Talk:List of Square Enix video game franchises

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Square Enix video game franchises article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "List of Square Enix video game franchises" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1

List of Square Enix video game franchises is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on February 19, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 29, 2015	Featured list candidate	Not promoted
October 18, 2015	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media franchises Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Square Enix Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Square Enix, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Square Enix-related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Square EnixWikipedia:WikiProject Square EnixTemplate:WikiProject Square EnixSquare Enix
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

List of Minecraft characters (4 participants)
Carlton Wilborn (4 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted)
TheoTown (12 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Total video game sales

Is this column really important to this article? There are a lot of franchises without this information. Most of them are outdated or just incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.48 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I agree. And so to WP:BEBOLD, I've removed it for now in order to generate more discussion about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. On one hand, yes, the general spotty nature of video game sales numbers meant that a lot of it was a few years out of date and piecemeal. On the other hand, when this list was promoted 3 years ago it had information on franchise sales numbers and what items were in the franchise (I note that you were the one to remove the contents column back in January); now it's just a list of franchise names with no indication of which ones are more important/prominant and why they're listed in the order they are. I think that the sales numbers should be restored, and the Contents column as well (maybe redone as a "number of games" column to make it more streamlined/easy to maintain). --Pres N 20:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a "number of games" column (without other kind of media related to the franchise like books or movies) between the first and the last games but still disagree with the "Total video game sales" one and just put all of them in alphabetical order (which ones are more important/prominant is not really relevant IMHO).

Yeah, I personally agree with this approach the most. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with restoring sales column, thats 2 people now. I will do that now. so per WP:BEBOLD, I've restored sale data--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me. I supported the "number of games" column but not to restoring the total video game sales one. There was no consensus here for it to return. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for you to remove sales data in the beginning. You went ahead and did it and I disagree with your bold action. Keep the status quo then discuss. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding me, there were two other people who supported the removal, so I simply made a bold edit. Just reverting back to it after apparently misunderstanding me and then trying to justify it is not how how this should be handled. If you want more support, then make a post at WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep sales, why delete, useful encyclopedic and many citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.2.166.4 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No edit in over a year and you somehow are aware of this discussion? Are you Misconceptions2? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ive protected the page for now to stop the edit warring. Please find a consensus before making any more edits related to this. I can evaluate discussions later if the consensus isn’t obviously clear too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sergecross73: Consensus to remove it in the first place (me in October) or to bring it now? If an edit is uncontested for months, then does that make it status quo by default, as long as it's not vandalism? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess I’d wonder what PresN’s stance is. It looks like Dissident and the topic starter supported its removal, but PresN was sort of a “mixed/weak oppose”? But then it was kinda dropped. If he doesn’t care, then it looks like there was no objection, 2-0, and that became the new status quo. But if he does object, then 2-1 generally doesn’t hold up well as far as a consensus goes... Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Sergecross73: Right, I just assumed that it being uncontested for like half a year (with editor activity in between) would make it status quo and thus set new consensus. Regardless, this should probably be mentioned at WT:VG for more people to comment on just to settle it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I generally agree with your thought process on that too, but as you say, it may be best to neutrally ask WP:VG for more input regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My opinion is that I'd weakly prefer for the sales column to be present; that said, it's hard to keep updated and in the years since this was promoted most of the sales info just got increasingly out of date due to lack of available data. I'm not going to fight for its retention, especially since I don't plan on investing the time (again) it would take to force an up-to-date sales count for most of these. I am strongly in favor of including some sort of "contents" column, and it seems like we were in agreement that a simplified "number of games" column was the way to go there. That serves as a good-enough measure of "which franchises are more "important/popular" out of this list", which sales tries to also do. --Pres N 17:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93 removed request for comment

I was incensed to see people claiming consensus and taking action when there was no consensus. I think its just abuse by Dissident93. People should not mislead about consensus. I am more concerned with procedures than the column itself (which i also do support keeping). Also he removed the request for comment I had requested. Why did you do this?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What request for comment? I don't remember removing anything like that intentionally. Also, WP:BEBOLD says to make the edit to foster discussion. Six months with no opposition (besides PresN) towards it should have made it so that consensus was needed to bring it back, not the other way around. In any case, there does not seem to be strong support for keeping it, but we require more opinions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what the most relevant category for rfc is, so i did media--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Could you point me to the edit in question? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts and Xenogers

These two "series" have their own particularities:

Xenogears: Has a note is its entry saying that "there are no other games in the Xenogears series beyond the original", but was included here because of the "thematically-connected series of spiritual successors", but all of them are owned, developed and published by other companies. The "Xeno series" ain't a Square Enix franchise. At most, the game's a "spin-off" of Chrono series since it's originally designed to be a Chrono Trigger's sequel (with Lucca's cameo and all). I vote to delete this entry.

Kingdom Hearts: It's developed and published by Square Enix but owned by Disney. I really don't know if we could call it a "real Square Enix franchise" and don't know if Disney could move the series to another publisher in the future. So, I did as Dissident93 did before, in the column matter above, and to WP:BEBOLD added a new legend in order to generate more discussion about it. At first I'd suggest to remove this entry too, but this alternative came to my mind, so we can differentiate this one from the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.49 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My suggestion for the KH entry was just reverted before it'd be discussed here, but you can see my edit on the article's history.

PS2: The WP:BEBOLD thing seems to work just with a few chosen ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.49 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, note the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Bold was the correct first step, but getting reverted doesn't mean you're not a "chosen one". For a second, to expand on what I said when reverting, this is not a list of franchises owned by SE- this is a list of franchises developed or published by SE. Because we have no idea which ones are actually owned by them (though for most we can take a good guess)- like most companies, SE does not make a public distinction between "franchise that they publish" and "franchise that they own and publish". I'm totally fine with putting a note on KH that it's actually "owned" by Disney, but I don't think we need a whole new column in order to tag a single franchise, doubly so when we can't say 100% that no other franchises should get that tag.

On the other hand, yes, Xenogears should get dropped. A franchise is explicitly defined in this list as "any set of interconnected media consisting of more than one release", and while Xenogears has stuff beyond the 1 game, there was only a single "video game release" by SE in the meta-series. --Pres N 20:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all of this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand your POV Pres (don't agree at all, but understand). I'm sorry if I's rude on my "PS comments". I'm fine with the note too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.49 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where is your source that Kingdom Hearts is wholly owned by Disney? The original and Final Fantasy characters are all Square Enix property. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dissident93, where's your source that the original characters are'll Square Enix property? Nowhere, 'coz you're wrong.

From Square Enix Store: Four new DISNEY characters designed by Tetsuya Nomura make their debut: Sora, Riku, Kairi and the Heartless

From Comicbook.com: A lot of people are confused about who exactly owns Kingdom Hearts, but it's Disney

From KH Ultimania: Nomura has no control over Sora or any other original characters appearing in Kingdom Hearts. The contract between Square Enix and Disney gives almost full control of the Kingdom Hearts property over to Disney. If you happen to see Sora appearing outside of a game in a something like a cartoon, there’s very little chance Nomura is involved and again: ---I am just curious, but are Sora, Riku, and Kairi treated as Disney characters? Nomura: Yes. ---Does that mean that those three can appear in a Disney movie or some other sort of development like that? Nomura: That’s right. I guess I can’t say that’s impossible. I can’t say anything specific though

And seems like KH's distanciating itself from FF on KH3: Kingdom Hearts 3 Won't Feature Final Fantasy Worlds (This fantasy is final.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.48 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, but it still doesn't affect its inclusion here in any case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said before, I'm fine with the note too. Just put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.48 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hat Trick Hero series

I normally don't do this but I'm centralizing the discussion about this series to this talk page. Previous discussions can be seen here and here.

@Namcokid47, 146.164.80.48, and 146.164.80.49: In an effort to help resolve this dispute which the IP is wanting to change the "Latest Release" of the Hat Trick Hero franchise from 1994, Hat Trick Hero '95 to 1995, Hat Trick Hero S while Namcokid47 is requesting the IP provide a reliable source for making the change. In a talk page discussion the IP provided a from Sega Retro as a source but Namcokid47 told the IP that other encyclopedias like Sega Retro are not reliable sources.

While I understand Namcokid47's point and and that the burden of finding a reliable source falls on the IP since they are the one trying to make the edit. In my experience I would have directed the IP to WP:RS and WP:VG/S to help them understand what is/isn't a reliable source. To help both this dispute and the Taito Power Goal/Hat Trick Hero 95 article I did a quick search using the custom Reliable Sources for Video Games engine which game back with these results for Hat Trick Hero S [1], [2] and [3]. These are not the best sources but in doing a quick 5 second search this is what came up. Its also worth noting while unsourced the article Taito Power Goal/Hat Trick Hero 95 has had Hat Trick Hero S mentioned for several years. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 18:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing this. I've sent the IP the link to WP:VG/S so that hopefully this mess can be over with. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome Namcokid47 however if that doesn't lead to anything I would recommend linking any other relevant discussion you and IP have had and making a request over at WT:VG for other experienced editors to come and discuss this issue if no progress is made since that would be step 2 here. Imports are a bit out of my expertise especially older ones with little to no info available. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 19:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really all he's doing right now is calling me names and practically refusing to read the page I showed him. I'll link the discussion to WT:VG and see if I can get this sorted out. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor note: I have listed this at WT:VG in hopes of reaching a consensus on this issue before the protection expires. The issue seems to be the IP editor believes Hat Trick Hero S should be listed as the Latest release for the Hat Trick Hero franchise as it is not a 100% port of Hat Trick Hero 95. Namcokid47 feels that the Latest release should remain as Hat Trick Hero 95 unless the IP can can provide reliable sources to change it. Keep in mind the IP has modified the parent article Taito Power Goal to support their viewpoint on Hat Trick Hero S without providing any reliable sources. (See Diff) Due to the dispute I have tagged the article in the meantime. Prior the IP's edits the article had previously said Hat Trick Hero S was a port of Hat Trick Hero '95 which was also unsourced. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact policy on the latest release section? That to me suggests it's simply the latest release date of any title in the series. The unsourced Taito Power Goal lists Hat trick Hero 95 as being released in 1994, wheras GameRankings lists HTH S as being released in December 1995, and thus would be the latest release.[4] Seems pretty cut and dry in favour of change. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski Prior to this discussion I was not sure of any guidelines or policy I looked lol. However after looking at the list in detail I saw some examples that would be useful to this discussion. I was able to spot was the Space Invaders franchise. The table says the "Latest Release" was "2018, Space Invaders Extreme" however when you go to the page for the game it was actually released in 2008 with the PC port released in 2018. Outside of that port the last actual game for that franchise was Arkanoid vs. Space Invaders released in 2017. Another thing I noticed was the re-branding of Kingdom Hearts Unchained χ as Kingdom Hearts Union χ[Cross] is also counted as a latest release.

I also looked at the revision history just to check out one of the marquee franchises, prior to the release of Final Fantasy XV the remake Final Fantasy Type-0 HD was listed [5] and currently Final Fantasy XV: Pocket Edition is listed as the latest release for Final Fantasy. This leads me to conclude that there is no "policy" or "guideline" currently in place that excludes ports, remakes, etc. from being listed as the "Latest Release" and there is no reason that Hat Trick Hero S can't be listed as the latest release for the Hat Trick Hero franchise irregardless if it was a port or not (unless a community consensus decides to exclude ports in the future). ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I personally have no real afinity with these sorts of things, as I feel listing the latest release isn't particularly encylopedic, especially when non-notable. I feel like an actual policy on these types of lists is what's needed here, rather than an argument over one franchise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with ya on that would be helpful if there was a consensus about what kind of games should go in the latest release column. It seems to me however that there is none so if someone does want to re-add Hat Trick Hero S as the latest release then due to lack of info and policy they can as it is technically the latest overall release based on the sources I've found. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.48 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiogenesis

Square Enix has described this blockchain game as their new franchise:

Mika1h (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the lead: "Franchises are defined as any set of interconnected media consisting of more than one release". Symbiogenesis currently has zero releases, so it should not be in this list. --Pres N 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SaGa Series latest release update

Change latest release for the SaGa series, from "Romacing SaGa 3 (2019)" to "SaGa Emerald Beyond (2024)". 2601:204:C080:7240:D5E4:C1DD:1948:4026 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]