Talk:Kingdom Hearts HD 2.8 Final Chapter Prologue

Santa Brings Presents

Here's the header icon: --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. --ShardofTruth 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. --ShardofTruth 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? Chitalian8 17:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is in order, I think Kryten complained about the HD icons too. --ShardofTruth 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."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 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.) TheSilentHero 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. Pea14733 ---- [土] 21:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm making a forum regarding the topic, please stand by. Chitalian8 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. TheFifteenthMember 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."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 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 reign 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."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 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. TheFifteenthMember 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?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 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). TheFifteenthMember 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: --Webber22 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)