Talk:Square (video game company)

Square VS Square Co., Ltd.

Do you feel we should mention games produced by Square Co., Ltd. before they were an independent company? As pointed out in my King's Knight article, King's Knight was not, in fact, the first game that Square developed. It WAS the first they developed as Square Co., Ltd. However, they produced and/or published no less than six games simply as "Square": The Death Trap, Will, Thexder, Dragon Slayer, Cruise Chaser Blassty, and Alpha, respectively. Thexder was developed by Game Arts and published by Square for the Famicom, and Dragon Slayer was produced by Falcom but published by Square for the MSX, while the rest were produced and published by Square. Most of these games were released on various Japanese computers (notably the NEC PC-8801 and PC-8901) and never saw light outside of Japan. I have the release months and years if you guys are interested in placing this on the site.

EDIT: I also notice that massive gaps of games are missing in any given platform. There is some debate as to why they shouldn't be included, since this is an English version of Wikipedia, and these games (i.e. 'Square's Tom Sawyer' for Famicom) were never ported to English-speaking countries. On the other hand, Final Fantasy III never saw an English release, but is still listed. One could argue that Final Fantasy III is more relevant since it's part of Square's flagship series and, furthermore, it has had an (albeit unofficial) English translation. These arguments don't hold much water, however.

Finally, I'm wondering if I'm the only one that cares to advance this discussion and/or edit the site. :/ Somebody prove me wrong. - Tristam 12:49 a.m., 24 Jul 2005 (CST)

Though it's been more than a year since you've brought it up, I just came across this now and I very much agree. From what little data I have, the company known as "Square" was originally a label of software company Denyūsha; this division seemed to have been managed by Hironobu Sakaguchi's brother. The split from Denyūsha took place around the same time as Nasir Gebelli, Takashi Tokita and Akitoshi Kawazu were hired on staff. (One of the first games that Tokita worked on, it seems, was Aliens: Alien 2, an MSX platformer loosely based on the Ridley Scott film.) This critical mass of new talent seemed to cause enough of an upheaval for Hironobu Sakaguchi to ask for an amicable split from his parent company (and a shift in focus to the Famicom).

That's as far as I've gotten in research of this stage of history, anyway. There is a Japanese site called ROAD OF SQUARE that I've been pointed to in the past, which most likely contains data pertaining to this era and the people involved; due to my backlog, though, I haven't been able to get around to feeding it through the translator. X\

I really would like to see Denyūsha-era Square outlined in this article. Many Americans who do know about it seem to gloss over the fact that there was a history going further back, not realizing that it helped set the stage for the direction the Sakaguchi brothers took their own splinter faction (which was a drastic shift in focus to goals more artistic rather than commercial). The context would further help with present-day context in explaining Hironobu Sakaguchi's own reasoning for founding Mistwalker and AQ Interactive.

Highly recommended that this line of questioning be pursued, thanks. --E. Megas 17:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

---

"Squaresoft" was never the name of the company to begin with, it's only a brand name they (used to) employ. The Japanese company name was Square Co., Ltd. although it did have a US subsidiary called Square Soft, Inc. Of course, it's all Square Enix now.

Square VS Squaresoft

That's what I thought too, can anybody confirm this for sure? If it's true, then I think we should move Squaresoft content to Square (Videogame company) or something like that and add a redirect from Squaresoft. --xDCDx 13:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that idea. I don't think I consider Square's history to be the same thing as Square Enix's. Is Chrono Trigger a Square-Enix game? Merging the articles would suggest that it is, when clearly it is a Square game. - Vague Rant 07:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, someboy altered my coment, I have restored it. My proposal was renaming the article to Square (Videogame company), which was the actual name of the company before the merger. --xDCDx 20:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Squaresoft as a brand name

I'm not exactly willing to stake my life on this, but it was my understanding that the name "Squaresoft" was only used as a brand by Square during the 16-bit era: while my imported copy of Live A Live, for instance, bears the Squaresoft name, my imported copy of Final Fantasy VII does not. American localizations continued to use the "Squaresoft" name because it was still the name of the American branch, not because the parent corporation was still actively using it as a brand name. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. – Seancdaug 17:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any imported games. However, I've found a couple of sites [1] [2] that show cover scans with "Squaresoft" everywhere - US, Japan, and Europe. This Japanese flash animation from the official site, dating from just before the Enix merger, also says "Squaresoft," so it seems pretty settled to me. And yes, I have little enough of a life to go searching for this stuff. :P Beinsane 22:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well. I stand humbly corrected, then. :-) – Seancdaug 22:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I think the merger with Enix should be somehow given in the first paragraph, currently the lead in sounds like the company doesn't exist anymore at all. I think a simple "It merged with Enix in ... and became part of Square Enix." should be enough. The article should also tell the reader at the beginning, why this company is relevant, currently it launches straight in the history of the company, which, imho, should be under a History heading below the ToC. --84.184.105.203 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good suggestion, and I'm currently creating a massive "History" section. It may not be done for a little while though. :) --Tristam 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll put it in the intro paragraph! —Wikibarista 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

square/squaresoft logo font?

i've been trying to find this font for years (the italic futura-looking one with the red triangle A). is it an actual font of which square licensed a modification, or is it a custom font commissioned exclusively for square? -alex rosario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.27 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Game Designers Studio

It is a three sentence blurb that can be covered in this article without its own whole article, and makes this article more comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there's not enough information available to make the article stands on its own? Akitoshi Kawazu did a lot of interviews about the FF Crystal Chronicles series; some stuff that aren't directly relevant to that series could go in the Game Designers Studio article instead. I think the reason the article is so small is because people simply don't care much about the "meta-game" topics in general. It could also be because there's not much to say to begin with, but are we sure of it? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged the article. There doesn't seem to be much information and it can be added in this main article anyway. Kariteh (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Square Co. → Square (company) — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies): "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate". "Square Co." is not a commonly used name and it gives off the wrong vibe that "Co." is the legal status, when in fact it is "Co., Ltd.". Either move to "Square (company)" or "Square Co., Ltd.". Prime Blue (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with Square (company), but I think "Square Co., Ltd." is excessive. The current disambiguation is sufficient. Powers ^T 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What happened to the Family Friendly Squaresoft (1983-1996)?

Hello there as you know I've grew up with Squaresofts Nintendo games in the 1980s and 1990s. When the America Squaresoft brought games from Japan around 1987. They made it available and made NES and SNES games aimed at families and kids. Of course this was in the days of video game censorship. Anyways they make Final Fantasy 1 for NES. Squaresoft also made Final Fantasy 4, Mystic quest and 6. They also made The Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire 1, Secret of Evermore and Super Mario RPG. They didn't have any swearing, there was a little violence in the NES and SNES games. But those Nintendo RPGs had a great story.

Then in 1997 the America Squaresoft team left Nintendo and Partnered with the Playstation company and made Playstation RPG games aimed at Teens and Adults. They made the very first teen swearing, real violent Final Fantasy 7 game. They continued on with putting swearing and violence in Final Fantasy 8, 9, 10 and Tactics. And also made other Teen RPG playstation 1 games. Then they made a Final Fantasy movie which didn't do too well at the box office.

Then Squaresoft merged with Enix and they still continue to making Teen swearing and violent RPG games.

Anyways this is only my thoughts about my feelings toward Squaresoft when it made wonderful RPG games to bad teen RPG games. Due to neutral point of view of wikipedia I cannot post it in the wikipedia page as it is not mine. I just wanted people to know there used to be a time when Squaresoft made clean family friendly RPG games in the NES, SNES Nintendo era. I hope this article is ok to be in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrosswalkX (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the "family friendly" stuff was mostly due to Nintendo of America's censorship. In the Japanese versions of some of their games, there were mild curses, some sprites showed a lot more bare skin, Pubs were Bars, some of the drinks were explicitly referred to as alcoholic beverages, there was some religious iconagraphy, and various other things that Nintendo of America didn't want on their system. What you've seen post-SNES from Square is just the exact same style of games they made in Japan, just without any NoA censorship. That's how their games have always been. You just never got to see them in their original, unfiltered form until the PlayStation years. Zeikcied (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Name Origins

Is there an interview or other external material that explains the origins of the company's name: Square? (Which I find amusing considering the company logo clearly contains a triangle.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.159.204 (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Newly translated interview

The History of Square – 1992 Developer Interview originally featured in Dengeki SFC magazine TarkusAB^talk 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Square (company) → Square (video game company) – This current title seems like WP:INCOMPLETEDAB because of Square, Inc. The common name for that Square is also "Square" - their logo, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and website all use it undisambiguated. Seems hard to argue that Square (company) could not easily point to both pages here. (For what it's worth, the Square, Inc. page is viewed much more than Square (company), so I have to imagine there could be some WP:ASTONISH at play.) Nohomersryan (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom, both seem indeed to be just "Square" also Square, Inc. gets 24,387 views compared to 6,770 for the video company. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support makes sense per nom. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Discussion has failed to establish Square (Enix) as the primary topic for companies named "Square". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Square (video game company) → Square (company) – Square, Inc. has been moved to Block, Inc., making the less concise disambiguation unnecessary, as there is no other article that is a company called "Square". The article can be moved back to its former name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Moving the other article doesn't make the ambiguity go away. WP:DEFUNCT names for notable topics continue to have notability. Wikipedia covers all of history, not just what is current at the moment. No evidence has been provided to justify this WP:INCOMPLETEDAB proposal, and I seriously doubt that such evidence exists. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am not saying there is no more ambiguity anymore, but a hatnote can solve the ambiguity. Square(soft) will be the primary topic now, however, since it is a totally defunct name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  A defunct status or an official renaming does not automatically reduce the notability of a name. Do we have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of readers who look for "Square (company)" are looking for the video game company? Do we have any evidence that the video game company has much greater long-term significance than the financial services company? Such justifications seem absent here; only the current status of the naming has been presented as the rationale, but current status has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is a primary topic or not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not mention current status at all. Moreover, WP:partial disambiguation is only used in exceptionally dominant cases on Wikipedia, such as Thriller (album). This case does not have any argument for exceptional dominance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note that Square (payment system) also currently exists even though the company its self has changed name[[3]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Payment system and company are not competing disambiguations. In this case, the payment system is not a company since it is run by Block, Inc., it is a brand of a larger company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Parenthetical disambiguators in article titles need only distinguish between existing non-redirect articles. The rest is accomplished using hatnotes and redirects as appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  That interpretation is not supported by Wikipedia:Disambiguation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How so? There is no other company named Square by itself and anyone who arrives at Square (company) looking for Block Inc. will find a hatnote directing them there. Can you point to a passage at Wikipedia:Disambiguation that contradicts or discourages this usage? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that disambiguation may be needed for an article title "because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic". Note that it says "subject", not just "identical current article title", and that includes consideration of "a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic", which could be a former name, a key person who works for a company, etc. It also says not to relegate a topic to a hatnote unless there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when considering both current use and long-term significance. And in this case there is no primary topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

*Oppose, as the company might change its name back again, there may be other entities appearing that use Square, and there isn't really a problem with the current title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Write for the present, not for potential futures. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, that is pretty much all that needs to be said here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The old Square (what is now named Block) is far more notable than Square the video game company pre-merging with Enix, under the name "Square". Just because the name has been "cleared" due to the move doesn't mean that it is appropriate to act like the former Square (what Block is now) never existed for purposes of both readers searching on Square and for existing content that may use "Square (company)" for a redirect. --Masem (t) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Is this not addressed by a simple hatnote on this page directing readers to Block Inc.? I've never heard of a previous name being so powerful that it blocks others off of it preemptively. If Block Inc is so unbelievably well known as Square, then maybe you're actually suggesting that Block should be moved back to Square as the COMMONNAME? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Square-the-payments-company was quite notable, and the Square payment platform is still prominently around. I love classic Square-the-Japanese-company's games, but even if we grant that they are equally as notable (which may be a stretch), that still means there's ambiguity. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The payment platform is not at all in danger of confusion since it has a completely different article title (payment system). What's wrong with a hatnote? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:PARTIALDAB generally expects that the partially disambiguated article be much more notable than the competition. That standard isn't met here - a recent rename of the payments company to Block isn't enough to stop its notability under that name, which is how it was known when it was a unicorn in all the business & VC rags. Just as Square becoming Square Enix didn't squelch all the notability the company had acquired under the name "Square". SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per BarrelProof and others. The existence of the previous name for the financial company would absolutely make this an WP:INCDAB, and it does not meet the high bar required for that. Colin M (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I think there's still enough ambiguity especially given their payment system is still "Square". Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Completed copyedit with Guild of Copy Editors

I have completed the copyedit requested by ProtoDrake at WP:GOCE. The article was generally well-written, though I happened to come across some sourcing issues while copyediting, some of which I have tagged in the article. I would advise this page's major contributor(s) to double-check the sourcing, as there were some statements that did not match what the source was saying, such as this diff about the reason for hiring more staff. I may be missing some information that is presented in the Japanese-language sources though, so do let me know if that is the case. Otherwise, the article is pretty well written and was fun to go through. Feel free to post here if there are any other questions! Yeeno (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Publishing

Due to recent edits between myself and LTPHarry in regards to the overseas subsidiaries/studios of Square, I'd like a wider discussion on how much detail to include. And how many sources are needed. Pinging @PresN, Blue Pumpkin Pie, and Judgesurreal777: to help with this. ProtoDrake (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging @Sergecross73:. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

With all thoughts, this is a great idea. That means we can see what other users think are better for the page or something along those lines, and it can solve the problems that we're having. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to weigh in. Can I have a bit more context though? What was the status quo, what's the proposed changes, etc. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sergecross73 The current situation is what's on the page now in the section "Overseas publishing". It was like this (me trying to cover stuff while being concise), but (personal opinion here) LPT's additions are causing the thing to become bloated and creep back towards to its pre-expansion state. I'd previously been doing tidying up and condensing, but with the latest edits (which reverted some prose condensing I'd done), I wanted more voices in on this before it turned into anything resembling an edit war. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

ProtoDrake, do you think there is enough material to make a Square subsidiary article or list, or not??? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Judgesurreal777, sorry I forgot to ping you on this. I've counted fourteen (Osaka studio; The NA, Hawaii? and EU branches; both EA-Square collabs; the five subsidiaries like SquareNext and Square Pictures; Digicube; DreamFactory; and Escape of Driving Emotion Type-S 'fame'.) Could be more if we count Aques and Disc Original Group, but they were more labels/collabs than actual subsidiaries. Is that enough for a list? If it were, it might solve the bloat problem (and hopefully the uncited statements, overlong verbiage and bare url problems as well). --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Basically, you can split a list when it either meets WP:NLIST or it's just so big that it can't fit in the main article any more. 14 isn't so big- it's a bit lengthy, but I don't really think it's undue (Square had a lot of initiatives and sub-companies over the years!), and I have a hard time believing that there are sources that talk about "Square subsidiaries" as a coherent concept out there, though I'm open to being wrong. --PresN 22:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@PresN: I personally don't believe a list is the right course. What I'd prefer is for the section to be...concise prose. I admit some subsidiaries I missed, but I started this conversation as recent additions were starting to bloat an already-big article again. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@PresN, Judgesurreal777, and LTPHarry: I've done an edit to the page. Working from an older revision, I added in information, trimmed down bloat, and rearranged the section as a whole to better reflect things. All the subsidiaries are now in one place. I also addressed a couple of information mistakes I made regarding Square USA. It may still look rather choppy, but I was trying to go by subject and detail rather than chronologically. PLus the subsidiaries are...a mess. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve had a read about it, and I think this has certainly improved the page with a lot less bloat. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I do have another problem now, as some of the deals were done after the merger, but would there be any place for them on the Square Enix page? Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@LTPHarry: I was attempting going by what the sources say, and trying to keep it general (for instance, saying they partnered with x companies is what the sources support, I didn't find any statements about them "[not going] for specific distribution partnerships and [preferring] to negotiate deals). For subsidiaries, I wanted to describe those formed formed in the Square period and continued operating either up to or a little way past the merger. I admit the Atari bit comes post-merger for Unlimited Saga. If the publishing bits explicitly post-merger are cut, will that be fine? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and then that will solve the problems, at least for now.

on the topic of Sony Europe, they did publish the original Kingdom Hearts and one of the Final Fantasy PS1 compilations, but I can’t find any sources for them for now, and maybe it’s for the best to avoid further clutter. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Square (video game company)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'll pick this one up. It's a long one and probably will take a lot of work. But it's worth it, considering its importance. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Origins "Square was initially established in September 1983 as a software subsidiary of electric power conglomerate Den-Yu-Sha, a company led by Kuniichi Miyamoto" -> "Square was initially established in September 1983 as a software subsidiary Den-Yu-Sha, an electric power conglomerate led by Kuniichi Miyamoto." Done. "After considering different career paths," -> can strike this (it's implied) Done. maybe link Glossary of golf? Done. "keep up with the increasingly complex video game development process fuelled by rapid advancements in computing" -> "keep up with advances in computing and video game development" Done. " Internet café-like salon" -> How was the salon like an internet cafe? this is a little confusing, and might need to either be elaborated, or dropped. Dropped the internet cafe bit, and linked salon. 1985–1987: First games, Final Fantasy " Square's first attempt at a game, and Sakaguchi's first project, was an adaptation of the television game show Torin-ingen" -> "Square's first attempt at a game was an adaptation of the television game show Torin-ingen, (which also became Sakaguchi's first video game project)." (is noting Sakuguchi's inexperience important here?) I just dropped the Sakaguchi bit, it wasn't important. "A noted reason for the shift to Famicom development was its more stable hardware compared to PCs, which were constantly undergoing changes to their components and requiring adjustments for different set-ups" - > "The company shifted to developing for the Famicom to benefit from its stable hardware, compared to the constantly changing components of PCs." Done. "work in" -> "operate" Done. "Square was officially founded as an independent company" -> this is a little confusing, since they'd already been established as a subsidiary of another company. Did they secure their independence somehow? Did my best here. May need some more tweaking. I couldn't find exact details when I was reworking the article, but I can do a search. " Square supported Nintendo's Famicom Disk System, though few of the games created for it were major successes and Square began struggling financially." -> "Square continued producing games for Nintendo's Famicom, though their lack of commercial success led them to struggle financially." Here I must contest a little. The statement is explicitly in relation to the Famicom Disk System, not Famicom in general. I've reworked it to be less wordy. "Miyamoto brought together the company's four directors and asked for game proposals the staff would later vote on" -> "Miyamoto asked the company's four directors for game proposals, with plans to have their staff vote on the best idea." Done. "Sakaguchi wanted to develop a role-playing video game (RPG), a proposal that had been made feasible due to the production and success of Dragon Quest from Enix." -> "Sakaguchi proposed making a role-playing video game (RPG), believing it to be a viable project after the success of Dragon Quest by Enix." Done. Certainly, the first Final Fantasy had some success in the U.S. as well? Added a citation for that. We'll tackle this in a few phases. I appreciate that this article is about a company, but it might be useful to know even a little bit more about the games that they created. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Addressed as many of the above points as possible. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your edits. This might take a while but we're making progress. 1987–1995: Expansion and notable staff "These and all other projects at Square during the period were developed for Nintendo consoles, including the portable Game Boy." -> "These were among a string of projects that Square produced exclusively for Nintendo consoles, including the portable Game Boy." Done. "Takechi's secondment lasted until 1994, by which time Square had annual sales worth ¥16 million per year, and he had become inspired by Sakaguchi's vision for the company" -> the last sentence fragment feels tacked on. Maybe drop it or move it. "The company reached annual sales of ¥16 million per year in 1994, while Takechi became inspired by Sakaguchi's vision, with his secondment ending that same year." Dropped. "Besides Final Fantasy, other projects were produced which led to their own series" -> "As the Final Fantasy series became a featured property for the company, Square produced other projects that became successful series of their own." Done. "Super Mario RPG, produced in collaboration with Nintendo using characters from the Mario franchise;[39] and the Western-exclusive Secret of Evermore.[40]" -> drop the semi-colons and just make this its own sentence. "Other stand-alone titles included the Western-exclusive Secret of Evermore, and the Mario-themed "Super Mario RPG" co-produced with Nintendo." Done. "Speaking in 2001, Sakaguchi noted that while Final Fantasy was the company's most recognized property, Square's cultivation of several other series meant that it did not have to rely on Final Fantasy to be profitable.[41]" -> "Reflecting on this period, Sakaguchi noted that Final Fantasy was the company's most recognized property, while celebrating the fact that the company would still be profitable on the merits of their other successful game series." (while the source is from 2001, highlighting that date starts to distract from the clean timeline you have here.) Done. "Additional staff joined Square by the 1990s" -> say "early 1990s" or "mid 1990s" just to help keep the timeline clear Done. The last paragraph has a lot of "X, who worked on A B C". I would honestly prefer if this was integrated into the previous paragraph, where we learn of each hire as they join each notable project. History sections tend to function best when the timeline is clear, and people can understand the sequence of events as they happen. Alternatively, I might try to find a cleaner phrasing or try to parse the last down. Perhaps "The company gained several notable hires. X became a developer for A, Y joined as an artist for B and C, Z wrote dialog for D". Something tighter. Reworked/rewrote this big. 1995–2000: Move to PlayStation, The Spirits Within "A combination of hardware limitations, Nintendo's decision to continue using cartridge games over a CD format for the Nintendo 64, and rising cartridge prices prompted Square to move the in-production Final Fantasy VII and their other ongoing projects onto Sony's PlayStation" -> "With the production of Final Fantasy VII, Square decided to shift their projects to Sony's new Playstation console, prompted by the affordability of CD-ROM distribution, compared to Nintendo's continued use of expensive cartridges." Done. "Square's final Super Famicom release was Sting Entertainment's Treasure Hunter G, and their first PlayStation release was Tobal No. 1 from DreamFactory, both in 1996" -> "In 1996, Square's final project with Nintendo was Sting Entertainment's Treasure Hunter G for the Super Famicom, while the company debuted DreamFactory's Tobal No. 1 for the Playstation that same year." Done. "A licensing agreement with Sony was signed in 1996, under which Sony published Square's next six games in the West" -> "Soon after, the company signed a licensing agreement with Sony, who gained the exclusive right to publish Square's next six games in the West." Done. "Among the staff that worked on Final Fantasy VII were Kitase as director, Naora as art director, Nomura as a lead artist, and Nojima as scenario writer." -> "Meanwhile, the company continued working on Final Fantasy VII, with Kitase as director, Naora as art director, Nomura as a lead artist, and Nojima as scenario writer." The previous sentence is probably a better time for a paragraph break. (First paragraph, business dealings. Second paragraph, breakthrough game and creative decisions." Done. Some commercial / critical figures around FF7 would be useful for context. This was a big deal. The commercial figures cause edit wars so I'd rather not, and I didn't want to be too specific in an article about the company as a whole. "Hirata, after holding an administrative position during the Nintendo years, became a game production lead, focusing on introducing new genres into Square's library" -> Hirata went from an administrative position to lead producer, focusing on diversifying Square's library into new game genres." Done. "created or renewed" -> one thing at a time, just for organization. Let's start with "created", and introduce "renewed" later. Done. "mid-1990s" -> I'd say late 90s. It's fuzzy, but the games came out in 1998, and it helps distinguish it from the previous section. Done. "Also during the mid-to-late 1990s" -> "Around this time" Done. "While their relations with Nintendo remained poor" -> let's be specific here. Assuming they didn't produce anything for Nintendo in this time, let's try "As the company passed on working with Nintendo," or even, "As the company was estranged from Nintendo". Done. "Support for the PlayStation continued late into its lifecycle with multiple releases including Threads of Fate (1999) and Vagrant Story (2000)" -> "Late in the PlayStation's lifecycle, Square continued to support the console with multiple releases, such as Threads of Fate (1999) and Vagrant Story (2000)." Done. "platform to host online services for their games host the company's online store and web content as well as online services for their games" -> "a digital storefront and a platform for online game services and web content". Done. "Sakaguchi was mostly based in Hawaii by this point" -> is this important? Dropped. In terms of organization, it makes more sense to include the film production stuff with the next section, where you talk about its release and failure. (I'd also argue that it makes more sense to end this section with the end of the Playstation lifecycle, if that timeline lines up.) Done. We can pause there. Thanks again for your work and your patience. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Done all but one above, which may need discussion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC) That sounds good. These suggestions are important in aggregate, but no single suggestion is important. We'll keep going. 2000–2003: The Spirits Within, final years "During this period, Sakaguchi also created the concept for Final Fantasy XI, the company's first MMORPG, developed by the Chrono team and led by Ishii. Final Fantasy XI and its first expansion was Kato's last work for Square before leaving in 2002 to go freelance." -> this statement sort of breaks the flow. You talk about Final Fantasy X in the next paragraph. It happened in 2002, and the film was released in 2001. It's easier to follow the thread (and the timeline) by sticking with the film production and release. " Due to their still precarious financial situation and the softening console rivalry between Sony and Nintendo with the release of Microsoft's Xbox, Square successfully reached out to Nintendo to begin development for their hardware again. Square began development on Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles for the GameCube in late 2001." -> "After evaluating their precarious finances and the changing fronts in the console wars, Square decided to re-open discussions with Nintendo for the first time since the mid-1990s. Their talks were successful, leading to the development of Final Fantasy Chronicles for the GameCube in late 2001." "Under Wada, the company underwent restructuring with the intent of streamlining production and resources, and cutting development costs to increase profits" -> "Under Wada, the company underwent restructuring in order to streamline production, cut development costs, and increase profits." "It also began production on a direct sequel to Final Fantasy X, titled Final Fantasy X-2 (2003); this broke with the common approach under Sakaguchi, who disliked direct sequels" -> "Square also began production on Final Fantasy X-2 (2003), breaking with the company's history by becoming the first direct sequel to a Final Fantasy game." "Another project in development at the time was Kingdom Hearts (2002), Nomura's directorial debut." -> "Around this time, Square also began development on Kingdom Hearts (2002), with Nomura making his directorial debut." "A merger with rival company Enix had been under discussion since 2000, but Square's financial losses prompted Enix to halt discussions." -> I see the logic in adding this here. But it may make more logical and chronological sense earlier, where the financial troubles are mentioned. It might give readers more context as to why they took Sony as an investor, and rekindled their relationship with Nintendo. It also has a nice bookend to the section -- foreshadow Enix as a potential partner at the start of this section, and then ending with the deal actually going through. "Despite this, some shareholders had doubts about the merger, notably Miyamoto, who would find himself holding significantly less shares and having a smaller controlling stake if the deal went ahead as initially planned" -> "Despite this, the merger had its skeptics, particularly Miyamoto who did not want to see his controlling stake diluted in a merged company." "The merger resulted in Square Enix being" -> "Square Enix was" This whole part needed some rewriting and rearranging for the sake of chronology and brevity. Hopefully I've addressed all your points above as part of this. Development structure and publishing " described Square as "[doing] everything by itself" compared to Enix's tradition of outsourcing development" -> "contrasted Enix's tradition of outsourcing development versus Square's approach to developing "everything by itself"." Done. "During Square's first years" -> "When Square was founded in the early 1980s," (just need to signpost the return to history) Done. " After the first couple of years, there were two loosely-defined production groups led by Sakaguchi and Tanaka respectively" -> "This eventually evolved into two loosely-defined production groups, led by Sakaguchi and Tanaka, respectively." Done. " seven development divisions, expanded to eight that year" -> "eight development divisions," Done. "A notable third-party game localized and published by Square in North America was the original Breath of Fire, as developer Capcom had a busy schedule at the time" -> "One of the few North American releases was the original Breath of Fire by Capcom, who was busy enough to outsource publishing and localization to Square." The timeline here is a bit confusing. It would be more clear to talk about their lack of presence in North America, followed by their success at self-publishing and working with Nintendo, and concluding with their Playstation years. Slowly but surely we'll get there. Thanks again for your work and your patience. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Did my best. For your final point above, I needed another re-arrange/rewrite to try and get it more chronological in nature. I also needed to separate the localization bits out into their own section. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC) We're making progress. Let's keep going. "Standing for "Advanced QUality Entertainment and Sports", and also acting as an anagram of Square's name, the brand was intended for publishing non-RPG titles such as sports games." -> "The name was an anagram of Square's name, as well as an acronym for "Advanced QUality Entertainment and Sports", representing the company's diversification outside of role-playing games." "That same year, DigiCube was also established. Founded by Square as a product distributor through convenience stores in Japan, it expanded ..." -> "That same year, Square established a distribution company called DigiCube, with convenience stores as their main strategy. The subsidiary expanded..." "Square's first Western branch, SquareSoft, was established in 1989 in Redmond, Washington for publishing and development support" -> "In 1989, Square established SquareSoft in Redmond, Washington, to provide development and publishing support in the West." "In 1994, coinciding with the move away from Nintendo, the subsidiary was moved to Marina del Rey, California and redubbed Square LA, renamed Square USA the following year" -> "As Square shifted its orientation towards Playstation in 1994, their American subsidiary moved to Marina del Rey, California, while changing its name twice in one year, to Square LA followed by Square USA." "before in turn being shut down in 2002 following a failed attempt to find a film studio partner" -> Easiest just to make this its own sentence, for readability and flow. "North American and Japanese" -> drop this, since you clarify this detail in the phrase that follows. "the North American branch Square Electronic Arts published Square's titles in the region, while the Japanese branch Electronic Arts Square focused on releases from Electronic Arts" -> "Square Electronic Arts published Square titles in North America, while Electronic Arts Square published Electronic Arts titles in Japan." Affiliates and acquisitions " The coalition was formed to pool financial resources, as individual development for the then-small companies would have been potentially crippling" -> "This coalition was able to pool financial resources, allowing them to overcome the prohibitive costs of acting individually." "helped establish" -> or just "establish"? (unless their role is something other than direct, in which case it should be clarified) "A later subsidiary called Escape was established" -> try to avoid passive voice, since it starts to conceal who is doing what. I'm guessing this was Square doing the establishing, but it's not clear considering the number of different companies involved. "until 2000" -> this might be more than a minor detail. if there was a short relationship, it's good to know how it started and ended. The chronology here seems a little muddled. Sometimes this works if there's a clearer way to organize it, but right now it feels scattered. "due to their support of the property" -> what kind of support? That's another good place to pause. We're almost through a first pass. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: All above sorted, hopefully. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Let's continue. Legacy A lot of the statements about the specific games seem to be too specific for an article that's really aobut the company. What's missing is broadly the reception of Square as a studio, publisher, and company. The goal is to follow a WP:PYRAMID flow, with the specific highlights coming after the studio's broad reputation. I know that last point might take a lot of work. The company's legacy does feel like a significant omission, but it probably feels more absent due to the focus on specific games. Another strategy would be just to remove those specifics entirely, or move them into the company's history as each release is mentioned. That's the best I could scrape together. I just cut it. Related studios "Several former Square staff members " -> "Many Square employees" (former is implied) " sometimes working with Square Enix in later years" -> this is an exception that maybe should be removed, and/or mentioned later as it comes up " Kikuta, frustrated at the rigid hierarchy of Square, -> "Frustrated with Square's rigid hierarchy, Kikuta..." "Takahashi and Tanaka, along with other Xenogears developers who wanted to work outside the Final Fantasy series, founded Monolith Soft in 1999 and went on to develop multiple projects, including further Xeno titles" -> "Several Xenogears developers, including Takahashi and Tanaka, founded Monolith Soft in 1999 in order to pursue projects outside the Final Fantasy series, including additional Xeno titles." " Nishi and a few others he knew founded several studios over the years including" -> "Nishi founded several studios after leaving Square, including..." Isn't Nishi one of the earlier people to leave? I just want to get the timeline right. "Mizuno founded developer AlphaDream in 2000, with Fujioka joining soon after; the company is best known for its work on the Mario & Luigi series" -> "In 2000, Mizuno founded AlphaDream with Fujioka joining soon after, producing successful series such as Mario & Luigi." "in Hawaii" -> doesn't seem that important "Sakaguchi, following a period of low morale after the failure of The Spirits Within, decided to re-enter game development. He founded Mistwalker in 2004, which has since produced series such as Blue Dragon and Terra Wars and standalone projects such as Lost Odyssey and The Last Story. After" -> "After stepping down as president in 2001, Sakaguchi experienced a period of low morale before returning to game development, founding Mistwalker in 2004. The studio became known for the Blue Dragon and Terra Wars series, as well as stand-alone projects such as Lost Odyssey and The Last Story." That should wrap-up the first pass. I'm optimistic that we can do a second pass in one last shot, to catch any lingering issues. Thanks again for your work. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Did my best to address all of the above where I could. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) I appreciate all the patience and work so far. I'm doing one last pass for the lead, and any lingering issues. Lead Both lists of names sort of means nothing to the average reader. Even as a fan of many square games, it doesn't mean much to me. I wouldn't criticize this too hard, but I might add more context (artists X,Y and Z, writers A and B), and/or really hone in on the key people. Done. "After several other projects, all of these employees would work on Final Fantasy, a 1987 game for the Nintendo Entertainment System which would bring commercial and critical success and launch a franchise of the same name." -> "Initially producing action games, the team experienced a breakthrough success with Final Fantasy in 1987. A role-playing game for the Nintendo Entertainment System, it became the first in a series of critically and commercial successful games." Done. "developed or published" -> and/or? Settled on "and" "Many staff leftover the years and founded other studios, including" -> "Over the years, many staff left to found studios such as" Done. "In the early 2000s", I might be specific about the date for the film, since so much of this is tied to The Spirits Within. Done. "Prior to this, a merger had been discussed with Enix, the noted publisher of the Dragon Quest series." -> "This disrupted merger discussions with Enix, the publisher known for the Dragon Quest series." Done. "Following a delay due to the failure of The Spirits Within, the merger went ahead on April 1, 2003, with the new company taking on the name Square Enix." - > "Following the commercial success of Final Fantasy X and Kingdom Hearts, Square and Enix resumed negotiations, leading to the merger of the two companies on April 1, 2003." Rewritten. History "eventually decided on computer software development" -> "eventually became a software developer" Done. "Among those hired through this method were Hironobu Sakaguchi and Hiromichi Tanaka, who originally worked there part-time during their university studies, and" -> "This led to hiring part-time university students Hironobu Sakaguchi and Hiromichi Tanaka, as well as" Done. the Death Trap games probably deserve just a little more context as to what they were, even just a few categorical terms for their setting ("war?") and gameplay ("action?", "shooter"?) Done. similar comments for Thexder and King's Knight Done. "company completed a licensing agreement" -> "company negotiated a licensing agreement" Done. "commercial failures" - which games were commercial failures? Unfortunately not. "produced other projects" -> "produced additional projects" Done. "A lesser-known property was the Japan-exclusive real-time strategy series Hanjuku Hero, which began in 1988 and parodied conventions of the RPG genre. " -> this one technically came first, and as a single sentence, would have a better flow at the start of the paragraph Done. "The music staff of Square also expanded" -> "Square also hired additional music staff" (avoid passive voice) Done. cartridges probably need a blue link, for people who want to learn more Done. "Square worked in parallel" -> "Square also worked" Rewrote as "continued work". "writer.Among" -> needs a space Forgot to delete the old text as well, sorted. Final Fantasy VII's breakthrough status feels somewhat understated, but I understand the risk in starting down that path. "with Microsoft's Xbox, " -> "due to Microsoft's Xbox," Done. "It also began production" -> "Square also began production" Done. Structure " close to the launch of the Super Nintendo" -> "near the end of the life cycle of the Nintendo Entertainment System" (just for clarity) Done. I think separate out the structure and publishing sections, rather than pushing them together under a single heading. (Or, if anything, the publishers fit more with its subsidiaries, given how many of them provided distribution services.) Moved the publishing bit into subsidiaries, and renamed it to "Publishing and subsidiaries". Since localization's less of a focused department thing, I kept that were it was. Related studios "Kameoka and other developers who worked on Legend of Mana (1999) founded Brownie Brown in 2000, and ended up working with Square Enix on the Mana series with Sword of Mana." -> this one feels awkwardly phrased, and might just be easier to say in two sentences. Split and rewritten a little. This might be a stretch goal or featured article property, but maybe one or two sentences about what ultimately happened to the merged company might be useful. It probably would be, but SQEX is such a...big thing, I'm not sure where to begin. That should cover most of it. We're almost at the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Hope it's all addressed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for all your patience and work on this. This is now GA quality. Keep up the good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Japanese game developer Square was told to "never come back" by Nintendo after shifting production to the PlayStation? Source: http://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by ProtoDrake (talk). Self-nominated at 15:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Square (video game company); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough GA. This is your final exempt nomination before you must start supplying QPQ. This had to be quite the effort. Hook fact checks out and is in the article. No textual or copyright issues. No unreferenced passages. I think this will be very, very well read. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)