to advertise the wiki on the official forums, but didn't seem to have any noticeable effect. At best, I've seen people linking around a few articles over there (such as Materia (Final Fantasy XIV), but never really editing. If you find stuff that is clearly outdated, you might as well just remove it, or add a template such as the remodel one used on this page List of Final Fantasy XIV weapons. DiamondEdge 18:04, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

A Realm Reborn Edit

The 2.0 (or, now, A Realm Reborn) version kinda looks complicated. Do you guys think it looks complicated, too? :/ --Ethanthegamer (talk) 23:37, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Re-work this page into a "Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn" page as that's what it will be called from now on (fkn stupid name though)? It has a new logo and all. Or have one for FFXIV and one for FFXIV:ARR? This seems to me like an inferior idea because people searching for FFXIV would then get the article on the old version that no longer applies.

What a hassle this is going to be.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 02:12, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think doing the second page would be better. A good deal of the stuff written here will not really change at all. Jobs will be the same (maybe only new jobs might be added), character creation will only have more options, based on what Yoshi-P said, the storyline will probably just have minor changes and continue from where it stopped, music is the same, production is the same, etc. Only stuff that will really be completely outdated are the screenshots and possibly some of the info on the gameplay section. IMO, just move what few 2.0 exclusive info we have here to the new page and keep this one.
In other words, I believe we should just deal with ARR the same way the wiki currently deals with FFXI expansions. Not to mention having info on how XIV was originally doesn't sound like a bad idea.
To be honest, I'm more worried about what to do with area articles like La Noscea, since these will really change a lot. DiamondEdge (talk) 02:23, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
I agree we should keep info on the old version. I worry that most people who put FFXIV to the search don't actually want the old version's article, because people will keep thinking of this game as FFXIV not "A Realm Reborn". Starting an article for Realm Reborn from scratch would perhaps be easier though.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 02:29, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
Well, another option could be having Final Fantasy XIV be about the new version, but make a new page like "Final Fantasy XIV/Legacy", or whatever. That way, we do the opposite of what I said; keep the info exclusive to the current version on the legacy page and anything pertaining to both versions on Final Fantasy XIV. So people searching for Final Fantasy XIV will find everything up to date, and people wanting to read about the "old" version will have to go to the /legacy or w/e DiamondEdge (talk) 02:36, July 27, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, good. I asked a few people about this (no response yet, but it was a few minutes ago). I spent a lot of time on the area pages and I was thinking of renaming those. "Coerthas (Legacy)" for example, since someone brought up "legacy" as a good marker for pre-2.0. Otherwise we could call the new pages (Reborn), but it's better to have the main pages be the most up-to-date. Either way, I'd rather not have pre-2.0 forgotten. Yrusama (talk) 01:18, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
i'm opposed to a second page called A Realm Reborn, but would second subpages that list the old version and how it has changed since the "legacy" version. Essentially ARR is still FFXIV. the extra tag line is just a rebranding strategy. when FFXIV relaunches, ARR will slowly fade away and the game will once again be simply FFXIV. Also, it would make sense that the main articles detail the current version of the game.
What I do think would be good if we had a subpage not unlike Final Fantasy IV/Version differences for the main FFXIV page that details the major changes that (have taken) place in the game. And for areas and such, subpages for legacy stuff as well. like you said, current version should always come first on main pages.--Spira (talk) 17:04, July 28, 2012 (UTC)
Right, just as long as none of the info is deleted. There are a lot of landmarks some people never got to see, even those who play the game now. That's why I've been scrambling to take pictures of the current world. A lot of them, particularly the Gelmorra Ruins, may become relevant to later additions to the game.
I was thinking for the pre-2.0 area page layout we could keep what's there now under a "tour of 1.0" section, but start the page with an explanation of the changes. Yrusama (talk) 18:35, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think Ifrit will finally have a long awaited appearance on A Realm Reborn! And maybe Ifrit and Bahamut and possibly other "wild" characters could appear in their feral form! ^_^ --Ethanthegamer (talk) 00:14, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Uh...Ifrit has been in game since release, he appears early on the main storyline. He was also the first primal battle added. DiamondEdge (talk) 00:20, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I know! Let's start calling the new version "Final Fantasy XIV Reborn" for short! ^_^ --Ethanthegamer (talk) 02:07, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of waiting for FF XIV Edit

I don't mean to be a nag, but is anyone else tired of waiting for the re-release of a game that wasn't really that anticipated anyways? I'm much more interested in hearing about Final Fantasy XV, or at LEAST FF Versus XIII. Maybe even a Western release of Type-0. But I don't have much interest in waiting for this game. 01:29, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thing that the games have entirely different development teams, then, or else the games you're interested in might take even longer.
Well, look; whether or not you like the game (I think it has potential), this is going to be one of Square's biggest moneymakers if they can actually get it to become a quality game. Surely you heard how badly their profit expectations sunk last year when XIV bombed. If they can get that back, and make this a good quality game, then they should hopefully be able to earn that money back and spend it on those precious precious other games of yours (which also look quite good, I'm just playing a little) :3 Jimcloud 01:36, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
XIV is on track and looking to be a pretty fine MMO when it relaunches with ARR.. but yes, the wait is pretty long. Alpha/Beta will be out by this year but don't expect the relaunch to come in 2012. I'm banking on early 2013 PS3 and PC simulaunch ;) Like Jim, I agree that this is really a make or break game. Even if ARR fails to gain traction on the level of FFXI, it'd still be a much better MMO to play than it is now - it could be pretty stellar based on the things they've promised and so on. Yoshi-p has mentioned that they're looking at other possible methods of payment in the game, so if subscription mode holds back the numbers, its very likely they might shift to the F2P/microtransaction+expansion model - something that would both boost FFXIV's player population and still be able to generate more revenue for them. --Spira (talk) 03:46, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Outdoor Region Pages Finished! Edit

I just finished updating the Coerthas page, so now all five non-town regions have the same overall style. Mor Dhona is the exception because it has so few landmarks, so images are added with the info. If anyone thinks this would work for the bigger pages, I'd be willing to change them.

My next project will be to give Gridania and Ul'dah the same treatment as Limsa Lominsa, and thankfully it will be easier to obtain pictures in these areas as there are no ridiculously high-level monsters.

I might as well take this time to thank the other people working on the FFXIV pages. I noticed someone added the info about the Twelve stones to the Seventh Umbral Era page, and somebody made a page for Hamlet Defense. Keep it up! Also, if anyone has a picture of the instance locations for Maelstrom or Immortal Flames in their respective towns, I already have the Lotus Stand for Twin Adder. Can't forget to add those pics :D.

Finally, I hope we've reached a consensus on what to do with the old area pages once ARR comes out. I know I for one have grown curious about what the original development team had planned for some of these unused landmarks, and I think a lot of new players might be interested about them as well. Some of them have been repurposed, like the crystal shrine (tentative name) under Mor Dhona, but I fear the Gelmorra Ruins will never be more than a thought-provoking sight. Yrusama (talk) 14:10, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I've concluded my overhaul of the Gridania and Ul'dah pages, meaning every area in the current game has a slew of pictures and detailed info. Now there is a solid foundation for people to add to.
I'm excited with how much I learned doing this, particularly about Ul'dah and it's worship of Nald'thal. Maybe if we see more info about The Twelve next patch I'll have something to do. I also look forward to helping documenting the changes to Eorzea after it is reborn.
Now that I think on it, I suppose I could toss some dungeon pics in for Thanalan and Black Shroud...Yrusama (talk) 04:53, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help with region pages. You and DiamondEdge are the only people here who know much about it, so we're kind of depending on you here :D. I only know enough to not get totally lost while reading through the pages you make. Jimcloud 05:00, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks a lot for your nice work! Good to see more people working on XIV pages, specially when they aren't lazy like me! DiamondEdge (talk) 11:36, August 6, 2012 (UTC)
awesome work. i feel bad for the fact that a lot of these places will be gone for good in ARR, but am also glad that someone has gone and documented all the important bits before the point of no return.--Spira (talk) 16:07, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is still planning to buy it for cheap before ARREdit

Be quick about it, mateys. :

ARRR! DiamondEdge (talk) 19:09, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

get the CE if you can for the notebook + security token.. lol --Arciel Spira (talk) 14:59, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

The vanilla XIV and A Realm Reborn need to be separatedEdit

Since the vanilla version has been shutdown completely, those old info will become useless for people who want to search for ARR info. people will be confused about info from two versions. In the future, ARR needs its own navbar, table colors, categories and bestiary. Monterossa (talk) 08:25, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Since ARR has a new logo and title, I can see this being feasible. See Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions.
But can't the separation be more subtle? Is this new version that drastically different, unlike any other case until now? Would it warrant a new game page altogether, and in that particular case, this page could remain as an "archive" of a discontinued game?
These definitions are of ultimate importance for the coverage of this title. We never had reboots, only remakes. - 18:44, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
Then what about "Final Fantasy XIV/A Realm Reborn", a subpage? We could direct the players there once at the top of the page, and second time somewhere in the article which talks about the actual ARR.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 18:49, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think ARR needs it's own navbar, as it is, for all intents and purposes, Final Fantasy XIV. Almost everything in the current FFXIV template is still applicable, the locations are the same, many of the original terms are still there, etc. There's little point in making a new navbar - perhaps just changing the colors to match the new logo.
IMO, treating it similarly to Final Fantasy XI expansions would work best, making a new article and mentioning the differences and additions, (see Final Fantasy XI: Rise of the Zilart), and keeping information about the original here. Individual pages can easily accomodate the changes in a Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn subsection, and some won't even need to be changed at all.
As for how different it is, well....without going into details because NDA, it sorta feels like what you'd expected in a sequel to a game. Lots of updated systems and some new stuff, prettier world, new storyline that continues events from the original etc. It's enough to be a different beast while being familliar. DiamondEdge (talk) 00:35, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Well, as far as I can grasp it, Realm Reborn technically functions as a sort of massive expansion. Redesigned engine, visuals and content. There is a very notorious case in the past we can deeply relate this issue with, which is obviously World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. Maybe we can draw inspiration from this?
Individual pages can easily accomodate the changes in a Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn subsection, and some won't even need to be changed at all.
To be honest, would it easier as a long-term approach to make a subsection for the old and retired version of Final Fantasy XIV? - Henryacores 00:45, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Hmm....well, after thinking for a while, this is a bit harder than I expected. This issue might need to be decided in a case by case basis. Here are 3 articles as examples:
Black Shroud: Everything in here but names is null and void, pretty much. The new Black Shroud is completely different and separated into various areas (And each one could be an article, just like XI areas). I'd expect every other location page would be in the same situation...except cities, that are pretty similar from what few pictures we have seen. Griania, at least, is nearly untouched.
Behest: Behests have been reworked to be part of Full Active Time Events, so the article itself might have to be merged into the FATE page.
Primals: And here we have a third article that really needs no change at all, other than having more info on the lore once it's available.
Oh well, I will be honest here: I think we need someone else's opnion, someone more acknoledgeable about the wiki policies than me, haha. DiamondEdge (talk) 01:21, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
I quite prefer Henry's take. The templates don't need to change (ok maybe the colors) and A Realm Reborn is essentially the same game but rebooted. You can call it a remake or whatever, but typically remakes don't get their own page or whatever, so we really don't need another game page. in the future, XIV:ARR will likely slowly revert back to just being XIV because thats its real title anyway. It's not likely expansions will be called Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn: (Expansion Name) either.
With regards to specific legacy content in pages like Ul'dah and so on, it'd make sense for practical reasons to have ARR content on it, and put Legacy content onto subpages, as was discussed elsewhere on this wiki before. ARR is the now and supercedes legacy, so people who come to peruse the wiki will want to look for ARR info by default. this makes more sense in the long run. If we need to list changes that can be done in a small section somewhere. --Arciel Spira (talk) 06:01, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Let me resurrect this discussion. A Realm Reborn is clearly a different game than the original FFXIV, mainly because there is a clear discontinuity between the two signified by the long sabbatical FFXIV has taken. You need new physical media to play FFXIV 2.0, essentially the entire game has been completely redone already, and the only continuities between the two games are a story and a few refugee accounts from FFXIV 1.0 that can be transferred to FFXIV 2.0. Its considerably more than an expansion pack, its a full remake, more so than any other remake SE has ever done. And I should note, Wikipedia has separate pages for both projects. I'd argue that these are not the same game at all, but two different games. --BlueHighwind 13:56, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Also contributing to this discussion...

Now that ARR is 1) deep in beta, 2) just a few months from release, and 3) looking pretty freaking excellent, it's about time this page received somewhat more substantial revision. Two main questions come to mind currently: one, when should the various systems sections be updated with detailed information on gameplay in ARR? Right now, with the beta NDA having been lifted enough to discuss such things? During beta 4, which will be the open beta? During the release window and early access period? Secondly, what is to be done with the "Legacy" systems sections? Should they be purged from the wiki entirely, should they be moved over to their own sub-article for historical purposes, or should they remain in the main article? I'm personally in favor of the second and against the third (it would make the article absurdly huge).

The nature of ARR's massive, sweeping changes to XIV are more or less unprecedented for a Final Fantasy title, and are bringing up questions editors of this wiki haven't had to consider before. I wanted to make sure there was discussion of these questions before I acted on my own.

As for the rest of the recent discussion, I'm more of the opinion that ARR content should "take over" the primary XIV page. "Legacy XIV" is no longer playable in any fashion (thank the Twelve), and if anything I believe that is what should be split off into its own sub-page, as it is now more or less a historical footnote. The Final Fantasy XIV page should, first and foremost, discuss the current, playable version of the game - that being ARR. 07:25, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Job requirementsEdit

I don't think the actual requirements for taking up a job in ARR are known yet. All that is beeing posted seems to be speculations based on how it was in 1.x. It is highly possible to be the same or similar, but we don't know yet, and I don't know, but I think that should be either reflected, or the speculation just taken out of the article. 17:01, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

There was a beta, which some people on this wiki took part in. Of course, the requirements will probably be changed a bit now that the beta is over. But this whole article needs a cleanup, which I'll get to later today. C A T U S E 17:13, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
I also participated, and I know jobs were not aquireable. There IS no information as of current in how they are unlocked - including it not beeing in the beta. What is written is still COMPLETLY speculation, and this is not even REFLECTED. I guess I'm just gonna that Balthier tag there for now. 21:47, July 19, 2013 (UTC) Update: I just noticed it's meant for the whole article. Such, it IS in fact reflection that this is likely not to be true, so I'm just not gonna bother anymore.

New colors for A Realm RebornEdit


how about this:

  • #16487A
  • #3CA1BF

or this:

  • #16487A
  • #9C2334

Monterossa (talk) 15:02, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

i like the second one.. first feels really similar to XI..? --Arciel Spira (talk) 15:54, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to introduce a new colour scheme for ARR (I mean, I guess we should, considering it is technically a new game and all)
  1. Second colour scheme is better, as the red is really prominent on the logo.
  2. We need to keep the old colours for Legacy stuff.
Just throwing those out there. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 05:40, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather have the second one, the first is basically our XI color scheme. Probably should do white-on-red though, the black-on-red is kind of hard to read.
Since most XIV-related tables are going to be ARR-related (since we barely have any coverage of Legacy... from what I've seen, could be wrong about that) we might want to make these the FFXIVa and FFXIVb colors, and then XIVla/b or some other abbreviation for the old colors, to use on Legacy pages. C A T U S E 06:07, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
Definitely better. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 06:11, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
Hey, uh, were we going to implement this change? I see the sideicon uses ARR colours while our class codes still use 1.0. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 08:55, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

This Ongoing banner is annoyingEdit

Userbox ff7-barretBarret: There's no gettin' off this train we on 'till we reach the end of the line.
This article is about an ongoing project that's continually being updated. As such, some of the information might be inaccurate or likely to change. Please look over our policy for updating articles covering upcoming games before editing this page.

Do we really need to put this Barrett banner left and right in XIV articles? It's so obvious that everything in MMORPG are subject to change in the future. Monterossa (talk) 14:46, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

it is pretty annoying.. then again it does make you wonder.. most articles where this banner is relevant are MMO ones? that pretty much makes the banner redundant.. unless we have certain articles that are "ongoing" only for limited periods of time... I would support any move to keep the banner off articles that have content that is perpetually ongoing.. ie FFXI and FFXIV.--Arciele Spira (talk) 15:34, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd say it made sense during 1.0, as some of the patches drastically changed core systems on the game after Yoshi-P took charge. Almost every major patch made entire articles completely outdated.
That said, I agree that it isn't necessary to use the template so much at this point, since large scale changes over patches are very unlikely to happen now. I think only stuff that do get constantly updated (lists, for example) should have the template now. DiamondEdge (talk) 15:39, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
Can we at least revamp this template? If FFXIV is the only thing going to use it, it should have FFXIV character instead of Barrett, and also make it smaller, with less texts. Monterossa (talk) 11:00, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Dead link Edit

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--intangir bot (master) 02:18, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Activities section Edit

Shouldn't it be put under the Gameplay header instead of its own further down?--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 10:53, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Monterossa (talk) 11:04, November 19, 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion Edit

Use the orange part of the logo for the crystal template. It's more faithful to the original unaltered logo and is still present in the new one in the form of the text, and honestly the tables would look more unique compared to others this way. Just a suggestion 22:18, December 21, 2014 (UTC) (anonymous user)

The orange is used for Legacy content, we treat the two games as separate. Also, the orange is not in the ARR logo, the red we use is pulled straight from the text on it. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 00:16, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
That's sort of what I meant; the text. And if they're treated as separate games than why is XIV alone applied to ARR's crystal when the title of the game is not "Final Fantasy XIV?" It would be like using the X crystal for X-2. I just think that to honour the older version of the game and sort of remain faithful, the orange-red from the text in ARR's logo should be used instead 00:34, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
The title of the game is still Final Fantasy XIV, the "A Realm Reborn" part is a subtitle. It's not like we are gonna have a different crystal for the upcoming Heavensward content, at which point the game is no longer Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, it will be Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward, and it definitely won't be Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn: Heavensward. ARR is essentially treated as an expansion in the title, even if it is not an expansion by definition. --Sove 00:42, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Main point I'm getting at though is it would be nice to preserve the untouched Amano logo. I think the majority of people would agree that it's much more interesting/visually pleasing than the new monochromatic recolour, and if going by the logic that ARR is more of a subtitle than anything, it would still apply to the game. Not like the colour will be changed to match Heavensward's logo 00:51, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Major Updates and ExpansionsEdit

Suggestion to break up the Expansion patches to be included within the Expansion's page itself. ie. this section will only list 2.x update summaries, as well as a very brief description of the expansion with a link to it's own page. Thereafter the expansion's page would have its own Major Updates section where you can put the update summaries, so eg. Heavensward would list 3.1 and 3.2. 3.0 would likely be covered under gameplay. Woould give the expansion page more info which rightfully belongs on that page, and also prevents the main XIV page from bloating with future expansions. In the alternative, only list expansions (like FFXI) and create a new List of FFXIV major updates page with update summaries which spans 2.0 thru to expansions--Arciele Spira (talk) 04:01, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Whereas I'd personally start patch history coverage from scratch, just limit the section to even shorter prose about content added and big changes with subheaders for 2.0/3.0 etc, then give FFXIV its own patch history page with subpages as needed. Either Final Fantasy XIV/Patch history or Patch history of Final Fantasy XIV (going to start a forum on defining when we use what title one of these days...). Thing is, some of the updates in the 3.0 series apply to ARR as well, regardless of whether you have the expansion downloaded or not, but I do definitely agree that coverage of patch histories, as it stands, is a mess.
On that note, I'd also make a separate page for A Realm Reborn, and use this page for the centralized game - though I think I've brought that up before somewhere...--Magicite-ffvi-ios Technobliterator TC 04:09, January 4, 2016 (UTC)
I think people generally get that XIV is an MMO and changes made in 3.0 apply to ARR as well so that shouldn't be an issue. in other words its not so much a categorical placing of info as it is chronological - and my idea of placing 3.x patch summaries in the HW page is to tell people "this happened in the HW era". that being said, i think anyone who is interested in the patch changes will want to see it across expansions, so a Patch History page does seem more appropriate. The next question for that would then be how to deal with 1.0 patch history wrt that page, because its essentially a different game and not connected.--Arciele Spira (talk) 04:23, January 4, 2016 (UTC)