Final Fantasy III NA Port Situation

[final fern]

Let's break this out to a thread in ⁠database if we are going to continue to discuss 🙂 Historically we haven't considered localization/translation differences like this as separate ports on IGDB. We typically reserve ports for gameplay mechanic differences. Doesn't mean we can't update the guidelines. They are always changing as you can see here: https://github.com/twitchtv/igdb-contribution-guidelines/wiki/Guidelines-Patch-Notes but it would need a further discussion internally and we would see what other games would need to follow this rule as well.

also when discussing it might be important to share the problem that this causes for you just so we all understand each other clearly and that we can make sure we are addressing the proper issue

[wicked island]

Honestly, if there's something that should be an exception to the NA title as default rule is if a title is misleading and/or creates more confusion than it should

As is the case for FF

[final fern]

Typically we don't like to make exceptions if we can help it as it's a slippery slope. It doesn't mean we never do but it can lead down a path of a DB filled with inconsistencies.

@wicked island is there a specific problem that this causes for you either on IGDB or an application that uses our data?

[wicked island]

I mean

The problem that this causes is the same problem it always has caused

It's misleading, intentionally misleading due to 90s marketing tactics

So, yeah, it's true

Its first official release in English was called Final Fantasy III

So even though it could be considered correct in your current guidelines

I really think that there could be an additional clause in the contribution guidelines refering to misleading localization

[final fern]

Can you explain a bit about what makes it misleading since it is the official NA release name of the game?

[wicked island]

Square renaming FFVI to FFIII is a misleading marketing tactic in itself

It's pretending that other games didn't exist

So north american audiences wouldn't feel left out

As is the case with FFIV to FFII

They were literally trying to sell the sixth installment in a series as the third one

[final fern]

Oh for sure! I understand the Square Enix marketing and localization stuff from that era but it doesn't mean it's not factual information as much as we may not agree with it. Besides it being misleading, is there any other issue that it's causing for you?

[wicked island]

It is factual information

What I'm trying to argue is that in the grand scheme of things, that factual information isn't that important

It certainly isn't as important as FFVI's cultural relevance as a whole

[sage wyvern]

just to add up something here on the discussion: if anyone has information about the FFIII (NA)/FFVI story changes, feel free to send those in

[wicked island]

Honestly, as I've heard there are significant differences

Keeping FFIII as a FFVI port makes all the sense in the world for me

It's not like that isn't something that happens quite often in the database

Mega Man 2 is listed as a port of itself

[violet marsh]

Misleading is the biggest issue at hand, to the point that I think its worth and adding an exception due to changes coming from the company itself over its marketing/port distribution

FFIII nowadays, as seen by square releasing a remaster of it on steam, is seen as the third entry and not the sixth one, at a global scale. I'd argue its similar to games that change their name over time, for example, League of Legends launched with the subtitle: Clash of Fates, however, the development team doesnt call it that nowadays, and every website nowadays refers it solely by its current name. While not as official as this case, I'd argue that by the relaunch of FFIII stating it to the third entry, square has set in stone that FFVI should mean the 6th entry in the franchise nowadays.

This is a considerably rare case and I think worth being an * in the database as a whole

[final fern]

Yep I definitely understand the name change and that era was crazy for games of that time.

[wicked island]

It's a rare case of not only a game's name being changed, but its original NA name was essentially renounced

[violet marsh]

I'd argue that if square kept calling the 6th entry the 3rd game even nowadays, there would be significantly more room for discussion, as it stands it does strike as quite odd even if its the more correct approach by the curent guidelines

[wicked island]

It always seemed to me like Square spent years trying to make sure people understood what was VI and what was III

[final fern]

Yeah FF III on DS for example (great game!) is not the same FF III I played on SNES growing up

[wicked island]

I'm sure there are games currently on the database that could lead to a similar but more ambiguous discussion, the fact that Bomberman 64 refers to two different games depending on region, for example

But in this case, Square has refered to it as FFVI for years

The fanbase has refered to it as FFVI for years

While it would be technically correct according to the guidelines, it seems like not making an exception for such a case ends up validating the weird 90s localization oddity factoid more than it does the actual classic SNES RPG

[violet marsh]

I do think that the way the fanbase calls it something shouldnt carry much weight overall, but thats for other discussions potentially

[wicked island]

Sure, I agree

[violet marsh]

Square reffering it as 6th nowadays is probably the most deciding factor

at least, with how I see it

[sage wyvern]

probably to add up something btw: it's intriguing that Nintendo still calls the game as FFIII in NA

i think it was both on the Virtual Console and Super NES Classic Edition

this is just a note btw, not an opinion or anything of the matter

[rocky adder]

Yep! All NA releases of the SNES version of the game have been called FFIII

[prisma hedge]

So, I am not an expert on early JRPG translation, but I think that this is a prime example of why this should be considered distinctive on this site. There are two basic components that need to be considered here: the distinct character of the translation and the existence of "preferred" translations down the road.

When you go to research this translation, you come to find hundreds if not thousands of online webpages and forum posts that discuss the topic of the North American "Woolsey" translation. You find many people who say that the Woolsey translation has more character but that later translations or even the fan translation of the SNES version are more reliable, albeit less distinctive and unique. Many posts in this vein are responses to people specifically asking which version they should play. To people who are looking for this game, and people who have played this game, these are two distinct versions. There are opinions on which of the two should be played, and the reasoning and ramification is beyond something like a "You should play the Xbox 360 version because it runs better than the PlayStation 3" version. Woolsey's version is preferred by some for it being more unique and flamboyant, whereas the other versions are preferred for being more accurate to the source material. It reminds me of the research I did for "Journey to the West", the iconic story of Sun Wukong. Many discussions surrounded two specific authors, each of which interpreted the novel in a different way, with one version being 1:1 accurate to the original storytelling, including prose, and the other being a summarized version of the story that could fit in one book. There is a reason for both of them to exist, and a preference for one or the other depending on what the user wants. There is also a difference in quality that can be perceived. A user experiencing the Woolsey script will never have the same experience as someone experiencing the retranslation.

That is to say, these are two distinctive works. You really cannot say its the same game, especially given the importance of narrative and world-building to the JRPG genre. Does this mean that every game that has ever had a translation error needs to be split? Not necessarily. But this is absolutely one of those cases where the two versions are distinctive within the fanbase of the game and within history itself. Its more than just the squid statues being pencil statues instead (a la Earthbound), its as different as multiple prints of the same book interpreted by two different authors.

This brings us to the "preferred" translations by Square Enix (and the fanbase at large). I think the fact that they had dramatic and more faithful retranslations for subsequent releases is proof that even Square Enix considers the NA translation to be a distinctive entity that is not necessarily representative of the original Japanese release. As we have mentioned, translation was a very different ballpark back then. A lot of games were lucky to even be ported to the US, much less receive high quality and accurate translations. The North American game "Final Fantasy III" exists the way it does, title and all, because of conventional practices of the time. Its a time capsule, a relic. It is my opinion, as well as the opinion of many others, that representing the game primarily through this version is calcifying what is essentially a temporary mistake as the face of the entire product. When we had the conversation about Arkham Knight, I was told that the cover had to change in part because "developers/publishers should be able to make changes to their work". Square Enix has consistently shown a desire to portray Final Fantasy VI in the way it was intended and not in the way it ended up being released in North America. I don't think that a product of 1994 should be how the entire game is portrayed on this site. As a user of both IGDB and other sites that use IGDB, it affects my ability to find and log a game when it is tethered to an inferior port that has basically been completely overwritten by the fanbase and publisher. It causes confusion. I know this because (and I know he is not necessarily employed with you, but he does help a lot in general) a user here responded to me with false information that was caused directly by this change, where he thought that Final Fantasy VI was a port of Final Fantasy III and not the other way around. It is a very confusing premise, the ONLY thing that made it not confusing was if you were an American in 1994.

Which is why I don't think a modern database should portray the game primarily through that lens. It causes immense confusion, and even if you are aware of this trivia, it causes annoyance. I know that there's an idea that the "better" artwork is subjective, but what is not subjective is that the majority of people trying to look at this game and log/review it are familiar with Final Fantasy VI and its related artwork, not specifically the 1994 SNES release. I can no longer look at the data, but I can only imagine there was a wide disparity in the logging data of the two games on sites that use IGDB data. Which leads into one crucial and for now final pojnt:

I saw this message on the site, and I think that this Final Fantasy III situation conflicts with this mission statement. Not only is the "truth" of Final Fantasy VI being suppressed as it is combined with a vastly different (and to many, including the original publisher, inferior version), but sites that use IGDB data are being adversely affected. In our conversation the other day I was told that IGDB has to follow their protocols and that Backloggd or any other site are able to make changes as they see fit, and I understand the idea of putting yourself first. But IGDB is attempting to basically be a backbone to these sites. It is attempting to be a database that other projects can pick up and use as a base of information. I think that you guys have made something very useful and great, like a modern Library of Alexandria (and if IGDB shut down tomorrow, it would be like the modern burning of the Library of Alexandria). But this specific case is clearly impacting users on multiple platforms. I understand your desire to follow a strict rule adherence, but I think that this is simultaneously obscuring factual information that could be more accurately listed with two entries, and also impacting the userbase of IGDB and all sites that use IGDB data with a game that only exists in the way it does because of the video game culture of 1994. I think that if they are re-split, that nuance can be better displayed AND users can easier understand and navigate this game.

Apologies for the delayed response, something came up that I had to attend to. I want to once again reiterate that I think that IGDB is a great tool and I understand that you guys aren't lazy or incompetent. It is because I value how important this tool is that I am so passionate about this issue. I am hopeful that we can come to a conclusion that resolves it in a way that is beneficial for site staff and users.

[prisma hedge]

Also I understand that this was not an attempt at a point by you, but I do wish to point tout that the reason they do this is because this is the original NA version of the game, which is itself treated as entirely distinct. They would have had to retranslate the original game to put it in this collection as "Final Fantasy VI", so they just took the avenue of porting the NA version to the NES edition and the JP version to the Famicom edition. I think this strengthens the argument that the "Final Fantasy III" version of the game is a distinct version, since this is the only context that version gets rereleased in.

[final fern]

Thank you for that explaination @prisma hedge

I want to summarize the points that you made and others to make sure I understand the problem with merging this port page.

• It's misleading, despite the game being called Final Fantasy III in the NA at the time of it's release, today Square Enix does not call any remasters/remakes/etc Final Fantasy III to mean NA Final Fantasy III
• The translation has a different vibe to it and since it's a heavy story game, this is an important factor.
• You are unable to log this specific version of the game or the JP version of this game as they are merged and being treated as one.

Please let me know if I missed something.

[prisma hedge]

I think you got the gist of it, mostly, yes.

[final fern]

If there is anything I’m missing please let me know as it will be used to revisit this internally.

[thorn glacier]

Isn't considering a version distinct due to localization a slippery slope?

FFVIII famously changed Squall's characterization in the English script. If FF6 in English on the SNES is different enough to be counted as a port, would FF8 in English also be?

Or any game that Working Designs has translated for that matter, they (in)famously changed the scripts A LOT

Even if we argue that this database has an English-speaking bias, still feels a bit of a slippery slope to me to separate "Final Fantasy III" in the SNES from Final Fantasy VI in the Super Famicom

For the record, the original English release of FF4 actually is listed as a port, but that one has significant gameplay changes, as you all probably know

But regarding listing the original English release of FF6 as FF3, I agree it should be reconsidered. Like someone said, the original NA title has long since been "renounced"

I wonder if there's a similar discussion to be had with the "Dragon Warrior" games

[prisma hedge]

I mean its not a slippery slope because not every localization is as distinctly different. I dont know about FF8.

Like "FF3" has a distinct script that was born from the guy doing it being rushed and that script has been completely rewritten in every subsequent rerelease. Whenever they rerelease FF6 its always different unless its literally this exact version, like in the SNES classic.

I think its possible to separate the inherent concept of localization differences from examples where a localization transforms the entire game. I don't know if FF8 would count like that or not.

One of the reasons why this example is especially important to change is because of how confusing the name is. Regardless of the version of Final Fantasy 8 you are playing, its gonna be Final Fantasy 8. Final Fantasy III by name alone should be split if anything because of how confusing it is.

Like I want you to really think about how this looks in a lineup. It would be:

Final Fantasy, Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy VII

[thorn glacier]

Oh, I totally agree that the original SNES version should not be listed as FF3. The SNES release of FF4 isn't Final Fantasy 2

I'm just not entirely sure about having FF6 and then FF3 as a port of that

[prisma hedge]

Well, by real world definition it is a port, and before now it was split. This would basically be reverting it to how it was, and I don't think there were any problems with the status quo. But I would not be mad at a compromise where they stay merged but FF6 takes precedence for name and box art.

[thorn glacier]

Considering the aforementioned English-speaking bias we have, wouldn't logging FF6 on the SNES be enough to point out "I have played the version of the game released as FF3"?

[prisma hedge]

Well no, because not everyone logs the same

A lot of people will play a port of a game and log the original version because they played that game regardless of which version it is

[thorn glacier]

Is it really a port by definition? It's a localization

[prisma hedge]

Well technically I think you would call it a "conversion"

Remember that back then there was a different system for Japan and elsewhere

The NES and the Famicom were similar but not 1:1, so there was some portwork that had to be done

But I think the technical term is a conversion

Which in my mind is basically a port, personally

[thorn glacier]

Okay, idk the technical differences between Super Famicom and SNES tbh

But eeeeh idk about that one... feels no different than a NTSC to PAL conversion to me. I actually don't like how Famicom/NES, SFC/SNES are listed as separate platforms tbh

Not that it matters since we're talking specifically FF6

yes, I agree it should be listed as Final Fantasy VI. I hadn't even realized they changed that

[prisma hedge]

So IGDB lists this stuff completely different from most other medium databases

For books for example, you have two identical works, word for word verbatim, that get different pages because they are different prints

So its never gonna be perfect as a comparison

But I think there is something about how a book can be translated into two different distinct works

I think the fact that FF6's NA version (FF3) is known by name as Woolsey's script is part of the reasoning that its distinctive, especially since nothing else uses it and it changes a lot of world-building and dialogue and plot

[thorn glacier]

I think I thought of a similar example

The original English release of FF Tactics had a famously botched translation, the script of both War of the Lions and Ivalice Chronicles are entirely different. If we use the same logic, wouldn't we need to have Final Fantasy Tactics (the original Japanese release) and then FF Tactics (the localized PS1 release) as a port of that?

[prisma hedge]

Like I said at the beginning of my explanation, I am not an expert on JRPG localizations/translations, I don't think we need to completely upend all localizations on IGDB, I just think that this is clearly distinctive enough to be split especially given the confusion caused by its name.

Truthfully, I don't think that its a good idea to do a huge change for sitewide guidelines because I don't think that anyone in this entire conversation has that kind of knowledge. It would be a headache. I just think that for the purposes of this specific example its different enough AND a conversion of the game AND the title obfuscates important data. I think that's where most people take issue with this.

As much as I think its very important to revert this individual change, I think hastily changing the entire system of localization and translation for the entire genre (and even beyond) would be a bad thing and would also put way too much work on IGDB staff.

I think that you can put Final Fantasy VI/III (and Final Fantasy IV/II, for that matter) as separate entries justified by what makes them unique (the confusion surrounding the naming convention) in context with their differences to have them fit within the rule instead of changing the rule to affect how all localization are handled. That's just too much work for IGDB. At best it would be fixing an issue that no one is complaining about outside of this one example and at worst it would be horrible for the userbase in the opposite way.

[delicate prairie]

Regarding localization differences, I personally agree with Artur that it's a slippery slope. It was common for localized releases of Japanese games to change the tone or rewrite characters personalities because of cultural differences. Woolsey's scripts (FFIV, FFVI, Secret of Mana, etc.) are good examples for that. Another example is games published by Working Designs, like the Lunar series, which were infamous for taking great liberties with their translations to align with US pop culture and humor at that time. There are even fan patches for many of their games called "Un-Worked Designs" because the English versions became so notorious for their changes.

Another common issue during the 8 and 16 bit era was that English scripts often had to be shorter due to ROM character limits. Essentially, you need far more Latin characters than Japanese to convey the same meaning in a sentence. This is mentioned in the FF fandom wiki under FFVI's localization differences:

The storage and screen space limitations of the SNES resulted in shortened translations of the script, abilities, and enemies. Menus were reorganized to accommodate the changes.

And here's a quote from Woolsey's Wikipedia page:

Another challenge was the limited storage space on SNES cartridges. English requires roughly twice as many characters as Japanese to convey the same meaning, which forced Woolsey to cut down the scripts to fit within the cartridge memory.

The point is that this wasn't an exception or something that's specific to FFVI. This applied to almost all story-heavy games of that era. hence why I personally think that creating ports because of localization differences isn't ideal and would only make the database unnecessarily messy. Not to mention that it's virtually impossible to verify on a per-game basis.

An idea that you could refine and maybe consider for the guidelines:
When a game's Western title clashes with another game in the series due to localization and marketing reasons, using the original title is valid.

Some examples:

• King's Field and King's Field are actually King's Field and King's Field II.
• King's Field II is King's Field III.
• Clock Tower and Clock Tower are Clock Tower and Clock Tower 2. Though the next game (Clock Tower: Ghost Head) was released as Clock Tower II: The Struggle Within in North America - so this one isn't as straightforward.

I'm not sure how well this would work in practice. It's just some food for thought for a guideline that could be applied more broadly, rather than creating an exception specifically for one game, which might seem inconsistent.

[half forge]

I think that could be a good compromise

[prisma hedge]

It would address the issues of information confusion better, for sure. It also largely addresses the issue of modernity, since most of these games go with the original Japanese numbering/titling when they get rereleased.

[raw moat]

Please can we revert the Final Fantasy III to Final Fantasy VI and the original Japanese artwork, no one asked for this. It's stupid having two Final Fantasy IIIs when they are both different games and one is only truly FFIII. Makes no sense, just appealing to nostalgic NA millennial gamers

[sage wyvern]

If you have arguments like the ones stated above, please provide them

[raw moat]

No one outside of NTSC region knows Final Fantasy VI as Final Fantasy III, the box art and logo for the original US release are ugly in my opinion

[sage wyvern]

Otherwise, i would recommend being patient and respectful about this topic as it will be discussed internally

[raw moat]

why not relegate the stuff about Final Fantasy VI being known initially in the NTSC region as Final Fantasy III to the game's description??

[sage wyvern]

By our current guidelines, The main titles and covers must be the North American ones, regardless of our opinions. Titles and covers from other regions can be listed (and used by other sites if they wished to) on the Localization section.

This thread exists to provide discussion and sources in regards to the differences of FFIII (NA) and FFVI so we can maybe come up with a resolution to the matter in some way.

So again, if you have anything that could help on the situation, feel free to provide them. If you have anything that you want to add to any of the pre-existing messages, you can do that respectfully.

But if you don't, i would recommend patiently waiting for the resolution of the matter.

[sage wyvern]

and for the record, that would be a good compromise as well.

[prisma hedge]

I do agree with the compromise, yes

[prisma hedge]

Bc come to think of it I did also mention that one issue is the confusion, specifically around the titling. Having the series go 1 > 2 > 3 > 2 > 5 > 3 > 7 is pretty nonsensical, after all. Not to mention the issues with searching and logging that I mentioned. I think Keiyuu’s proposal addresses that in an orderly fashion.

[final fern]

Thanks for sharing! I’ll make sure that’s addressed in our solution for this. We are starting to explore the ability to do prequels and sequels so that you can see the proper “story” order of a series

[prisma hedge]

That would be a cool feature! But to be clear, I do think that regardless of that the names should be more clear. I don’t think that you meant it was a solution in of itself, just making sure!

[final fern]

Absolutely! This would only solve part of the problem which would be having a clear path of what game is next in a series. Several games have this problem where it’s unclear how they connect exactly. Logging and searching is noted ✅ I’ll expand the third point to be more clear around that.

[limber flare]

with all due respect I don't see how this would remedy the situation, as Final Fantasy games are generally disconnected stories (excluding X2, XII2/3 etc), to say that it would show the proper "story" order is an arbitrary sorting as Metal Gear Solid 3 would be listed first as the prequel, but Final Fantasy games would generally be listed in release order?

[final fern]

It could be in release order as well for sure! We could look into different ways of sorting to make sure people can look at release order vs story order vs another sorting method. This isn’t to address final fantasy specifically but could be used to show which games came first if the title isn’t obviously telling of that. This isnt something set in stone. It’s definitely not going to solve this challenge.

[sand kite]

Can we just have two separate entries? Dragon Quest has a similar situation with Dragon Warrior.

[sage wyvern]

Do you know any notable differences between the JP and NA version of FFVI?

genuine question btw :)

[sand kite]

Besides that the whole text is in another languague, Celes isn't tied when she's being "tortured"

[sage wyvern]

As far as we know, this part is for the GBA release

which is a different page

[sand kite]

Okay, I made 1 mistake, so what?

[thorn glacier]

The FF wiki has a great page listing version differences for most of the games

https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VI_version_differences#Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System

imo, nothing significant that would warrant separate entries

and Dragon Quest doesn't split up the Japanese and English version afaik. Like, Dragon Warrior on the NES is the only page for that specific version

Imo tho, it's a similar situation to FF6 being called "FF3", and listing all the "Dragon Warrior" games as Dragon Quest I think is worth discussing

[delicate prairie]

https://tcrf.net/Final_Fantasy_VI#Regional_Differences
Here's another source for version differences

It mostly comes down to minor censorship on certain sprites, and tweaks due to localization/ROM storage constraints

[final fern]

Thank you all for your great feedback around this change. We have revisited internally and have discussed it over the past week. We wanted to make sure that we could address as many of the issues that you brought up without jeopardizing the integrity of our taxonomy.

We understand this is a particularly sensitive topic given the historical significance of the Final Fantasy III/VI naming convention. This has been a point of discussion in the Final Fantasy community since the 1990s, when Square's localization strategy led to different numbering systems between Japanese and Western releases.

Based on your feedback and thanks to these discussions, we have developed the following solutions:

• After consulting with our colleague in Japan, we determined that while regional differences exist, they aren't significant enough to warrant a separate page. We only separate versions when there are substantial gameplay differences.
• Regarding the name: While "Final Fantasy VI" has been used globally post-SNES, the SNES version (including Wii Virtual Console and SNES Classic releases) remains as "Final Fantasy III". We will maintain this naming for data integrity. Should Square Enix release the SNES version as "Final Fantasy VI" in the future, we would update accordingly.
• We have launched a localization preference feature for covers, with plans to extend this to game names in the future. This enables users to pick what cover they want to see for a game, by ranking regions on IGDB. As this is a new feature, we welcome your feedback. We will also explore options for alternative game name/cover selection. You can find this settings here: https://www.igdb.com/users/[YOUR_USERNAME]/site_settings
• We acknowledge the discoverability issues with our search functionality (for example, searching "Final Fantasy III" currently prioritizes the DS remake). We have therefore decided to invest efforts and resources to improve our search system next year.
• For the Backloggd community: We're in direct communication with @lone stump to develop solutions that work for both platforms, and we'll continue to provide support for their implementation needs.

We understand this solution may not be perfect, however should be seen as one step towards finding a long-term solution. We also plan to continue to revisit our contribution guidelines and taxonomy.

Thank you again for your feedback and passion. Conversations like this enable us to improve. Due to our team size and scale, we are not always able to take immediate action due to conflicting priorities, so please bare with us as we are navigating forward.

[raven ice]

I must express my dissatisfaction with this choice. I have read through the thread and understand the rationale. I understand that the IGDB guidelines are focused on what a game was officially released as and not what it is generally called, nevertheless, it just seems wrongheaded to me. Even in this thread people advocating for the title refer to the game as FFVI. It is how it is referred to, almost Universally.

Additionally, and I realise I might be opening myself up to a world of hurt here - I think there should be consistency across the series and at present, Final Fantasy IV, released in 1991, is title as Final Fantasy IV in the DB, rather than "Final Fantasy II" as it was released in NA. I realise that in pointing this out the likely outcome is just to change the title of Final Fantasy IV to II 💀 but I would argue as strongly as possible that the Final Fantasy game released on SNES in 1996 should instead be retitled "Final Fantasy VI"

[spiral bison]

Hi! I was just going to submit a change for IV -> II 🦧 , but that one had enough differences for both super releases to have their own IGDB pages.

[raven ice]

Is there any room to re-litigate this? Even the Playstation ports that are substantially similar from the same year use the title Final Fantasy VI. I feel strongly that for most people this is just going to cause confusion.

(indeed I'm here because I was in another community discussing RPGs on Backloggd and we were all flabbergasted when we saw that the game had been retitled)

[prisma herald]

This one here? https://www.igdb.com/games/final-fantasy-vi--4

That one has PlayStation releases and is already labeled as Final Fantasy VI. Final Fantasy III doesn't have PlayStation releases.

[raven ice]

Genuinely can't tell if you're making a sarcastic comment about the SNES game not being re-released on Playstation or if you mean the Famicom game. But yes, I was referring to that release, and this one: https://www.igdb.com/games/final-fantasy-anthology

[prisma herald]

I was simply stating that IGDB already has a page for PlayStation release and it is not labeled as Final Fantasy III. It was just in case you weren't aware of that page.

[raven ice]

Yes, I was aware these have their own entries.

Square used the title "Final Fantasy VI" themselves to refer to this game. I understand that's a different physical release, I understand that's under its own title. But I think it both shows that Square had changed their mind on the title, and that the game's audience knew it as Final Fantasy VI before the end of the decade.

I would also argue that it is relevant how the information in the IGDB is understood and used by the people who interface with it, and I think that that most people who use it will be ill-served by the use of the "Final Fantasy III" title.

If we consider the example of Final Fantasy IV...

https://backloggd.com/games/final-fantasy-iv--1/

This entry is listed by substantially more users than Final Fantasy II, and has a lot more English language reviews, despite the fact it was not the version released in English.

I would suggest that's because most people understand "Final Fantasy IV" to be the title of that game, just as they understand "Final Fantasy VI" to be the title of the game released in 1994.

If the naming policy caused confusion for most users, would that not be a compelling argument for change?

[prisma herald]

That was the point of this entire thread. You can read the conversations above. SudoShadow already mentioned what the outcome was: #1433223112236732436 message

This is the major takeaway:

We understand this solution may not be perfect, however should be seen as one step towards finding a long-term solution. We also plan to continue to revisit our contribution guidelines and taxonomy.

I was simply addressing that the PlayStation port is already separated as that was mentioned initially. The subsequent messages has already been covered from the conversation history so there's nothing else to add there.

[raven ice]

You don't have to say simply every time man.

But fine, I get it, you've made the decision and it's not changing.

[prisma herald]

I did not state any form of stance on anything in this matter. Admins can still weigh in if they like.

[spiral bison]

It is listed as an alt-title. Backloggd doesn't currently appear to use those in searches, but it does allow users to change the cover if they prefer VI in their library.