Final Fantasy Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Gilgamesh-ffv-ios-portrait
Gilgamesh: Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Omega (enemy)". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.
Take a good look. Isn't it beautiful?
FF5Crystal Behold! This article has been chosen as the Featured Article of June, 2010!
Even so, if you wish to improve the article, do not hesitate! You can also nominate your favorite articles to be featured here!

Okay, my mind is really fried on this...I want to hear what ideas anyone has on this awesome enemy's beginnings. I really hope it doesn't turn into anything cliche or the like... TheMasterFighter 04:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So you wish to know where giant killing machines come from do you? Oh lord...I was hoping not to have to break out the sock puppets again, you see, when a mommy killing machine, and a daddy killing machine, love each other very much...If you hate this joke you either have a decent sense of humor or none at all, probably the latter. Exdeath64 04:08, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I chuckled TheMasterFighter 03:34, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Omega and Omega Weapon Same Enemy or Not[]

60px-ChibiRain.png
I wouldn't take their different appearances as anything of importance, after all, the Ahriman that appeared in XII is still an Ahriman, regardless of its total image revamp. I don't know about Dissidia files, because I've never played it, but I've always thought Omega was a recurring thing throughout the series regardless of appearance, much like the Ultima Weapon. - Paramina 18:11, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not worry about their appearance, it the Dissidia files is what make me think about this. If Omega and the Omage Weapon are the same thing, then the file should say he appear in V, VIII, X, XI and XII, instead it said he appear in V and XI. But I don't know why it didn't say XII sense XII's Omega is just like normal Omega.  NeoZEROX Dissicon ff6 Ter4 18:18, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Omega (Summon)=[]

    (cur | prev) 02:47, 2 August 2011 BlueLionheart (Talk | contribs) m (1,057 bytes) (rollback | undo)
    (cur | prev) 17:39, 15 April 2011 Melios (Talk | contribs) (1,063 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 02:33, 10 January 2011 Leon95 (Talk | contribs) m (837 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 05:00, 8 January 2011 Jimcloud (Talk | contribs) m (838 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 02:52, 7 April 2010 BlueLionheart (Talk | contribs) m (834 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 03:34, 10 January 2010 NeloAngelo (Talk | contribs) m (830 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 13:32, 1 August 2009 Silver Mage (Talk | contribs) m (470 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 09:44, 20 July 2009 Silver Mage (Talk | contribs) m (452 bytes) (linking) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 14:15, 19 July 2009 Relly Komaruzaman (Talk | contribs) (452 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 20:13, 10 April 2009 Born from Darkness (Talk | contribs) m (448 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 20:05, 8 March 2009 Faethin (Talk | contribs) m (456 bytes) (format) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 20:02, 8 March 2009 Zolo6 (Talk | contribs) (452 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 00:55, 12 January 2009 Oranejo (Talk | contribs) (408 bytes) (pic) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 02:03, 9 January 2009 Dazuro (Talk | contribs) (363 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 23:46, 8 January 2009 Henryacores (Talk | contribs) m (364 bytes) (undo)
    (cur | prev) 00:32, 6 January 2009 Henryacores (Talk | contribs) (290 bytes) (New page: {{Images}} '''Omega''' is a summon in ''Dissidia''. When summoned, it repeatedly reduces the opponent's Brave by half during a certain period of time. The artwork used fo...)

-Henryacores^ 21:16, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Omega =/= Omega Weapon?[]

I've always been of the opinion that Omega, and Omega Weapon are separate superbosses. There's some cross-over, such as Ultima appearing in XI alongside Omega. But for the most part, Omega is a dimension hopping four legged spider robot, whereas Omega Weapon is just the ultimate "Weapon" type monster in whichever game he appears in. The only real reason to group them together is because they both have Omega in their names.

Especially as the series has gone on, and Omega has appeared more times without the Weapon classification, on top of Dissidia's records ignoring "Omega's" appearance in VIII and X, I think its pretty obvious they're separate entities.——Preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.107.105 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~. jackstin

I must say you got a point there, also the recently announced Valfodr DLC looks a lot like the "Weapon"-classified enemy. But yeah, FFI, FFV, FFXII, and FFXIII-2 have the same looking enemy, but in FFVIII, FFX, and FFX-2 it's completely different in their stories.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 19:04, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, in the Italian Wiki we found a solution to this problem: we listed separately Omega's and Omega Weapon's appearances, but kept them in the same page (we did the same thing for Ultima). See our Omega page. --Pmbarbieri 19:12, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the layout is pretty good in the Italian wiki. I also think there may be a case that Omega and Omega Weapon are not the same thing; the Dissidia profile thing is a good point.Keltainentoukokuu 19:27, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Omega in VII is the bestest of all Weapons... 79.69.205.188 19:57, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is overlap that means it isn't strictly right to classify them as entirely different. As JBed points out, Omega in FF7, even if it isn't given the Weapon moniker, is said to be a Weapon like the others, and in FFX Omega Weapon is born from the Yevon monk Omega. While Omega and Omega Weapon do often look different, FF6 and FF8 OW are silver and blue like Omega, but Omega MK12 looks nothing like Omega. Doreiku Kuroofangu 21:27, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT - as for the Dissidia museum, 012 doesn't list Shiva in FF13 (though it mentions its appearance in the profile), doesn't consider Demons Gate as a type of Demon Wall (the original Dissidia museum did, 012 doesn't), lists FF12's Atomos with the recurring Atomos despite the fact they're entirely different...all in all it really isn't reliable to base information on. Doreiku Kuroofangu 21:34, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

You got to consider the fact (which I believe I'm not mistaken with), that whenever Omega is refered to as "Omega Weapon" is when it comes along the similarly named "Ultima Weapon". That being said, it means that the moniker of Weapon is conditioned to whether there is an Ultima Weapon or not. Meaning that Omega Weapon is still Omega, and the "Weapon" surname, is given solely for gameplay purposes to indicate that when there is a Ultima Weapon, there is a stronger Omega Weapon, but overall Omega is Omega, a powerful superboss. Sometimes Omega has background, sometimes it does not, that depends on the game as even Omega robot has different background in each game it appears. Even Ultima has background, and sometimes it does not, the only reason Ultima from Ivalice has its own page is because Ultima from Ivalice is an esper and conditioned to the Ivalice universe that is its own universe, but not in the same case as Omega. So personally I'm not really fond of separating the names. --BGMaxie 23:42, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Drake's information is mostly wrong: Shiva is listed as a summon from XIII in 012, however, so is Carbuncle, but in the meanwhile Ramuh and Ifrit are ommitted. 012 lists Demon Wall in XII.

However, Dissidia also lists Phoenix from XII, where we cover it as a reference to the Suzaku. It also doesn't include references to the airship Alexander from XII, while it lists Ifrit, Shiva, Carbuncle, Bahamut and Leviathan in that game, and I believe the reference to Atomos is analogous.

The main reason why I think Dissidia can be used as a source, but not as a base for our articles, is the fact that it does not list any appearances of the Worm summon before FFII, while the game borrows the enemy's FFII artwork. The museum is an inconsistent source. - Henryacores^ 23:51, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think the way the Italian wikia has handled this is exceptional, showing both forms distinctly, but on the same page. The problem with bunching them both together is that both WEAPONS and Omegas have pretty distinct features, and neither really fits into each others catagory. And yet there is obviously overlap. I heartily endorse the Italian method.

EDIT: I think it is worth noting that Theatrhythm features Ultima Weapon, and Omega. Ultima Weapon looking like VIIs WEAPON, and Omega being a 4 legged robo spider. I think this backs up the idea that Omega Weapon as a suped up Ultima Weapon, is different from Omega.

No, it does not, simply because the game runs in a multi-dimensional setting, similar to Dissidia and The After Years, therefore, you cannot set any relationship, neither base it as the lack of it, as they come from different worlds and games. When this happens Omega is ALWAYS a representative of FFV whereas Ultima Weapon is a representative of FFVI. That does not make a point. --BGMaxie 00:53, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with listing the two under two different headers and noting in the Profile section, or whatever it's called, and it isn't clear to what degree Omega and Omega Weapon are or are not the same being. Doreiku Kuroofangu 05:51, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the benefit of having a page including both Omega the robot and Omega the weapon, when you can just have a disambig splitting the two. JBed 16:13, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

The thing is exactly the opposite, there is no benefit, no point, and no major impact if we DO separate them, as there are just not any satisfactory reasons that implies those two have to be in two different pages. --BGMaxie 02:51, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Omega spider is a robotic spider, clearly different from the Omega who appears as a weapon. They are clearly different, and we don't cover two clearly different things on the same page.
Instead of splitting the page down the middle (which is entirely pointless because they are two clearly different things, sometimes with the same name--and parents are not made to facilitate things with the same name, but the same things) we should just split it into two articles. It would be like keeping the Fire, Fira, and Firaga articles in one page, where we use h2 headers to separate them. JBed 11:59, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Difference being solely in appearance, not in "function". Omega's role is to be a superboss, be it robot or Weapon, that is its main role in the series, hence why splitting them in two pages is absurd as it of no importance if it is robot or Weapon, Omega is a name used across FF games to denote a powerful being and that is all. Square has changed designs but that does not mean it is different, because as I've said the "Weapon" moniker is given ONLY when Ultima is present as a Weapon as well, which makes the fact that robot and weapon are different to be subtle and highly conditioned to whether there is an Ultima or not, which I don't find to be enough of a reason to separate them. As for your magic example, Fire, Fira and Firaga must be separated as they function differently and also because going into detail for the 3 tiers and sometimes 4 tiers in a single page, would make the magic pages stupidly large and confusing. It is also the case with the FF13 and 13-2 roles, they have their own pages because both games have similar yet different mechanics and commands, also including the monster mechanics. It all depends on how each page works differently. Omega Weapon DOES NOT work different than Omega robot, and unless that is the case, appearance enough shouldn't be enough reason to go into a major seperating work as it will be more of a time loss than anything as neither page will have some specific material that makes them distinct. --BGMaxie 14:26, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Comparing how we handle different types of articles is a bad example as each is type of page is different and unique. In the case of monsters, role doesn't matter. If they're both superbosses, fine. But if one category that doesn't use the Weapon tag are clearly robot spiders and the other category that does use the Weapon tag clearly aren't robot spiders, that's a distinction we have to make. Appearance trumps role in the case of monsters. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 14:36, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Not exactly as some monsters are known to have drastic changes in appearance, but nonetheless have a same parent page. Appearance itself is not enough to make a distinction. I do agree that different pages are to be handled differently. I do agree with stating that Omega can be called Omega Weapon and add further info from that point, but I do not see the sense of making two different pages. --BGMaxie 15:13, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
And I don't see the sense in keeping them both on one when Omega and Omega Weapon share more differences*(name, appearance, history) than similarities*(role). - +DeadlySlashSword+ 15:43, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm the person who started this discussion. I think they should stay as one page. Omega and Omega Weapon have clear differences, not just in appearances. Is the fact that they both are superbosses, and they both have Omega in their names enough to say that they were ever the same recurring superbosses? Probably not, but there is still notable crossover.

In short, it would be inaccurate to blindly call them the same recurring superboss; there's never been a four legged robo spider called 'Weapon', and those which are named 'Weapon' are bio-weapons of some sort. On the other hand Omega Weapon is born from a character called Omega in X. Omega WEAPON is called Omega in Dirge of Cerberus, and Omega in XI is paired with Ultima. I really think that using one page would suffice with a heading for 'Appearance as Omega', and 'Appearance as Omega Weapon' respectively. ——Preceding comment was unsigned. Please sign your posts with ~~~~.

If we're going to practically divide the content of the page in two where neither side will reference the other, there is no point in keeping them on the same page. It would pretty much be like having two articles in one article. Which makes you question why it has to be two articles. JBed 15:35, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Even if widely different appearance, it comes down to are they still intended to represent the same thing. That's (one of) the reason why the summon pages were merged to creature pages not so long ago, so no longer Tonberry the enemy page and Tonberry the summon page. Even if you had a drastically different looking Tonberry it would go to the Tonberry page if it is still intended to represent a Tonberry. Another thing that could strengthen the idea that they are different things is that Omega's signature attack is Wave Cannon. Does the weapon type ever use it?Keltainentoukokuu 15:45, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Only FFVI Omega Weapon had Wave Cannon. And I don't necessarily agree with the fact that they're meant to represent the same entity. If it was a sinlge differing appearance sure, but Omega Weapon has turned into its own little string of superbosses, all with noticable differences than the original Omega series of bosses. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 15:52, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we'd need to have the page split in 2 with neither section referencing each other. You could easily have a beginning blurb explaining that there were too forms with significant crossover.

It is also worth noting that FFVIs Omega Weapon having Wave Cannon is likely due to it being Kaiser Dragon's substitute, and Kaiser Dragon uses Wave Cannon.

And the beginning blurb will just say "Omega has referred to two different types of enemy", then you'll go onto explain two things, and then on to explain the extreme few similarities. Before the page is then clearly split in two.
Or we could do what we would usually do and give them two separate articles but mention similarities and link to the other in the introduction.
I would not say they are two forms. Generally "Omega" in games means "the best". Weapons are generally superbosses, and therefore Omega Weapon is too. But if you have Omega Weapon there's no need for the similarly named Omega.
Ergo, two different things. It's easier to treat them as two completely different things than to give coverage to them both on the same article in a way we have never done. JBed 19:07, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure of that. I agree with Kel. Omega robot and weapon, despite their difference are meant to go for the same things, making their differences even if plenty, rather meaningless purpose-wise, to have them separated into two articles, because they are in essence the same being. It is (and yes imma refer to other pages) different to the Summon page, there each kind of summon alas Aeon, Eidolon, GF, etc. Has its own page according to its own game and the "role" they have overall in said game as they work differently but similarly. Here is the same, you have Omega robot and Omega Weapon, they are different but similar as well, and just like Aeons, Eidolons, GF go for Summons, weapon and robot go for Omega. Omega the robot itself can be its own being, but Omega Weapon cannot as Weapon is not the same thing, even the many Omega Weapons differ with each other, and as such, would have to get their own articles, which they do already. Therefore given the overall appearances of Weapon are not "stable" Weapon cannot be considered "its own being", therefore Weapon being incorporated into Omega as one sole page, is for me the best course of action. And sorry if I may look confusing and a bit redundant with this example, but the point is that despite the differences which the two kinds have, there is really nothing at all, that gives an "extra value" to the Weapon page by itself instead of being here, where it is far more tidy. Also, unless it is my idea, the moniker weapon has not been reused save for remakes right? That makes more of the Weapon moniker more of a tendence than "its own being", ain't it? --BGMaxie 22:16, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

I think separate pages is a good idea, sorry for not being clear. Different entity different article yeah. They have different background, Omega being a robot built by a scientist that escaped and fell into the rift or whatever, and Omega Weapon is some kind of bioweapon that is similar in every game it appears in, but not the same monster.Keltainentoukokuu 23:44, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ouch at that D: Well I'm not sure....they have their differences, but nothing really notable that makes them deserve their own pages. --BGMaxie 23:55, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
So having different names, appearances, backgrounds, histories, purposes, attacks and abilities isn't notable enough? - +DeadlySlashSword+ 02:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Different names? Not exactly, both are called Omega. Appearance? That may be one thing. Background? Omega almost never has background, if anything the only "background" we have is from a compilation of game that "suggest" it is the same thing, but nothing really proven, history goes in the same path. Purposes? They are both superbosses, they have the SAME purpose. Attacks and Abilities? Even Omega robot's abilities vary from game to game. So anything apart from Appearance that sounds convincing? --BGMaxie 03:06, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
If you want to pick this apart, fine. Different names matter because they're not spelled the exact same way; since Omega Weapon has "Weapon", that's a distinction we have to note. As for background, we know Omega was always a machine crafted by mankind, whereas Omega Weapon was never more than half-machine, and not always created by man. In history, mythology in the games heavily suggest Omega is the same entity across games, whereas Omega Weapon has been different entities throughout the series. I think you're confusing purpose with role. Sure, both Omega and Omega Weapon both share a role as superbosses from a gameplay standpoint, but purpose has to do with story: Omega's purpose has always been to destroy powerful creatures or civilizations, whereas Omega Weapons have always had differing purposes, if they've had one at all. As for attacks and abilities, Omega always has had attacks such as Wave Cannon (it's signature move that only FFVI Omega Weapon has) and other moves based on rockets, flamethrowers, lasers, and the like whereas Omega Weapon almost always has high-level magic as its primary form of attack. Anyways, you're in the minority right now as far as if the page should be split or not, so I have to ask if you have any more compelling arguments? - +DeadlySlashSword+ 03:46, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
I could throw reasons, and keep arguing, but it seems none of us is really going to back down, and the "minority now" does not mean a thing, as this discussion is quite long and there are plenty of yes as there are no. With such controversy and differing points I'm not sure if this will separated (which it shouldn't in fact). Omega is Omega, be it robot or bio-mechanical, and I'd agree more with you if Weapon was a more repeated tendence, but since last games it seems that Square scrapped the "Weapon" model, and went for the original one. So what you're doing is separating pages based on what is likely the company's "whim"? --BGMaxie 04:00, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Omega is Omega, be it robot or bio-mechanical
You completely disregarded my last reply, right? You must have. There were multiple points laid out to prove the opposite, and that's the best counter-argument you can come up with?
I'd agree more with you if Weapon was a more repeated tendence, but since last games it seems that Square scrapped the "Weapon" model, and went for the original one.
How we cover any given topic isn't defined by how recent it is or by what current trends the games have followed. It doesn't matter that there hasn't been an Omega Weapon recently, the fact that there's been any at all is enough. Who's to say there won't be another one in the future? As it stands, Omega Weapon has enough appearances to warrant it's own separate coverage.
So what you're doing is separating pages based on what is likely the company's "whim"?
By that logic, you want them to keep them together because of that whim, but that's just an ignorant stance to take overall. I doubt SE made such a change, or make any large decision "because they can". - +DeadlySlashSword+ 04:16, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Let's take stock of the situation. No, this isn't a vote; I'm just trying to clear up whether Maxie is in "the minority now". 6/9 users prefer a split. That isn't consensus, but I'd describe people who support the split as a majority.

I'm in favor of a split as they seem to be different monsters. One is a spiderbot thing that shoots lasers, the other is a relative of Ultima Weapon. They're both superbosses named after Greek letters, but that's about it.

Oh, and the "I think?"s are used when I'm not sure -- feel free to correct me if I got it wrong. It's late and I don't think I'm thinking straight. Cat 05:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Users in favor of a split
  • DSS
  • Kaimi (I think?)
  • Henry (I think?)
  • JBed / IP79.69
  • Kelt
  • Cat
Users in favor of leaving it alone
  • IP212.139
  • Drake (I think?)
  • BGMaxie

I've changed my mind back to thinking the page should be split (person who created this discussion, Jackstin is moi). Mainly because of this: why does anyone think Omega and Omega Weapon are the same? Why is this your initial assumption. Omega is never called Omega Weapon, and Omega Weapon is only ever called Omega once, colloquially. Is the fact that Omega and Omega Weapon kind of sound the same and they are both super bosses enough? Hey, Ozma kind of sounds like Omega, why not put that in here too. It's not about grouping together or splitting two forms of the same monster, it is about splitting two entirely separate entities that should never have been assumed to be the same in the first place. ——Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.42.230.159 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~.

I'd also like to quickly add that Ultima and Ultima Weapon do not share the same page, and they are as different as Omega and Omega Weapon. Alsomi don't know why my IP seems to have changed im 212.139. Jackstin

If that is so, then it is ALSO being assumed that they are different entities. Based on what? Different appearance, and different abilities to a degree? There is no official source, whatsoever, that states the two are different. For FF7 we refer it to Omega Weapon because it IS a WEAPON, but its name is Omega, as for the likes of the anime for instance Omega is not a robot but called Omega nonetheless. Seeing those examples, it makes the difference brought upon the Weapon moniker to be really, really meaningless to serve as a basis for separation. The Ozma, example has nothing to do with Omega, as they don't even share the same Kanji, which means that by all instances, the two are different. I would agree with the separation if there was solid proof (not assumption, PROOF) that Weapon is different, and not just a tendence that was used and later scrapped by Square. And if we are to base on appearance and a moniker for differences, then what about FFTA2? There is the Magick Weapon, that just looks like Omega Mark XII, that would make that robot Omega a "Weapon" which means that it does not matter if it is robot or biomechanical, right? As for Ultima, the only difference in which that is true is with Ivalice's Ultima. That Ultima has another role given that the Ivalice universe by itself has expanded a lot, and therefore the Ultima that is there serves another purpose, not like Omega and Weapon. I'm sorry if I look stubborn but I dislike when decissions are made upon lack of info. --BGMaxie 14:16, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
What official source do you want? What official source says that are the same, then? The Dissidia profile as stated earlier lists appearances of Omega but only lists the robot version, although it has been shown that the Dissidia Museum is inconsistent.Keltainentoukokuu 14:22, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
"There is no official source, whatsoever, that states the two are different."
People don't usually make official statements to say things are different. You usually assume they are different unless there's an official statement or strong implication otherwise. Having the same name and being a superboss doesn't cut it for me, because that's just like saying everything with the word "Ultima" in should be in the same article, because it's a term always associated with something very powerful.
I probably skimmed over a point, but I'm just going to say this: There is a lack of evidence suggesting they are meant to be the same thing. In fact, they are quite clearly not the same thing. Omega--robot spider & Omega--Weapon enemy. It would be an injustice to keep them on the same page. JBed 14:28, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

On top of that Omega and Omega Weapon are not the same name. It's not a translation issue. Omega Weapon appeared as recently as Final Fantasy X-2. To my recollection the translation on that was pretty top notch. There are far too many differences, and not enough crossovers to keep this in one article in my opinion.

It would really be good to know who posts what, please sign your posts people. Thing is JBed, that we lack info to both keep it and to both separate. If that is all, then we're going to do things when there are still lots of holes, as I stated in my most recent post. And given that it seems that keep this going isn't gonna change anything, I may ask who is going to be in charge if reading all this to finally come to the conclusion of whether or not it should be separated? --BGMaxie 14:58, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Jackstin, me. I don't want to labour a point, but should we be looking at it from the angle of should we separate them? That's usually how you do it when new evidence comes to light. The angle I think most of us are looking at it from is 'Should we have ever put them on the same page?'. I think in the end the two being are just too different to be considered the same. I agree with Maxie though, we need to find someone to judge this. I don't know how things work around here, so I'll leave that to others. Jackstin (yay i remembered)

I think that splitting both Ultima Weapon or Omega is silly because they're more than obvious references to each other, even if distinct entities. References of this level fall in our criteria to merge Summons with Enemies. Bombs are not Summons in every appearance; Leviathan is not the father of Eidolons in every appearance; Bahamut is not the god of summons in every appearance; Behemoths aren't huge quadrupedal enemies in every appearance; Alexander is not the ultimate Eidolon in every appearance: yet all of them share an article, because they are strong references to each other. - Henryacores^ 23:40, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

The silliness of this comes from the very recent merger of articles as the ones listed above. - Henryacores^ 23:41, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I don't undertand quite right, you find that splitting pages like Omega would be silly given the references to each other, but then you claim the silliness of this kind of discussion comes from mergings of pages with differences but references as well? Alas making this page no exception in maintaining that "rule"? Is that it or am I lost helplessly with so much discussion? --BGMaxie 23:51, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
I really don't understand your doubt. I do think and defend the idea that the pages in question meet the criteria to remain as the parents they are. - Henryacores^ 23:56, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say HenryA.

"References of this level fall in our criteria to merge Summons with Enemies."

That is completely different. I tell you as the person who most encouraged these mergings. We had an enemy Tonberry article, and a summon Tonberry article. But they are the same Tonberry. Instead of having an enemy article, and a summon article, and other miscellaneous points on a disambig (there's been Tonberry dolls, yes?), we have a Tonberry creature page-- which covers every time a Tonberry has appeared.

You've got it wrong, they weren't merged because they're a reference. They aren't. They can't be. Because they're the same thing.

Omega and Omega Weapon have one reference to each other. FFVI's Omega Weapon uses the Wave Cannon attack. But even that arguments weak because IIRC, a number of superbosses re-use other superboss's attacks. Other things have been said but I remain entirely unconvinced.

THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. I'd love to sit and chat about how things appear differently in different games, but we have two very distinct things covered here. The Omega who is a Weapon, and the Omega who is a robot spider. There is no in-between. We are covering two different things.

Also, bullshit to the reference reason. You might as well just say that Omega Weapon is a reference to Ultima Weapon and merge the two.

I don't know, maybe I misunderstood you Henry. JBed 16:16, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Wave Cannon isn't a reference to Omega in FFVI. It is a reference to Kaiser Dragon. Omega Weapon takes Kaiser Dragons place in the dungeon once defeated.

Omega Weapon being called Omega in FF7 isn't a reference to the recurring superboss. Omega is far too common a term in videogames for something strong, as we cam see from Square's use of the term to describe two superbosses, for any correlation to be drawn. This is a similar situation to Square's use of the term Ultima, which has been applied to a character in Ivalice, a boss in XI, the recurring Weapon Superboss, and the spell.

The one true reference is in FFXI where Omega is linked with Ultima.

These two weak links, and the actual reference, are the extent of tne relationship between the Omega and Omega Weapon. Now forgive me for putting !y opinion forward now, but that is not enough to link them. If they had the same name, maybe, but they don't, they have diffeent names, and only one reference. Do we merge things that reference one another? Jackstin

Can you people for real do something as easy as put four of these "~" at the end of your posts, pretty please? It really is confusing and annoying to not be able to tell who is who and who is saying what. --BGMaxie 20:51, April 27, 2012 (UTC)


Looks like there's a new twist in the tale that might make this debate more interesting. There is a hidden artifacts game on the official ff14 forum where they are revealing new monsters and....it looks like Omega Weapon, yes Weapon! Is returning. He looks nearly identical to his FF8 version. Exciting stuff. We'll have to wait a good while before we find out if he's called Omega or Omega Weapon, mabe this will finally end the debate. 212.139.99.228 00:07, May 19, 2012 (UTC) jackstin

Ok new update! Image is completed and it is ULTIMA Weapon.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/threads/45788-Hidden-Artifacts-is-an-Insult%21?p=697867&viewfull=1#post697867

And on top of this exciting news, let's take a look at Gaius van Balsaer.

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/File:FFXIV_Gaius_Concept.png

Notice the horns, and his chestplate? Looks like those who called Gaius would be Ultima (apparently some time ago!!) were right. And if Gaius is Ultima Weapon, then Nael would be Omega Weapon! I'm very excited. But I think it'll be a while before we see of this answers the question of whether Omega is different to omega Weapon. 79.75.215.248 10:38, May 21, 2012 (UTC) Jackstin

Split Discussion 2.0[]

I'd like to throw my vote in favor of separating the pages. Omega is a robot; Omega Weapon is a recolor of Ultima Weapon. The robot is never called Omega Weapon and the monster is never called Omega (except in Dirge of Cerberus, and there Omega is explicitly part of a group of monsters called "Weapons", and as such is clearly Omega Weapon). They both use the word "Omega" because as the last letter in the Greek alphabet, it has an implication of "ultimate". Omega and Omega weapon are no more closely related than the spell Ultima and Ultima Weapon. TheomanZero (talk) 07:16, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Concur, if we're going to revive this. There is obviously a clear distinction now between the four-legged robot Omega and the quadrupedal bio-mechanical monster Omega Weapon. Doreiku Kuroofangu 07:42, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Huh, I missed this last time. But I fully agree that Omega is treated consistently enough as a completely different entity within the series from Omega Weapon that they should without a doubt be on two separate pages. The only instance where something that looks and acts like Omega Weapon is called Omega is in a game where he is, in fact, a Weapon, and the title of Weapon can simply be assumed. Omega (the monk) in FFX is a normal human, not a beast or creature in any way (yet). Would Square really have named the guy "Omega Weapon"? No. That's a stupid name, even by silly-Japanese-naming-practices, and square recognized this and made the logical adjustment. Espritduo (talk) 08:33, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
I think they are different enough to separate. We can still mention in both articles the whatever similarities there may be.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 14:18, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
The differences are obvious enough to warrant a separation. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle 14:21, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, their superlative status is a strong connection, and one is an allusion to the other. - Henryacores 21:38, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Let's do it. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 22:19, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about going with this. Sure they look different, but has there been a game or instance in which both entities have appeared together? There hasn't and that makes me believe that the two are somehow the same being. Sure when Omega is a robot, it does not have the surname of "Weapon" yet it is always mentioned as a "Weapon" which if we parellel this with the Dirge of Cerberus example, would mean that Omega is always "Omega Weapon" in some way. --BGMaxie (talk) 06:00, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
Outside of Dirge, when is Omega referred to as a "Weapon", capital for the term? Doreiku Kuroofangu 06:09, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
If we're gonna about that then isn't the Dirge term WEAPON to be exact? So whether it is full of capitals or lacks any, it is a fact Omega is always a "Weapon" or "weapon" if you so prefer, so Omega is basically Omega "Weapon" all the time isn't it? --BGMaxie (talk) 00:04, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
"Weapon" is never fully-capitalised for VII except in the BradyGames guide. JBed (talk) 00:06, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
But I don't know what you're saying. Spider-robot Omega is a completely different concept to Omega (most commonly referred to as "Omega Weapon") who is a Weapon. JBed (talk) 00:08, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
Omega (the spider robot) is never referred to as an actual Weapon (there is a difference between weapon and Weapon) in any game he's in. Dirge is the only sticky spot, and its Omega is clearly classified as a Weapon in that game. Note, Weapon. Not weapon. One is a proper title referring to specific type of creature, the other is just a common word that could be used for anything and holds no classification weight. Espritduo (talk) 00:12, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
And it so happens than in Dirge when Omega is Omega Weapon, it is mechanical or rather bio-mechanical but not organic or monstrous as Ultima. Also if I'm not mistaken are not the mechanical beings Smoldering Succubus and Magick Weapon (who are basically other versions of Omega Mk XII) refered as Weapon themselves? I don't find it a coincidence that a thing called Magick Weapon and has a resemblance with a mechanical version of Omega would mean that overall Omega is not Omega Weapon all the time. The fact Omega and Omega Weapon never appear together, sort of reinforces the fact they are the same somehow. --BGMaxie (talk) 05:58, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
You said it yourself - Omega in Dirge is bio-mechanical. That is the defining aesthetic feature of the Weapon type enemies - they are not just mechanical like Omega, but have biological components to them. Thus, Dirge's Omega is a Weapon, as stated in the game. There is no conflict here. Organic or monstrous are irrelevant terms here and I'm not sure what you're trying to say with them. Omega in Dirge fits the bio-mechanical aesthetic of all other Weapons in FFVII - there's no conflict in visual style. And the FFTA2 Omega palette swaps are not Weapons. They are weapons. Again, there's a difference. Unless their actual proper title was "Weapon", then they are not Weapons. They are weapons. A magick weapon is still just a weapon, not a Weapon. The only leg you have to stand on is the fact that Omega and Omega Weapon have never appeared in the same game, which is merely a coincidental point of trivia, not anything with any real weight. Even if the two were the same entity, SE could still put them both in the same game if they felt like it. Their lack of simultaneous appearances is merely a whim of the designers, nothing more. Espritduo (talk) 06:41, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

(not intending because it's lengthening the page ;p) The issue about them appearing together is not all that major a point to make for them being the same. By contrast, it is very strongly indicated they are different - they have distinctly different appearances, Omega being the robot while Omega Weapon is bio-mechanical (and sometimes just biological). As another point of variance, Omega Weapon only ever uses Omega's signature Wave Cannon in FF6, where it is a normal attack usable by many enemies and has a different design aesthetic compared to Omega's Wave Cannon. And given that pretty much every time Omega pops up it's firing its lazors, that Omega Weapon does not is telling.

The only game aside from FF7 where I think there's a case to be made that they are the same is that FF11's Omega (who uses the FF5-type design) is classified as "Biotechnological Weapons", and another such enemy in the genus is Ultima. Not Ultima Weapon, Ultima. But even then, it's an allusion, not a direct confirmation they're the same. By that logic, FF12's Omega isn't a Weapon, it's a Mimic. Doreiku Kuroofangu 06:59, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Based on the above then I can pretty much say the only standing point for this division is that the two monsters "look" different and that is all. Using the above point I can also pretty much say that they are the same entity but SE uses one or the other on a whim as is thus only a design aesthetic rather than a true symbolism that the two are different beings. And also I believe that FF Dimensions' Omega Weapon does use Wave Cannon, so if we base ourselves on that argument we got two games in which the trademark attack is used by both "designs". There wasn't a substantial argument or definite point or evidence on the previous discussion that was truly vindicative that the two are different beings, and as a matter of a fact there isn't one now either, yet I'm seeing points that can be used to reinforce the fact that the two while looking different are on essence the same thing. Because otherwise we'd have to separate pages on which recurrent characters or entities "look" different, when overall they are the same, and there is Shinryu, Leviathan, Gilgamesh, Cid to name a few. --BGMaxie (talk) 18:01, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Different name, different origin, different look, different idea.
I think you aren't seeing the completely obvious here: The robot spider and the Weapon are two very distinct ideas. No one here would have trouble deciding which falls into which appearance or the other.
Cid isn't a recurring creature, it's a recurring name and the idea that a Cid appears in most games. Also you've got nothing on Shinryu, the recurring dragon, and Leviathan, the recurring serpent-- who always have the same name. JBed (talk) 18:23, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
support split. Omega is the robotic thingy, Omega weapon is the organic monster thing. To clarify XI's lore position, Omega and Ultima were created to be used as weapons and are never actually directly called "biotechnological weapons" in the game - the term is referenced thru the item CCB Polymer Pump. Also none of the iterations of Omega ever have the term Weapon attached behind it. Omega, Proto-Omega, Arch-Omega. Ultima is the same, except that in the mission dialogue, Ultima is referred to as Ultima Weapon, but even if it weren't you wouldn't think it was the girl with the vaj cannon right? Omega is never specifically mentioned, but visually falls in line with the robot, not the monster --Arciel Spira (talk) 18:36, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
The completely obvious is NOT what dominates here, official and solid material do, the "obvious" goes along with "speculation" because what is "obvious" for you is not the same for somebody else and vice-versa, and as such it does not fall into something objective to be considered as a true valid argument. And when I mention Leviathan, well Leviathan is not always a summon i.e. FF2 appearance, shall we separate the summon entity from the one that is not then? The Shinryu from Final Fantasy X or the one from Type-0 have no conection with the Crystaline Dragon that has a connection with The Void, so shall we separate the Shinryu that is linked to the Void with the ones that don't? I could go down the list and be the same as separating the Omega that is a robot and the one that is not. So shall we go with all of that then? Because I believe to be a major exaggeration to base ourselves on a mere "design" to determinate that the two are "different", and as another point whenever Omega Weapon is used it is most if not all the time along an Ultima Weapon, except in After Years in which the Omega we have here is not biological but mechanical and Ultima Weapon is there too, does not that say that Omega and Omega Weapon are overall the same then? Be it as it may there is not enough of a reason to split this at least not now. --BGMaxie (talk) 22:53, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
There is plenty reason. You are the only one opposed, and your arguments do not hold up as explained to you. Omega and Omega Weapon always share a different name, have different appearances, Weapon does not use Omega's signature skills, and aside from both being superbosses with vaguely similar names there is no connection between them save for one case of Omega being referred to as a Weapon-type entity and a couple borderline cases alluding to the same classification.
Given that the general consensus is for the split, I will do so later tonight unless someone else wants to take care of it. Doreiku Kuroofangu 23:06, March 4, 2013 (UTC)
Would just like to point out that despite VII's Omega not specifically bearing the Weapon moniker, it is foremost among the Weapons of Final Fantasy VII and fits in better with the Weapon group, and should be placed on the Omega Weapon page rather than the Omega page. --Adonzo (talk) 01:20, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Erm they do share one attack, Wave Cannon '-' and no argument here seems to be valid enough is it? In the end this split goes not because of solid arguments, it goes along because of the number of people who like one most over the other, and if that is so, then we can forgo the formalities of arguments and go for "you like A or B", at least that would have been much more honest and straightforward rather than having to write dozens of lines trying to defend one or the other. --BGMaxie (talk) 02:07, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the only Omega Weapon with Wave Cannon is FF6, where Wave Cannon is a distinctly different type of attack than in the other games.

"In the end this split goes not because of solid arguments, it goes along because of the number of people who like one most over the other" - wah wah wah, people want it split and you have heard why, don't be a baby and try to posture like you're the only one who knows what's right. Doreiku Kuroofangu 02:31, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe I just wasted fifteen minutes of my life reading through all of this. Okay, look, the purpose of the discussion was to convince others to your side through your argument, which you have failed to do, because nobody supports your arguments. The consensus on the matter, when no clear official stance can be found, ultimately determines the action. You mention "official and solid material" determine what we do with the article, but there is no "official and solid material" claiming that they are the same entity, so the only way your argument would work would be if you considered the default to be above criticism but the change to require an official sanction, which is nonsense. Omega and Ultima Weapon appearing in the same game, especially TAY, justifying Omega and Omega Weapon being the same creature is ludicrous, especially when they are canonically stated to be from two different worlds. You claim that their arguments are invalid but your own aren't really standing up very well either. Ultimately, I recommend you take a very hard look at what exactly it is that you are so persistently arguing for and consider what harm, exactly, that this change will make. Jimcloud 02:42, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Rather than the split being made, or that I did not convince nobody is not what annoys me. What does indeed annoy me is that I tried to argument something, even if alone and in the end it wasn't a thing about arguments it was about "you like it or not", and that's what annoys me, because then for every debatable subject it won't be a matter of arguments or a discussion as this things should be run it will be a plain "who likes A and who likes B" and I believe that behaviour and policy to not be adequate if what we're looking for is accuracy of information. That's all, and the split is now made, and then it will take god knows how many time for another discussion to appear to claim that the two are similar it will be a new "you like A or B"? Because THAT would be absurd. And I hope this split if it remains sets some examples on how things are to be debated and discussed IF they will be seriously. That's all --BGMaxie (talk) 06:47, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Well, clearly you have missed a key point in my statement. Let me say it again. This isn't about accuracy of information, and it never was, since there is nothing officially tying the two monsters together. The issue is purely organization, and because of that, yes, it can come down to consensus quite easily. And even then, discussions are used in order to reach consensus, which is exactly what happened here. It was discussed, and people added supporting evidence for either side, and ultimately you were the only one dissenting. This isn't a debate class, where you can win simply by arguing better, regardless of the actual merit of your side. You discuss, everybody contributes, and then from the information presented a consensus is eventually reached. But the fact of the matter is, there is nothing either confirming or denying the two as being the same entity, and because of that, there is no loss of "accuracy of information", at most there is a loss in ease of locating the information. And even then, there is a big see also on the top of both pages. I really don't see what your deal is. Jimcloud 06:58, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
The entire Wiki is and has always been run by the consensus of users and their interpretations and opinions of facts, and that is a good thing, the more opinions you get on an issue the easier it will be to please the community. It is not a democracy, no, but it is a database built by a community that discusses how things should be run. How accurately we treat information is and will always be affected by the individual's view, that is not the Wiki that is reality, unless you want to call Square-Enix up and ask them about Omega and Omega Weapon, all any of us can do is interpret the nature of the two entities based on how they have portrayed them. That is what you are doing the same as the rest of us, the only difference is that your interpretation is different from the majority.
The purpose of any discussion on what to do is to generate an answer to the question of what to do and how to do it, if you just argue until one side agrees or gives up that isn't discussion, and that method is inherently flawed because it's not about who has more support or the strongest arguments, it's about who stops caring first. Given that this discussion was going nowhere I took action in accordance with the majority, because in this discussion the general consensus of the community (a consensus including several staff members) was that they should be split. Doreiku Kuroofangu 07:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, being a staff member means jack.

People form opinions, people argue their case. They do this in the hope to convince people to join their cause. After a discussion has run its course, a consensus is seen. Or, if an argument seems to keep going on with nothing new bought to the table (essentially an argument of interpretation-- one person sees it one way, another sees it differently: It's not who's right or wrong, it's perspective), then we count the members arguing and deliver a consensus. If there's a clear majority then we follow it. If it's fairly even, then we default (nothing happens), unless someone starts a vote-- and then whichever has the most number after people seem to have stopped voting is what we do. If it's a tie then we probably default, or we pester people to chime in and break the tie.

People have changed their opinions during discussions based on others insights. While others make their opinions on a matter because they agree with someone else's insights, even if they had no opinion beforehand.

No one can possibly be expected to not base this on headcounts. We don't give our staff the power to observe arguments and pick the team that wins. And even if we did, you wouldn't like that outcome either. And we don't require all parties concerned to agree. That would result in things never happening.

We had a discussion that has lasted a good duration. Everyone has said their piece. Majority want split. We split. 2.102.228.237 13:03, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that seems fair, still I'd hope this kind of situation would be avoided if possible. Because sure it is a matter of how you organize things, but it can eventually make things messy, just saying. --BGMaxie (talk) 15:11, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Move Dirge of Cerberus Omega to Omega Weapon page[]

I haven't actually played Dirge of Cerberus myself, but even if it's called just "Omega", it is explicitly part of a group called "Weapons", and all the others are called "Ruby Weapon", "Emerald Weapon", etc., so doesn't that make it "Omega Weapon"? Furthermore, Dirge of Cerberus Omega (Weapon) is not a quadrupedal spider-like robot and does not use Wave Cannon. It does, however, have wings and a draconic head (like most versions of Omega Weapon), and has a weaker counterpart called Ultimate Weapon ("Ultima Weapon" in Japanese). All in all, it seems much more like Omega Weapon than Omega. TheomanZero (talk) 02:03, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement