This was a problem before this, but with Pixel Remaster now it's really caught my attention - the FF1 pages are a bit bloated with sprites.
The enemy pages have so many tabs for images now that they have a horizontal scroll bar.
And in some cases, we're showing off basically the same sprite in a slightly different color. I think it may be time to consider pruning some of these as superfluous.
I think for the character pages, the easiest ones to write off are the WSC sprites, which are identical to the PS and GBA sprites for the most part. The MSX sprites, I can see keeping them, but it still seems superfluous since that port is long defunct and some of the sprites in that version clash with others. So we could remove them, relegate them to a gallery due to being of lesser importance, or keep them as-is.
On the matter of the PS and GBA, it's fuzzy. First, if the WSC and MSX sprites were nuked, we'd be down to five sprites a box - NES, PS, GBA, PSP, and PR, which is much less bloated already (though still demanding two rows). While the primary difference is that the GBA ones were lighter than the PS ones, as all the FF ports did to their sprites, some sprites were vertically shrunk to fit on the GBA screen (something I'm familiar with already since it happened to FF6). And it isn't a size thing either, Garland's sprite got the shrinkage treatment too, as did the Black Flan. So if we nuked either the PS or GBA images, we would need someone to manually verify which sprites were shrunk, if we feel we must include both.
But, that's just for enemy sprites. For the party sprites, we don't cover both PS and GBA sprites for FF2, and don't cover both SNES and GBA sprites for FF6, for the same reason - they're the same sprite with just slightly differences in color. If they're different due to shrinkage or censorship, okay, but if not, it's redundant. And I think FF1 could be treated the same. The issue then is which to retain, since most find the PS sprites more aesthetically pleasing, but there are GBA sprites (namely, all the new content) that don't have PS analogs. That said, that only applies to enemy pages, iirc. So we could keep the PS sprites for the character pages and nuke the PS enemy sprites and keep the GBA ones, or keep the PS ones where there is a PS one and use the GBA where there isn't.
Final note is I don't feel super strongly about this, so if people think the current system is fine and don't worry about it, I won't argue. But I think it's a topic worth bringing up if the abundance of sprites from so many ports is getting to be a bit much.
I completely agree with pruning sprites that are superfluous for FFI-III, but the thing I'd add is that we may be better off making separate pages for different versions of some enemies entirely. i.e. If the game mechanics are totally different, a separate enemy page for the enemy in that version may be warranted.
Agreed on that, but I don't think the different versions of FF1 are different enough to warrant needing splitting. Going by Final Fantasy version differences, there have been subtle QoL and balance tweaks going back to the MSX port, so no version of FF1 has played exactly like another.
The most significant changes are the GBA and PSP ones - the addition of the Soul of Chaos dungeons, the switch from vanacian magic to MP, changes to stats of jobs and enemies, and more - mean they play significantly different from the prior versions, likely much more than the PS version plays from the NES version or the WSC version. So if we split the FF1 pages, the GBA and PSP ones should be their own thin. On the other hand, that would also demand we split Pixel Remaster too, since while it reverts to the vanacian magic system and lacks the new content in the GBA version, it retains other things like Phoenix Downs, Ethers, and rebalanced job stats and enemy stats, so it doesn't play like the NES or PS versions.
So we'd be looking at three separate pages each for FF1's enemies, and I don't think that's necessary. An appropriate "Strategy" section for each version should suffice I think.
On the subject on the sprites, I do believe the MSX and WSC sprites shouldn't be necessary to have in our infoboxes, because as stated, these ports are now defunct and no longer accessible unless its from the limited secondhand market and emulation.
As to the enemies being split off, three pages def would be necessary most likely - NES, PSX (to have easy mode and hard mode), and GBA/20th Anni/Pixel Remaster. I've check the bestiary for the Pixel Remaster, and the stats are just the same from the GBA and 20th Anni. Pixel Remaster is just like the Android version of FF1 where it axed the GBA/PSP content, they just changed the MP mechanics for PR. It would just be a matter of addressing the differences in strategies on how to handle MP conservation. Miphares (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The current Goblin (Final Fantasy) would be a parent page which could be linked to from location/lists pages?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Miphares, thank you for the rundown, good to have clarity. How do the Easy and Hard-mode versions of the PSX port compare to the other ports?
Also am wondering, if you or someone else knows, how do the Pixel Remaster enemy stats compare to past versions for FF2 and FF3, in case they need splitting? Ofc we all likely suspected we'd be splitting the 2D and 3D versions of FF3's enemies, but I hope there won't be a problem in covering the NES and PR versions on one page.
Okay, may have messed up. Easy and Hard Mode have no stat differences, just player stats and levels go up faster on those modes. However, the Wonderswan and PSX versions share the same stats from what I've been reading on several Japanese wikis.
I cannot give an answer to FFII's monster stats, since I'm playing (also suffering) through it still, so I can give an answer after I finish it if the monster stats are the same as the GBA and 20thAnni versions.
On the subject on FFIII however, the monsters in that game have entirely new stats compared to the Famicom and DS versions. Monster HP is about -30% of what they were in the 3D version, but triple of what they were in the Famicom version; while the other stats vary from increases and decreases to their 3D counterparts. Monsters and bosses also gain some of their 3D enemy abilities and attack patterns; Titan using Flare, Leviathan using Blizzaga, Haste, and Protect, and Xande having all the -Ga spells. In addition, this game also uses the 3D version's elements, so enemies have some of their weaknesses and resistances from the 3D versions instead of FC version. Basically the Pixel Remaster is an amalgamation of both the Famicom and 3D versions. --Miphares (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Check on FF1 and FF2. And FF3, yaaaay...make it as complicated as possible for us, thanks Square...
So, as things stand, these seem to be our course of action for now, though dissenting opinions are still welcome, of course:
I'm close to the final dungeon of FFII and after looking through the bestiary, I can confirm its all the same stats from the GBA/20th Anniv releases. The only new additions were the enemy attribute information added in the Pixel Remasters bestiary and some name changes as SCM said. So tbh, the GBA/20th/Pixel Remaster can share the same page, just strategies may need to be split on the matter of the Pixel Remaster having dumb RPG Maker MV A.I on the enemies. --Miphares (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)