Talk:Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue

Santa Brings Presents
Here's the header icon: http://i.imgur.com/ME0WbUk.png --Webber22 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, one icon should be more than enough, with three versions that cover the content of [chi] differently this is becoming crazy. -- 13:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing though - two out of three things from this set are completely new. So....once we start putting up the articles, we really will need them.  :/  But, one step at a time - currently, we don't even have very good logos for them just yet.  --Webber22 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We are already in some kind of overkill mode with our game symbols. I understand that these entries are actually separate titles but since only one of them is an actual remaster and other two are a movie collection and a very short episode of pre-KHIII gameplay with all of them being released them for the first time in these versions, maybe this one will still suffice. Either that or have three separate symbols and remove this one. -- 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold up. When or where did they say about 0.2 being a movie thingy?  I was under the impression it was a playable prologue for KH3. --Webber22 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Though, you bring up a good point with the overabundance of icons on the tops of pages, and indeed, the bloat is becoming kind of real with all these new decimal-placed games. Maybe a discussion of how we can cut down on the amount of game tags is in order? 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is in order, I think Kryten complained about the HD icons too. -- 18:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I kind of feel that if it's not distinct enough to deserve a separate section in the plot summary, it doesn't deserve an icon, but we could also look into maybe something that hides the icons, or lets us flip through them (like how phones do tabs), or putting them in rows, or vertically...I dunno. 18:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you guys see what the Final Fantasy wiki did with them? They have an entirely dedicated box just for icons on the right side of a page.  As a result there's no clutter whatsoever.  I'm not sure how we'd pull that off here, but it's a start for pondering. --Webber22 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: Instead of using one icon for KH, one for KHFM, and one for HD1.5, use a KHFMHD icon if it appears in the HD version, use the KHFM icon instead if it only appears in non-HD KHFM, and the KH icon if it only appears in non-FM KH. So basically, only use the icon of the most recent released version. (We'll need to add "HD" to the current icons, though.) 20:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Or we group the icons by games and when your cursor hover over a header icon, the games in the group appear(like the main page icons)? Which icons to use as the header is to be discussed though. 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm making a forum regarding the topic, please stand by. 02:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Individual games
Do we treat each of these as individual titles or part of the collective KH2.8? BBS 0.2 is certainly special. 19:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Read right up above. We're discussing that this very....whatever.  We SHOULD treat at least two out of three of them as something new, but we're running into a bit of a clutter problem.  --Webber22 (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Individual games. The HDs are a special case, because of some very slight additions to them (though...I'd honestly be fine just listing them with their actual game titles, I hate differentiating HD games from their identical counterparts. 20:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what occurred to me? Almost every HD collection is differentiated and categorized on their own when it comes to games wikis in general.  Go to the Metal Gear Wiki.  Or the Devil May Cry Wiki.  The HD Collections will always be categorized as their own thing.  And you know what?  I think it's for the best.  To keep things straightforward for the readers and more importantly, accurate - the HD collections are their own products.  If anything, the "special edition repackages" (like the Trinity sets) are what needs to get snuffed since those were just paper printers for first edition releases, and only in Japan at that.  So yes, I think we really do need to keep the HD pages (and everything else) as is.  The real issue, again, is what to do with the new stuff that came with this.  I'm of the opinion....that we keep it all in the 2.8 page.  As new as these additions are, they are a PART of 2.8, and were never their own separate things.  --Webber22 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder here. 0.2 is referred to as an "Episode" and may be something similar to Final Fantasy XV Episode Duscae. Essentially an introductory gameplay segment to KH3 that acts as part of the story. Definitely deserves its own page, but not sure if it should be included as a a stand-alone entry in navigation.


 * As for χ Back Cover, my understanding is that it's going to be a separate, original story set in the same world view as Chi. Chi is open-ended, and this one is going to be a bit more specific. It remains to be seen if a separate page will be needed, but I don't think it should be on the games' section in the navigation. It is more or less represented through Chi. --Ouranosu (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * DMC wiki categorizes the HD releases as separate now? Gotdammit. I really should have kept a tighter rein over there. Having played the HD releases, that choice makes no damn sense -- there's virtually no gameplay changes to those games.
 * The purpose of the icons, at least when we brought them in, was to be something similar to a timeline-at-a-glance (with some incorporation of other media), similar to what you have in the Trinity Report. For that purpose, listing the FMs and HDs adds information, but it's not terribly relevant or useful information. The original intent was supposed to be "this concept shows up in year -10, year 1, and year 2", etc. 13:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in the icons. Whether each title should get its own page is the question I was getting at. I see the 2.8 package as a compilation of three new titles rather than 2.8 being a game comprised of three parts. Unlike 1.5 and 2.5, each of 2.8's games have new names/logos and are wildly different to their originals: KH3D is a remake like ReCOM and Recoded onto an entirely different platform rather than a simple port, KHX Back Cover is a movie version of KHX/KHUX and BBS 0.2 is entirely new content. 17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2.8 is the collection, and should have a collection style article, but the three included features are the actual games.
 * Actually, on that note, should we have separate articles for the movie versions of Days and Re:coded? They can't really be classified as ports, although the cutscenes are largely the same. Maybe incorporate it into the theatre page? 17:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree to a more fleshed out Theatre Mode page (ENX began a project for that a while back). 18:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Santa Brings Coal
For the hell of it. I'm against it, but if you guys decide to give Back Cover and 0.2 their own pages, here ya be: http://i.imgur.com/oHSGLR2.png http://i.imgur.com/qsQipag.png --Webber22 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Made with KHIII base engine
Where's the source for this? 17:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think fans are just basing off that assumption due to the graphics when they showed Aqua.-- 22:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically, it's Unreal Engine 4, but same thing. And the screenshot isn't so much an assumption as a sure-bet. It's rendered via the Kingdom Shader. And look at the detail of the textures. Yep. --Webber22 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * SE games (fuck, Nomura SE games) have changed engine mid-production before. At our most liberal, it would be acceptable to say "currently being developed using X engine", but without an explicit statement from SE? No, we have policies against that, policies to prevent us being bitten in the ass by bad assumptions as has happened umpteen times in the past every time someone has a sure bet, no, we need an actual citation. We have forums set up for the specific purpose of writing pre-citation drafts on material, and everyone is free to use those. The articles in the mainspace are held to a stricter standard. 15:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh! I'm sensing some sourgrapes here....  Could it...could it possibly have anything to do with Nomura spending 7 years time and resources and not even completing a quarter of Versus XIII lol? --Webber22 (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. The most interest I've had in FFXV so far is an AMV of the original trailer set to Carillon. If I have sourgrapes, it's about the many cases in the past where people rushed to add stuff to newgame articles that wasn't ironclad, I advised against it and was mocked for it (or in one or two cases, engaged in it myself to my later shame), and then the wiki ends up with egg on its face because it turns out the thing was wrong. We're not a news site -- we're scribes, not explorers, so having up-to-the-minute info can be interesting but isn't terribly relevant to our mission or scope, and more often than not it ends up embarrassing us. There is no detriment to our mission or reputation if we simply wait for rock-solid proof, no matter how blatantly obvious something is beforehand. 19:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Webber, before you rush to add anything, remember that people were quick to add Gus to the list of pages during the run-up to Birth by Sleep just because Jaq was announced as an NPC. There were a number of other pages done in the same way -- Yen Sid was "Disney" spelt backwards, and therefore in the same vein, Master Eraqus was initially spelt "Master Erauqs" (I AM NOT KIDDING). We had egg on our face, of course, for getting those facts wrong. You want to know the most embarrassing bit? The Kingdom Hearts Francophone Wiki got it right long before we did. So, instead of rushing to add facts and making guesswork as to whether we are correct, or not, it's best that we wait it out. Wikis are here for solid proof.

Heck, even Wikipedia's new articles state that "facts are subject to change." That precludes it from any heavy editing activity or edit wars over the fact that one believes that a game is going to run on Unreal Engine 4, and another thinks otherwise. The last thing anyone would need on such a page is a bunch of 'Citation Needed' marks. It reduces its credibility. As a wiki, we are to do likewise. TRS NX  19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)