Forum:Canonicity of Bravely Default (Redux)

Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Canonicity of Bravely Default (Redux)

Template:Spira Once again, I disagree, and I still think it belongs under tier 1 for reason 3. Specifically:

• A "job system" isn't just any class system as you say, but a class system in which the class can be changed to any unlocked class fairly freely, that draws most of its classes from a very distinctly Final Fantasy set of classes, many of which have an identity that is consistent from game to game and is distinct from generic fantasy. Neither Kingdom Hearts nor the Mana series have a true job system. I defy you to find one commercially published game that meets all of the criteria I have listed for having a job system, but is not a Tier 1 covered game.
• Spells. Most of the game's spells are identical to classic Final Fantasy spells in both name and effect. 100% of white magic, 100% of black magic, and 89% of time magic are taken directly from other Final Fantasy games. Moreover, most spells are in the particular category that they are usually found in elsewhere in the series. Kingdom Hearts can't claim that. The Mana series can't even begin to claim that.
• Other abilities. Again loads of them are taken directly from the rest of the series.
• Items. Every single healing item is taken from the Final Fantasy series, both in name and effect. Over half the battle items are taken from the Final Fantasy series, in name and effect. Many of the weapons, armor, and accessories are taken from the Final Fantasy series in name and effect. Again, neither Kingdom Hearts nor the Mana series can claim this.

I believe that not only is Bravely Default worthy of full Tier 1 coverage based on the above listed elements, but it is actually closer to the main Final Fantasy series than some of the other Tier 1 games; Chocobo Racing comes to mind.

Oh, and while I was confident that they would change the title to include the name "Final Fantasy" when they translated it (ala Chocobo's Dungeon getting the "Final Fantasy Fables" title) and was rather surprised when they didn't, it wasn't a pivotal factor in my decision. I was expecting Square-Enix to lack confidence in the English-speaking commercial viability of their non-Final Fantasy titles--most of them have failed, after all--and change the allusion to an inclusion, for marketing purposes and I'm curious as to why they didn't. They have leaned on the Final Fantasy name rather heavily in the past, to the point of rebranding the early SaGa games as "Final Fantasy Adventure". I can only speculate that they really did feel that they had damaged the Final Fantasy brand with their recent problems and no longer could rely on it to get sales rather than lose them. But who knows? Hashmalum (talk) 09:40, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger has same/similar names for magic as FF and items and is not covered by us at all. Tactics Ogre has basically the same jobs as the Ivalice FF games and we don't cover that. I think these kinda things could be seen as Square staples rather than strictly FF staples. Bravely Default should have its own wiki if it's becoming a self-contained series.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 12:10, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty tricky. I'm divided: on one hand, it's much more FF-esque than some more recent FFs, but on the other it's completely different setting: the summons are not even the ones from FF and the Orthros boss is not the woman-loving purple octopus, but a two-headed devil dog which actually lessens connection to the FF series. If we want to create wiki for that series I think [bravely.wikia.com] would be best as 'bravely' is the common word in all three currently known games. Despite not owning 3DS and Bravely Default I'd be actually happy to maintain that Wiki so it wouldn't fall into ruin (after watching so many walkthrough videos of BD and loving every single one of them it would be shame if its Wiki turned into a waste bin of randomness and ads).—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 12:29, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support shifting all our content to a Bravely Default wiki. We could weasel our way into giving it second-tier coverage due to its apparent official spiritual link to T4HoL and (which itself is pseudo-spiritually linked to classic FF). 2.102.230.70 15:45, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

I have seen news articles noting that Bravely Default actually has some bosses from 4 Warriors of Light. here. I haven't played either game, so I don't know how significant it is.

On another note: fuck Final Fantasy. Lightning Returns is refried shit. Bravely Default is something new. Our wiki is based around no concept other than branding. It is shameless. Fuck the brand. Fuck Square Enix. I've been tired of their bullcrap for years now. --BlueHighwindツ 20:03, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think those bosses are the 4 Heroes of Light equivalent of the Four Fiends. The 4 Heroes of Light is like a re-imagining of the original Final Fantasy, with time travel and a time loop being maintained by a demon called "Chaos" who sends four lesser demons, the "four fiends" to the world to corrupt the world, but a magical sentient crystal chooses to grant its power to four warriors who become the Heroes of Light... It's not really clear to me whether the storylines of the two games are in any way linked, or if the connections are just homages because they are being made by the same team for a similar audience.Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 20:28, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

After playing it for myself, I wholeheartedly agree with Hashmalun. The level of FF referencing in spell/ability/item lists goes far and beyond what would be considered normal for Square. It would be considered typical for them to share a few things between games. However, to see near identical lists of things and to blow it off as "Oh, SE does this all the time!" is ridiculous. -- Some Color Mage ~ (Talk) 05:51, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

If Bravely Default is said to be a sequel to a Final Fantasy game shouldn't that be enough to keep it here anyway? Everything else has been said already so I'm keeping this short. Tia-Lewise 18:03, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

It's not a sequel to a Final Fantasy game. JBed (talk) 19:17, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

A successor then. And if that's wrong, then "Although the game has an original title, it is considered a spiritual successor of Final Fantasy: The 4 Heroes of Light, a "gaiden" or "spin-off" of the main Final Fantasy series, by its creators" needs removing from the article. Tia-Lewise 19:20, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and giving first-tier coverage to a spiritual successor that had "Final Fantasy" in its title would be fine. Except they specifically decided to not call it "Final Fantasy". Giving it a page and mentioning on parents, as part of our second-tier coverage, should be acknowledgement enough for our wiki. Second-tier coverage means we cover it for how it references Final Fantasy rather than how it is Final Fantasy. JBed (talk) 19:24, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it deserves to be first tier, I'm saying that to some degree it should be here in some way. Tia-Lewise 19:32, December 16, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I gave this some time for comments to come in. Evidently there are supporters on both sides.. or maybe 3 sides. Keep as tier 1, keep as tier 2/3, or move it all over to Bravely Wiki. Given that there is no consensus, maybe we need to take a vote? I don't suppose we have an arbitrator or judge... so here goes? bottom of page --Arciele Spira (talk) 04:02, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

A Wiki Bravely Emerges!

Alright. I just created a Wiki for it: Template:Wikia. I thought that "Bravely Default Wiki" wouldn't be a very good naming idea since it's possible there's gonna be Bravely Third, Bravely Fourth, and spinoffs to those, I guess. If anyone wants to dump articles there, please do so. If anyone wants to tinker with coding, then please ask me there about giving you admin rights (people with admin rights or higher can edit MediaWiki, right)?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 16:11, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

Vote

Keep as Tier I

• Per Hashmalum's wall-of-text in the original thread, as well as what SCM said C A T U S E 04:58, December 23, 2013 (UTC)