Talk:List of Square Enix video game franchises

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on February 19, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 29, 2015Featured list candidateNot promoted
October 18, 2015Featured list candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Content[edit]

Normally I'd tag this list and move on, but as one of the most active members of WP:SE, I have a bit more of a vested interest, especially as we've gotten every other Square Enix-related list up to Featured status, so this would be the only one that isn't. I'm a little concerned about this list; at first blush it just seems to be an odd combination of data that should be at Square Enix and re-ordering List of Square Enix video games. I've also never seen a "list of franchises" article before. I do think it may have some potential, though- mainly due to just how many franchises SE has. There are some problems with the list as is, however:

  • Tacking on "notable" doesn't help anything, it instead adds a completely arbitrary cutoff. The list should cover all franchises.
  • The big one is that the list is currently mangling together IPs that SE created/owned, and IPs that the have the rights to publish- Final Fantasy is an SE franchise; Tomb Raider is certainly not, they just get published by SE (and only since 2010). Given some of the below ideas, that may not be an issue- but it should be more clearly delineated.
  • I also don't like the way the SE stuff, the Taito stuff, the Eidos stuff, and the mangas they publish get mushed together- as stands you had to tack on "notable" because otherwise the manga alone would number in the hundreds.
  • Some of the columns just... don't work the way they are right now. The "best selling" column is a good idea, but there's just not the data to support it in most cases- Secret of Mana is almost certainly the biggest seller of the Mana series, but that's an assumption- we don't actually have worldwide sales data breakdowns for most of the series. (Trust me- I wrote/got to GA the articles for 6 of the games). You're sourcing it to a 2004 source, but for all we know Rise of Mana sold 2 million copies in Japan in 2014. The "noteworthy facts" column is also... there's just no consistency in what goes there- what counts as "noteworthy"? Better, I think, to change it to list what's in the franchise- X main video games, Y spinoff games, Z manga series, etc. A list of what is in each franchise seems pretty integral to a list of those franchises- moreso than the designer of the original game.
  • You can't break out "started as a game/started as a manga" with just color- WP:ACCESS. If manga stays, we'd need a better way.
  • There's currently no definition of a franchise- so you'd have to have every single game made by SE/Square (which is untenable- List of Square video games/List of Square Enix video games is super-long, and you'd just be repeating stuff). Generally, although a single game counts as a franchise, the common usage is multiple connected titles- you could even cut this down to multi-media franchises if you need to.

So. Some issues, but nothing overwhelming, really. The number of articles/lists that have been made by people who never came back to finish them is as long as my arm, so I'm going to hold off here and see if there's any interest in continuing this list. If there is, great, if there isn't, I'll probably move it to user space, rework it, and bring it back later if it turns out to be a plausible list. --PresN 00:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think legend is suitable or separate sections?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure; I usually prefer one big table, but this one splits into separate ones nicely. In addition to the color you'd need to add a †/* to the franchise name if it's in the other two divisions; I think lets try to fill in all the cells/add in all the franchises, then see if it looks better as one table or three. --PresN 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to merge all into 1 table except the manga. So that people can order the tables better, and ive decided to use the legend system. I think its an obvious case and that its suitable here. I have assumed that you will also agree. If not then only other solution I see is adding another column which identifies who made the game. Because i think all the data needs to be in 1 table to make sorting easy and I will also order it based on sales of franchise, if no sales, then will consider perceived sales when ordering.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one table works better, yeah. Though the color should probably be across the entire row, not just the one cell. A few of them are the wrong color right now (Valkyrie Profile, for example, is developed by Tri-Ace, not SE, and so should be yellow), but that'll get fixed in time. It's looking good! --PresN 17:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some help requested. I cant get the Total columns column to work properly. If you sort it, it does not sort ascending or descending like the other columns--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing above--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manga section[edit]

What should we do about the manga section? Right now we don't have any definition of what should be in it- we're listing 6 series but the SE franchise page lists 21, and there's probably a lot more that they publish(ed). Even if we restrict it to "manga that have a video game associated with it". I'm in favor of just making the list "video game franchises"- i.e. the franchise started as/is focused on video games. Maybe make a second list that's "list of best-selling SE manga series" or something.

If we cut the manga section or come up with a solution for it we're getting pretty close to moving this back to article space. List of Square Enix video game franchises or List of Square Enix franchises, depending. --PresN 04:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See List of best selling video games or List of best selling video game franchises. In the first link each section has its own rules about what is considered "Best selling", and I do not think people fight over this too often. I think we should go with that model and I propose having 2 Manga sections. (1) List of Square Enix Manga franchises selling 10 million or more copies (2) List of Manga franchises with video games. King of like the made up rules for each section of List of best selling video games , what do you think? I think "some" Manga should definitely be included on this page like "Full Metal Alchemist".--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many manga magazine published by Square Enix, and is Umineko: When They Cry (manga series) a "SQEX franchise"? --CAS222222221 (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Misconceptions2 copy-pasted the draft out to article space; I've killed that version of the article and made it a redirect since there were no subsequent edits, and then properly moved the draft into article space without the "notable" tag, which has no place in the title. --PresN 13:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i messed up, thanks for fixing it. I accidentally moved talk page first, i made clear exactly what I did wrong in the draft talk page edit history comment section. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is gamebiz.jp a reliable source?[edit]

Said by gamebiz.jp, Star Ocean shipped over 4.2m copies as of July 2013. I did a research, found no other media reported this figure. Is this site a reliable source? --CAS222222221 (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not listed on WP:VG/S, so I'm going to lean on the side of caution and say no. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Square Enix owns ogre battle[edit]

@PresN , They own trademark. See: http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=482160 (original source) Therefore I think it should be added back to this list--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on one hand you're wrong; SE made one out of 6 original releases in the series, and "published" a few Virtual Console releases, which don't even rise to the level of ports. The trademark filing is about the VC releases, and does not prove that SE owns the Ogre Battle franchise (not that that would matter, this list is determined by who developed/published what since in almost all cases we can't prove definitively what corporate entity "owns" a franchise vs. "has the rights to publish" a franchse.) On that basis, the series shouldn't be in this list. On the other hand, I completely missed that SE owns Quest since 2002, and the one game SE made came out in 2010, meaning that the franchise as a whole counts as "primarily developed by a subsidiary", and is totally an SE property that they have worked on. I'll add it in later today. --PresN 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of Square Enix video game franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of Square Enix video game franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Square Enix video game franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Square Enix video game franchises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Total video game sales[edit]

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). --PresN 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. --PresN 17:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident93 removed request for comment[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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. --PresN 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 Square Enix Holdings: ©Disney. ©Disney/Pixar Developed by SQUARE ENIX (no © or "All rights reserved." for Square Enix)
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[edit]

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. ♪♫Alucard 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. ♪♫Alucard 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. ♪♫Alucard 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). ♪♫Alucard 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. ♪♫Alucard 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[edit]

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. --PresN 17:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Square_Enix_video_game_franchises&oldid=1210516756"