Talk:Final Fantasy Adventure

Mystic Quest

		Diablocon - No, the question is; who art thou, ham planks? Shanks! I meant shanks TALK - 13:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
		Are you sure, I have the European version, and it's still called Adventure. Then again, my version is the Sunsoft re-release.

About the Remake of Final Fantasy Adventure

Don't all you think that this page needed something about that remake for GBA "Sword of Man" no? -- 82.154.182.196 10:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

There's no need for it, there's already a Wiki of Mana, and it could use some filling-upping, so do it over there. —BfD (talk·contribs) Confirm deletion|^{04:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)}

So? This is a game with the words "Final Fantasy" on it. That seems to be within our scope. --BlueHighwind ツ 04:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think FFA should get some coverage since it was originally intended to be a FF spin-off. What I have found odd is the coverage of Final Fantasy Legend. It was never meant to be a FF title and was simply just retitled FF in NA obviously to make it sell. Andres 05:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a Mana game, which has since been re-titled Sword of Mana (which discarded the FF refrences, BTW). I say we should keep coverage at a very minimum and do some linking to Wiki of Mana. --SCM 07:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the opinion that this topic should be covered the same way as Kingdom Hearts and so forth: with a Wikia of its own existing someplace, the coverage would be limited and we should link there and encourage editors to expand the small wiki. ^BLUER一番 10:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should host a few "List of" pages here. Actually I think we should have full coverage here, but it doesn't look like that's happening. People will come here for FFA information and therefore when they search an element of FFA, they want to find something. If they don't then they don't know why they don't find anything (unless they're clever enough to look at FFWiki's scope or to go to "Final Fantasy Adventure" and click around to discover this other wiki) -- Even if this List of enemies page had all of its links to the other wiki, I think it should stand.

Wow, I just realised how hard to understand I am sometimes most of the time. Make list pages linking to other wiki? Because you can't just redirect to another wiki.  I Lion Heart I 11:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally.

Make it like the KH article/ 8 bit Theater article and put a link to the Wiki of Mana in the external link section. Maybe we can affiliate or something. ^BLUER一番 11:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Wiki:Suggested Links#Wiki of Mana--When this wiki was first mentioned there wasn't much enthusiasm in our editors.  I Lion Heart I 11:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this game became a Mana game (which is a series I never even heard of before today), but it started out as a Final Fantasy one. Even the Japanese name called it "Final Fantasy Gaiden". This can be treated as differences in versions. We get the original Game Boy one, they get the remakes. --BlueHighwind ツ 13:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

^^ I kinda agree; but at the same time I feel giving only half of the translations not so good. We could link to the other wiki: But the mana wiki should cover all translations. We could add enemies to disambigs but linking through to the mana wiki; and make everything else redirect to the Final Fantasy Adventure page which then links to the Mana Wiki.  I Lion Heart I 13:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else notice how weird it is that a game can start off as being a part of our series and then transform to not being in the series? I'm just so purplexed by this that I think it needs its own mention. What other series out there could possibly pull this off? --BlueHighwind ツ 13:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I understood that, though since its rereleased as part of the Mana series, I believe it gets more expansion there. Plus, the Mana wiki need all the info it could get. ^BLUER一番 13:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to let this go, but a certain annon inspired me despite his or her cretinous ways. The state of other wikis should have no effect on how we cover our own things. If the Mana Wiki doesn't do its job, does not mean bupkis on how we do ours. The definition of what a Final Fantasy game is is a thin one. As far as I can tell, its just having the words "Final Fantasy" in the title and being made by Square. Since this game fulfills both those points, I still think we should cover it. --BlueHighwind ツ 23:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Thank you thank you thank you!! I don't mind being called an "annon", whatever that is, but thanks a ton! By the way, I love your FF5 walkthrough.

I was almost certain I had said something here, but upon checking up it appears otherwise. I'd say Adventure can be covered, but not Legends. Adventure, even in Japan, was an FF game on the Game Boy. The Legends series wasn't, it was just the SaGa series. At the very least, cover the basics, like Sumo and Julius. Heck, Julius' alter ego is a freaking Red Mage, making him a rarity: a notable Red Mage.
There's also the fact that I have Adventure (well, the Sunsoft rerelease anyway), so I could do some little coverage if it stayed. Diablocon 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The state of another wiki should have a bearing since we're hosted under the same host, and we should do our best to encourage the growth of other wikis, as part of the larger Wikia community. Had we hosted ourselves on a separate entity, we can be as individualistic as we want.

By just having FF in the title and being made by Square? By that understanding, The Final Fantasy Legends should get more expansive coverage in our wiki, despite being a SaGa title. zounds!

Having thinking about, despite my objections, I consider it staying. BUT other titles of the Mana series shouldn't be expanded here. I'm gonna watch for those elements and remove them if they ever creep in. We have a Wiki of Mana for that - where's that wiki's community btw?! It's so empty... ^BLUER一番 03:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A brief-user here created it I think. Came here; got it affiliated and has never been seen since; nor do I think the wiki itself has been edited since. People care more about 8bit more than a real game it seems. ツ  I Lion Heart I 10:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

BUT other titles of the Mana series shouldn't be expanded here.

Indeed, considering they don't have FF in their titles. Adventure on the GB did though, even in Japan, so I was saying that only aspects of that version should be covered. Don't even look at the GBA rerelease. And of course there's Legends, which is a bigger headache, but I say limit it like Kingdom Hearts since unlike Adventure it was most certainly never intended to be an FF game (see here for a cool brief history. I now really want to play some of the later games like Romancing). Diablocon 14:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

*snrk* ^BLUER一番 14:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can safely say that falls outside our coverage Bluer. :P Diablocon 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My goodness. Not really. We do have Endless Nova after all... ¬_¬ Faethin^{verba volant} 14:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Split Adventures of Mana?

It's kinda different from the original GameBoy Final Fantasy Adventure. We didn't cover Sword of Mana because it had FF elements removed, right? But this Adventures of Mana is called "Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden" in Japan and it has FF elements added back to the game as opposed to the GBA Sword of Mana so I think this remake should have its own article and get coverage as a FF game. Monterossa (talk) 15:35, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this has been on the burner since 2016? I was kinda thinking of the same thing, save that I think that the page needs significant revision because of AoM being the "go-to" release. As the admin for Wiki of Mana, I can tell you that a lot of the work over there favors Sword simply because it added depth and some backstory to whatever lore was present in the original. However, that has also left me with a confusing jumble of data needing to be filtered and split; much of the backstory isn't exactly canon, and there are a few areas that were shoehorned in so as to make the dual-story mechanic workable. So, what's next? Swordzmanp236 (talk) 18:39, July 9, 2018 (UTC)