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)

Source has been added. So, end of discussion I hope. --Webber22 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * KrytenKoro, just to clarify, would Square Enix actually say what engine they'd use for each specific game? TRS NX  17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does he have to clarify? *I* can clarify. :/  Almost always yes.  They tend to be very proud of their in-house engines, though in KH3's case, it's Unreal Engine 4. --Webber22 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, in this case, then would it not be better to get it straight from the horses' mouths themselves, instead of a third-party site? Don't you think so, too? TRS NX  18:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though it is a third-party site it's a translation of the newest Famitsu interview with Nomura, you can't get more closer to the horse than that;-) Also it just makes sense they are using the same engine for all new titles, that way they can share resources and save development time. -- 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm. Should probably add that Back Cover as well is based off UE4 tech. --Webber22 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Siliconera is a reputable gaming news site, so it is very much acceptable. On a further note, do we have a name for the base engine, so that we can use that (and perhaps create an article, since it's not unique to KH3 anymore) rather than repeating "Kingdom Hearts 3 base engine"? 23:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I used "KH3 base engine" because the game is developed through two different tools, Unreal Engine 4 and the Kingdom Shader. You could just say Unreal Engine 4....but that'd only be about 67% of it.  Square Enix, as always, really loves their in-house tools and they wanted their own graphics shader for KH3, which as you can see, 0.2 is also using.  And Unreal Engine 4 simply is not all that unique enough for its own page - technically speaking, you can go right now and download an official copy for free.  You'll get the same tools SE is using.  And as for the Kingdom Shader, we just don't know enough about to make anything.  If we saw it run real-time in a native environment, like a developer's video, you could do that - but there's nothing out there at the moment.  And "Kingdom Hearts III technology" is a little bit too wordy and mechanical, so I just stuck with "KHIII base engine".  --Webber22 (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so no article, but we can say "Unreal Engine 4 and Kingdom Shader", yes? 13:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, well, I suppose. That's it, but in my opinion it's kind of a mouthful.  --Webber22 (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about "KHIII development tools"? --Webber22 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So is Kingdom Shader a version of Unreal Engine 4? If not, it seems kind of unclear to say "Kingdom Hearts III base engine" when we're meaning to be more than what it seems is the literal base engine, Unreal Engine 4. My issue with stuff like "KH3 X" is that it gives an unneeded air of mystery, and well, if it's used by more than KHIII, it's no longer just the KHIII development tools. It would be "Phase two development tools", or something like that to denote the subset of games working on that engine. In addition, it's just easier to say (and type)

and than Kingdom Hearts III ' s base engine
 * As a general rule, I figure that if we can identify it enough to say "this is what they're using", we can identify it enough so that we don't have to send the reader hunting down info on other articles to figure out what is being talked about. We don't necessarily need an article for just the engine (although the Kingdom Shader probably deserves one, even if it's going to be stubby for quite a while), but the reader should be able to understand this article from this article, or at the very least be able to intuit where the information they want is. 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * O_O Dude.  Why are you making this so absurdly complicated?  Just.....just keep it as is.  =_= --Webber22 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

NA Clear Logo
Amazon just put up a pre-order page for 2.8 with a mock-up cover, which means we now have a clean NA/US/EU logo. I would render it myself but I'm not at my good PC at the moment. So, whoever wants it take it: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015HAL2OA/ref=s9_psimh_gw_p63_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0ZT54TTEBHPJ6FWGG6HV&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop --Webber22 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Screw it. I did it myself. --Webber22 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Configuration overhaul
As with the engine -- although we all know it's correct, do we have a source for it? If we have sources for changes to the article, they really need to be added. 12:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the exact same interview we've been using for citing everything else. He specifically said that because the 3DS had two screens and the PS4 has only one, the port is a significant amount of work.  "Configuration overhaul" is really just a fancy way of saying "controls and UI overhaul."  And we KNOW the UI is getting retouched to accommodate the single screen.  I mean, technically speaking, we also KNOW that stuff like Reality Shifts will work completely differently, but let's save that for another interview when he actually says it.  Right now, I just went with what's confirmed.  --Webber22 (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll add a cite to that source to that section. Just to clarify, I wasn't doubting you, I was just trying to figure out what citation to add. 17:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's cool, it's cool. Question everything!  Just.....just don't be a militant reverter.  :<  --Webber22 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Release date
I get that it's extremely subject to revision, but...if it's listed in an official source, and we can cite the source, why exactly is it preferable to keep the claim uncited? 18:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But we don't have an official source for the NA release date, right? 18:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)