Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

"FFXIV greatly damaged the FF brand"Follow

#52 Sep 28 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
575 posts
TwistedOwl wrote:

Some things are better left untouched. Like an athlete goin' out on top. Elway pulled that off nicely. Others like Brett Favre, not so much.


Ok, completely getting off subject here, but the end of Brett Favre's career was actually pretty impressive. Not everyone can end their career with back-to-back Super Bowl wins. His last season with the Packers ended an OT loss away from the Super Bowl and then he had a pretty decent season with the Jets. His first year with the Vikings was easily one of the best of his career, again one loss away from the Super Bowl. Now, his last season was pretty rough. Hard to blame that all on him, as the Vikings don't look any better this year with McNabb.

Ok, rant off. Chocobos and what-not.
#53 Sep 28 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
on the subject of remakes that don't suck, go check out the new thundercats cartoon if you care about that sort of thing.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#54 Sep 28 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
*
67 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
Just because SE re-re-releases FFVII doesn't mean the experience will rival that which occurred when FFVII was actually new; you'll still just be playing through the game whose story you probably remember well (you certainly know its high points). The only major differences will be better graphics (which will take away from the beautifully artistic still-shot backgrounds of the original); a "better" translation (which will likely remove many of the wonderful eccentricities that made the game feel so gritty and mysterious in the first place); and voice acting (which will begin to "flesh out" characters in ways that, in all likelihood, grind against the personas they've been able to craft via textual dialogue - remember when Lance Bass voiced Sephiroth?).


I'm not really looking for the same experience, I just want to enjoy one of my favorite games in HD. Better graphics, translation, and voice acting is pretty much the point of ports, remakes, and re-releases. In fact I'd kill for a better translation for FFVII.
#55 Sep 28 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
BubbleGumCrisis wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Just because SE re-re-releases FFVII doesn't mean the experience will rival that which occurred when FFVII was actually new; you'll still just be playing through the game whose story you probably remember well (you certainly know its high points). The only major differences will be better graphics (which will take away from the beautifully artistic still-shot backgrounds of the original); a "better" translation (which will likely remove many of the wonderful eccentricities that made the game feel so gritty and mysterious in the first place); and voice acting (which will begin to "flesh out" characters in ways that, in all likelihood, grind against the personas they've been able to craft via textual dialogue - remember when Lance Bass voiced Sephiroth?).


I'm not really looking for the same experience, I just want to enjoy one of my favorite games in HD. Better graphics, translation, and voice acting is pretty much the point of ports, remakes, and re-releases. In fact I'd kill for a better translation for FFVII.


That's the point, though - what constitutes "better?"

Not to nerd it up, but this is the kind of topic around which I wrote my Master's thesis (just with Shakespearean adaptation instead of Final Fantasy). The early iterations (usually the Quartos) of many of Shakespeare's plays (such as King Lear, Hamlet, Richard II, and The Taming of the Shrew, to name a few) all differ from their later iterations in Folio - sometimes very greatly. Later "editions" of Shakespeare, such as Pope's, or The Globe Shakespeare, or even a modern Bevington's Complete Works of Shakespeare change punctuation, gloss words, add stage directions, modernize spelling, regularize prefixes, supply footnotes, and perform many other editorial actions besides.

So how does this relate to Final Fantasy VII? Early editors came to Shakespearean texts with the same attitude that modern consumers, like yourself, come to remakes: the text, or the works (which can be plays as easily as they can be video games) should be changed to suit modern tastes and modern technology; "this," these editors would argue, "is a better version of Shakespeare."

Well, the essence of the debate (both here on this forum and generations ago via academic journals) comes down to whether change is always a good thing, and how far that change can go. With Shakespeare, I think that every editorial intervention removes us further from the materiality and the circumstances of the text's production, but I also think that a certain amount of assistance is necessary to provide the modern reader access to a Shakespearean text. With Final Fantasy VII, I think that adding voices to the characters, re-translating the script, and changing the graphics all constitute sad removals from the original experience - and they all cut off interpretative avenues for players (much like adding stage directions to Shakespeare cuts off interpretative choices for the reader).

Ultimately, I wouldn't want to lose my still-camera views; I don't want to associate Sephiroth (and his voice) with a boy band, or Cloud with an anime character (who possesses the same voice); and I want to be able to encounter certain instances of ambiguous dialogue and uniquely Squaresoft phraseology.

In other words, "better graphics, better translation, and voice acting" is anything but "better" for me; "better" is a loaded term - and it has been for hundreds of years. No change is enacted upon a work without an effect: because of this, a re-release of Final Fantasy VII will lose as much as it gains. Whether this change is a good thing or not is entirely subjective, of course, but that various aspects will be lost is undeniable.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#56 Sep 28 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,962 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
BubbleGumCrisis wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Just because SE re-re-releases FFVII doesn't mean the experience will rival that which occurred when FFVII was actually new; you'll still just be playing through the game whose story you probably remember well (you certainly know its high points). The only major differences will be better graphics (which will take away from the beautifully artistic still-shot backgrounds of the original); a "better" translation (which will likely remove many of the wonderful eccentricities that made the game feel so gritty and mysterious in the first place); and voice acting (which will begin to "flesh out" characters in ways that, in all likelihood, grind against the personas they've been able to craft via textual dialogue - remember when Lance Bass voiced Sephiroth?).


I'm not really looking for the same experience, I just want to enjoy one of my favorite games in HD. Better graphics, translation, and voice acting is pretty much the point of ports, remakes, and re-releases. In fact I'd kill for a better translation for FFVII.


That's the point, though - what constitutes "better?"

Not to nerd it up, but this is the kind of topic around which I wrote my Master's thesis (just with Shakespearean adaptation instead of Final Fantasy). The early iterations (usually the Quartos) of many of Shakespeare's plays (such as King Lear, Hamlet, Richard II, and The Taming of the Shrew, to name a few) all differ from their later iterations in Folio - sometimes very greatly. Later "editions" of Shakespeare, such as Pope's, or The Globe Shakespeare, or even a modern Bevington's Complete Works of Shakespeare change punctuation, gloss words, add stage directions, modernize spelling, regularize prefixes, supply footnotes, and perform many other editorial actions besides.

So how does this relate to Final Fantasy VII? Early editors came to Shakespearean texts with the same attitude that modern consumers, like yourself, come to remakes: the text, or the works (which can be plays as easily as they can be video games) should be changed to suit modern tastes and modern technology; "this," these editors would argue, "is a better version of Shakespeare."

Well, the essence of the debate (both here on this forum and generations ago via academic journals) comes down to whether change is always a good thing, and how far that change can go. With Shakespeare, I think that every editorial intervention removes us further from the materiality and the circumstances of the text's production, but I also think that a certain amount of assistance is necessary to provide the modern reader access to a Shakespearean text. With Final Fantasy VII, I think that adding voices to the characters, re-translating the script, and changing the graphics all constitute sad removals from the original experience - and they all cut off interpretative avenues for players (much like adding stage directions to Shakespeare cuts off interpretative choices for the reader).

Ultimately, I wouldn't want to lose my still-camera views; I don't want to associate Sephiroth (and his voice) with a boy band, or Cloud with an anime character (who possesses the same voice); and I want to be able to encounter certain instances of ambiguous dialogue and uniquely Squaresoft phraseology.

In other words, "better graphics, better translation, and voice acting" is anything but "better" for me; "better" is a loaded term - and it has been for hundreds of years. No change is enacted upon a work without an effect: because of this, a re-release of Final Fantasy VII will lose as much as it gains. Whether this change is a good thing or not is entirely subjective, of course, but that various aspects will be lost is undeniable.


I don't want a Final Fantasy VII remake, but to play devil's advocate, you don't have to play a remake.
#57 Sep 28 2011 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
RamseySylph wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
BubbleGumCrisis wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
Just because SE re-re-releases FFVII doesn't mean the experience will rival that which occurred when FFVII was actually new; you'll still just be playing through the game whose story you probably remember well (you certainly know its high points). The only major differences will be better graphics (which will take away from the beautifully artistic still-shot backgrounds of the original); a "better" translation (which will likely remove many of the wonderful eccentricities that made the game feel so gritty and mysterious in the first place); and voice acting (which will begin to "flesh out" characters in ways that, in all likelihood, grind against the personas they've been able to craft via textual dialogue - remember when Lance Bass voiced Sephiroth?).


I'm not really looking for the same experience, I just want to enjoy one of my favorite games in HD. Better graphics, translation, and voice acting is pretty much the point of ports, remakes, and re-releases. In fact I'd kill for a better translation for FFVII.


That's the point, though - what constitutes "better?"

Not to nerd it up, but this is the kind of topic around which I wrote my Master's thesis (just with Shakespearean adaptation instead of Final Fantasy). The early iterations (usually the Quartos) of many of Shakespeare's plays (such as King Lear, Hamlet, Richard II, and The Taming of the Shrew, to name a few) all differ from their later iterations in Folio - sometimes very greatly. Later "editions" of Shakespeare, such as Pope's, or The Globe Shakespeare, or even a modern Bevington's Complete Works of Shakespeare change punctuation, gloss words, add stage directions, modernize spelling, regularize prefixes, supply footnotes, and perform many other editorial actions besides.

So how does this relate to Final Fantasy VII? Early editors came to Shakespearean texts with the same attitude that modern consumers, like yourself, come to remakes: the text, or the works (which can be plays as easily as they can be video games) should be changed to suit modern tastes and modern technology; "this," these editors would argue, "is a better version of Shakespeare."

Well, the essence of the debate (both here on this forum and generations ago via academic journals) comes down to whether change is always a good thing, and how far that change can go. With Shakespeare, I think that every editorial intervention removes us further from the materiality and the circumstances of the text's production, but I also think that a certain amount of assistance is necessary to provide the modern reader access to a Shakespearean text. With Final Fantasy VII, I think that adding voices to the characters, re-translating the script, and changing the graphics all constitute sad removals from the original experience - and they all cut off interpretative avenues for players (much like adding stage directions to Shakespeare cuts off interpretative choices for the reader).

Ultimately, I wouldn't want to lose my still-camera views; I don't want to associate Sephiroth (and his voice) with a boy band, or Cloud with an anime character (who possesses the same voice); and I want to be able to encounter certain instances of ambiguous dialogue and uniquely Squaresoft phraseology.

In other words, "better graphics, better translation, and voice acting" is anything but "better" for me; "better" is a loaded term - and it has been for hundreds of years. No change is enacted upon a work without an effect: because of this, a re-release of Final Fantasy VII will lose as much as it gains. Whether this change is a good thing or not is entirely subjective, of course, but that various aspects will be lost is undeniable.


I don't want a Final Fantasy VII remake, but to play devil's advocate, you don't have to play a remake.


That's true, I don't. However, I was discussing intervention in different versions of artistic works and the notion of "betterment through editorial revision," though, not dissuading someone from buying a product.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#58 Sep 28 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
either way, george lucas and the demon living inside his goiter* want to have words with you.






*ok it might not be a goiter, but there's something in that huge neckpouch of his, and i'm pretty sure it's been making all his decisions for him since the 90s

Edited, Sep 28th 2011 10:30pm by Llester
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#59 Sep 28 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,535 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
That's the point, though - what constitutes "better?"

Not to nerd it up, but this is the kind of topic around which I wrote my Master's thesis (just with Shakespearean adaptation instead of Final Fantasy). The early iterations (usually the Quartos) of many of Shakespeare's plays (such as King Lear, Hamlet, Richard II, and The Taming of the Shrew, to name a few) all differ from their later iterations in Folio - sometimes very greatly. Later "editions" of Shakespeare, such as Pope's, or The Globe Shakespeare, or even a modern Bevington's Complete Works of Shakespeare change punctuation, gloss words, add stage directions, modernize spelling, regularize prefixes, supply footnotes, and perform many other editorial actions besides.

So how does this relate to Final Fantasy VII? Early editors came to Shakespearean texts with the same attitude that modern consumers, like yourself, come to remakes: the text, or the works (which can be plays as easily as they can be video games) should be changed to suit modern tastes and modern technology; "this," these editors would argue, "is a better version of Shakespeare."

Well, the essence of the debate (both here on this forum and generations ago via academic journals) comes down to whether change is always a good thing, and how far that change can go. With Shakespeare, I think that every editorial intervention removes us further from the materiality and the circumstances of the text's production, but I also think that a certain amount of assistance is necessary to provide the modern reader access to a Shakespearean text. With Final Fantasy VII, I think that adding voices to the characters, re-translating the script, and changing the graphics all constitute sad removals from the original experience - and they all cut off interpretative avenues for players (much like adding stage directions to Shakespeare cuts off interpretative choices for the reader).


There is, however, the huge difference that Shakepeare's plays were originally written in English.

It harder to argue original intent with something, like FF7, that was only available to us in translation in the first place - ever without addressing the fact that the original translation is really bad.

There's also a difference between interpretation and bowdlerization - in the case of Shakespeare, any published version by definition HAS to be an interpretation, because most of the plays do not have a definitive text, many of the printed versions were relatively low-quality (i.e. hard to read), and the simple fact that English orthography had not yet stabilized at the time Shakespeare was writing

Quote:
Ultimately, I wouldn't want to lose my still-camera views; I don't want to associate Sephiroth (and his voice) with a boy band, or Cloud with an anime character (who possesses the same voice); and I want to be able to encounter certain instances of ambiguous dialogue and uniquely Squaresoft phraseology.


At which point it's worth pointing out that there is no "uniquely Squaresoft phraseology" in the English text- FF7 was localized by Sony.
#60 Sep 28 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,120 posts
KaneKitty wrote:

That's the point, though - what constitutes "better?"

Not to nerd it up, but this is the kind of topic around which I wrote my Master's thesis (just with Shakespearean adaptation instead of Final Fantasy). The early iterations (usually the Quartos) of many of Shakespeare's plays (such as King Lear, Hamlet, Richard II, and The Taming of the Shrew, to name a few) all differ from their later iterations in Folio - sometimes very greatly. Later "editions" of Shakespeare, such as Pope's, or The Globe Shakespeare, or even a modern Bevington's Complete Works of Shakespeare change punctuation, gloss words, add stage directions, modernize spelling, regularize prefixes, supply footnotes, and perform many other editorial actions besides.

So how does this relate to Final Fantasy VII? Early editors came to Shakespearean texts with the same attitude that modern consumers, like yourself, come to remakes: the text, or the works (which can be plays as easily as they can be video games) should be changed to suit modern tastes and modern technology; "this," these editors would argue, "is a better version of Shakespeare."

Well, the essence of the debate (both here on this forum and generations ago via academic journals) comes down to whether change is always a good thing, and how far that change can go. With Shakespeare, I think that every editorial intervention removes us further from the materiality and the circumstances of the text's production, but I also think that a certain amount of assistance is necessary to provide the modern reader access to a Shakespearean text. With Final Fantasy VII, I think that adding voices to the characters, re-translating the script, and changing the graphics all constitute sad removals from the original experience - and they all cut off interpretative avenues for players (much like adding stage directions to Shakespeare cuts off interpretative choices for the reader).

Ultimately, I wouldn't want to lose my still-camera views; I don't want to associate Sephiroth (and his voice) with a boy band, or Cloud with an anime character (who possesses the same voice); and I want to be able to encounter certain instances of ambiguous dialogue and uniquely Squaresoft phraseology.

In other words, "better graphics, better translation, and voice acting" is anything but "better" for me; "better" is a loaded term - and it has been for hundreds of years. No change is enacted upon a work without an effect: because of this, a re-release of Final Fantasy VII will lose as much as it gains. Whether this change is a good thing or not is entirely subjective, of course, but that various aspects will be lost is undeniable.


Indeed, a lot can get lost in translation. Even what seems to be minor changes to some, could make a huge difference to others. Because people experience & interpret things differently. What went on in my head while enjoying my favorite art/entertainment won't be the same for others. And that's part of the overall experience.

I don't always like new translations(correct or not) because they may clash with the way I previously felt about the subject. Even if the version I fell in love with was a poor translation, I may not want to see the correct translation. For that same reason I don't always want to know song lyrics or the intended meaning of those lyrics. There have been plenty of songs where I finally looked up the lyrics or the story behind them and thought "Hmm, I liked it better before I learned this". Other times it helps me appreciate it even more.

It's awesome when you find people who agree with you on your favorite bands, songs, movies, games, etc. Though we may have completely different interpretations and reasons why they're the best. Cutting off those various avenues of interpretation to force one "correct/improved" version can kill some of the beauty in that.
____________________________

#61 Sep 28 2011 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,530 posts
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I sort of feel obligated to respond to two of your major issues with my post:

BastokFL wrote:
It harder to argue original intent with something, like FF7, that was only available to us in translation in the first place - ever without addressing the fact that the original translation is really bad.


I would first like to point out that I never made a case for authorial intention, either with regard to Shakespeare or Squaresoft. No reputable Shakespearean critic (who I know of, at least) who has been published in the last thirty-or-so years would ever claim to have access to the author's intent. Indeed, it is generally agreed upon that all texts (both Elizabethan and otherwise) possess diverse and variegated meanings and that there is no true, or fixed, expression contained within them. Even if we had access to the author's intent, the work produced by that author need not be a manifestation of his or her intended goal, it could be something altogether different regardless of their intent. For that matter, in a post-Freudian world, we know that the author himself or herself may not even have complete access to their own original intent!

Final Fantasy VII
relates to Shakespeare because a "really bad" translation of the game is similar to a "really bad" Quarto or Folio. In the past, many individuals derided Q1 Hamlet as an infamous "bad quarto" because of its translation; but today, these very quartos are generally called "early quartos", and they are occasionally performed, at that! My point is merely that value-laden judgments such as "good/bad" and "better/worse," especially as applied to artforms such as plays and video games, have been applied for a long time, and to little useful effect. When a work is redone, re-edited, or re-released, changes occur disguised as improvements. These improvements, however, come at a price.

BastokFL wrote:
At which point it's worth pointing out that there is no "uniquely Squaresoft phraseology" in the English text- FF7 was localized by Sony.


Then I hereby change "Squaresoft" to "Sony localization" in that sentence; it makes no difference. With regard to the original FFVII, it doesn't matter who localized the work any more than it matters who translated it - we have a published work regardless, and subjecting it to a "better" translation would alter the meaning of the 1997 English original. It was the idea of altering avenues of interpretation that I was talking about in my post, not which company worked on the game itself. :)

You're right that the fact that FFVII's script is a translation complicates the matter, but this complication need only be slight for our purposes here. Many great works are read through translation, and each critic prefers a particular translation for his or her own reasons. Take, for example, the Divine Comedy: it has been translated time and time again but that doesn't mean that there can ever be a "best" translation; even calling something a "better" translation requires a sizable amount of qualification (my spouse and I prefer Mandelbaum for the text and, of course, Doré for illustrations - but don't ask why, that's another debate! lol).

Essentially, I think my tone may have seemed more argumentative than I myself actually was. Yes, I was making an argument, but that argument was neither about authorial intent nor Squaresoft translation. It was about the ways in which a re-release of FFVII would alter the 1997 original and how the case is astoundingly similar to past editorial treatment of Shakespearean texts.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#62 Sep 29 2011 at 6:23 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,408 posts
Think this went a bit too far off topic?

As for the original post:
SE have admitted something a lot of us knew, the FF Franchise has been damaged. Personally I blame the last two new FF big guns not just the last 1.

I used to want to buy the new FF Games regardless but every FF Game I have purchased since X (minus FFXI) has been appauling or not my type of game. Crystal Chronicals/Tactics I really didnt enjoy - not my type. And the beautiful one for PX3 well.... could of been so much better, Can't even bring my self to name it.

So the end result is, am I fussed about any new releases any more? Nope... I used to have such anticipation for FF games back then, Was excited when XI was released, got it instantly on UK release.

Now I find my self just not caring no more, beauty isnt the only thing I want in a game.
____________________________


If my velocity starts to make you sweat, then just don't
let go
#63 Sep 29 2011 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
551 posts
Lonix wrote:
Think this went a bit too far off topic?

As for the original post:
SE have admitted something a lot of us knew, the FF Franchise has been damaged. Personally I blame the last two new FF big guns not just the last 1.

I used to want to buy the new FF Games regardless but every FF Game I have purchased since X (minus FFXI) has been appauling or not my type of game. Crystal Chronicals/Tactics I really didnt enjoy - not my type. And the beautiful one for PX3 well.... could of been so much better, Can't even bring my self to name it.

So the end result is, am I fussed about any new releases any more? Nope... I used to have such anticipation for FF games back then, Was excited when XI was released, got it instantly on UK release.

Now I find my self just not caring no more, beauty isnt the only thing I want in a game.


Yep. I used to drool waiting for the moment I could grab the newest FF game, even doing the wait-in-line midnight release bit on quite a few.

Now, I'll wait a month or so for the reviews and youtube videos to come out in force before I'll even consider parting with my money for an FF game ( or any S-E game for that matter ).
____________________________



#64 Sep 29 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
***
2,815 posts
Just throwing in my +1 to the pile of: FF used to be buy-at-launch and never disappointing, until FFX onward. With each iteration i played less and less, until finally 13 (unlucky 13 lol) where I just simply never even looked at it.

As a point of history, their downward trend started immediately after they announced 9 was going to be "The last traditional style FF ever" and they were going to take the series in a "new direction". There's your problem right there it appears...
____________________________
Minecraft : My anti-MMO
Terraria : My anti-Minecraft
#65 Sep 29 2011 at 9:45 PM Rating: Decent
*
215 posts
On topic:
FF14 is a disaster, and I don't think Final Fantasy has been going down hill since, though I admittely did hate FF12, I never liked FF7 either so it doesn't matter to me. As for their reputation, I think it only hurts their online reputation, which could damage games such as DQX but I don't think it will harm their main line at all. People will just say Square is a failure at online games, and actually I knew alot of people who said this before with FF11. So I think if they want to protect their online brand, then they have no choice but to greatly improve FF14, and surpass FF11. I think they can do it, especially since the team has a veteran online game player.

Off topic:
I was pretty happy with FF13, and I think for SE the game was a success because it sold so well. My only compliants with it was the long drawn out 'tutorial'. Sure the gameplay is different but thats been a staple of all the modern Final Fantasy games (FF7+) but its still pretty Final Fantasyish. Some people complain about the story...well alot of people who played FF7 have grown up now, and need to face the fact that japanese are not the best story writers out there. There stuff usually focuses on young teenagers and there stories driven by stupid emotional outbursts. If you can look past that, I think 13 is as good as the other FFs. All Final Fantasy games (at least modern) center around crybabies, like cloud, tidus, hope...ect...just saying. FF11's story...I guess was good for an MMORPG, but no where near the quality Final Fantasy is famous for.
#66 Sep 29 2011 at 10:18 PM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
zuogehaomeng wrote:
On topic:
FF14 is a disaster, and I don't think Final Fantasy has been going down hill since, though I admittely did hate FF12, I never liked FF7 either so it doesn't matter to me. As for their reputation, I think it only hurts their online reputation, which could damage games such as DQX but I don't think it will harm their main line at all. People will just say Square is a failure at online games, and actually I knew alot of people who said this before with FF11. So I think if they want to protect their online brand, then they have no choice but to greatly improve FF14, and surpass FF11. I think they can do it, especially since the team has a veteran online game player.

Off topic:
I was pretty happy with FF13, and I think for SE the game was a success because it sold so well. My only compliants with it was the long drawn out 'tutorial'. Sure the gameplay is different but thats been a staple of all the modern Final Fantasy games (FF7+) but its still pretty Final Fantasyish. Some people complain about the story...well alot of people who played FF7 have grown up now, and need to face the fact that japanese are not the best story writers out there. There stuff usually focuses on young teenagers and there stories driven by stupid emotional outbursts. If you can look past that, I think 13 is as good as the other FFs. All Final Fantasy games (at least modern) center around crybabies, like cloud, tidus, hope...ect...just saying. FF11's story...I guess was good for an MMORPG, but no where near the quality Final Fantasy is famous for.


The series didn't used to be known for crybabies as main characters. That's our point.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#67 Sep 29 2011 at 11:21 PM Rating: Good
***
3,962 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:

The series didn't used to be known for crybabies as main characters. That's our point.


You're somehow speaking on behalf of the entire thread then?

A lot of people have been talking about how much they loathed FF13, and yet the protagonist of that game is a strong female character, nothing even close to a cry baby. Hope could probably be considered one, but in reality he actually has a decent reason for being a bit of a whiny brat.
#68 Sep 30 2011 at 2:41 AM Rating: Good
***
1,408 posts
RamseySylph wrote:
UltKnightGrover wrote:

The series didn't used to be known for crybabies as main characters. That's our point.


You're somehow speaking on behalf of the entire thread then?

A lot of people have been talking about how much they loathed FF13, and yet the protagonist of that game is a strong female character, nothing even close to a cry baby. Hope could probably be considered one, but in reality he actually has a decent reason for being a bit of a whiny brat.

To me it wasnt just the characters, I some what liked them except the young boy. I just simply didnt really enjoy the story or the feel of the game. Story is everything in FF Games and it has to start of simple for a 1/4 of the game and then get complicated. 13 to me started off complicated and it felt like they over thought the story. Before I started I did think the game was going to have a simple good and bad side and then do a typical FF thing and make it much larger.

Story didnt quite work out - I would say the specifics of why I didnt enjoy the story but spoilers. It sold well because like me everyone purchased it straight away thinking it was going to be awesome but the reviews were not brilliant and nor was the game.
____________________________


If my velocity starts to make you sweat, then just don't
let go
#69 Sep 30 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
The series didn't used to be known for crybabies as main characters. That's our point.
FF8?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#70 Sep 30 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,235 posts
I don't think they are going to repair the FF name by repairing XIV by turning it into a wow clone.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud many of the changes in the upcoming update, but I have to say, the oversized, cartoony looking Ifrit rewards, coupled with what appears to be a direction of "raid this dungeon to get this sword, then raid this dungeon to get a new sword, then raid this dungeon to get a new sword" is not restoring the game to FF grandeur.
I'm getting more worried every month by the influence Yoshi's second favorite MMO seem to have on his dev plans.
____________________________


"Don't take it personally man, white knights would eat a can of **** if the label said SE on it. If anyone dared mention that it was not a good product, they'd just argue if someone can't appreciate the subtle nuances in the ****, they should just go back to eating lolrealfood, cuz the devs prolly know more about canning food than they do."
#71 Sep 30 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,962 posts
Restyoneck wrote:
I don't think they are going to repair the FF name by repairing XIV by turning it into a wow clone.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud many of the changes in the upcoming update, but I have to say, the oversized, cartoony looking Ifrit rewards, coupled with what appears to be a direction of "raid this dungeon to get this sword, then raid this dungeon to get a new sword, then raid this dungeon to get a new sword" is not restoring the game to FF grandeur.
I'm getting more worried every month by the influence Yoshi's second favorite MMO seem to have on his dev plans.


If his enjoying RIFT gets us an invasion system similar to RIFT's I'll be happy. That would certainly give us a **** of a lot more to do. They have to appeal to their uniquely Japanese audience, so I wouldn't be too afraid that it's just going to suddenly become RIFT in all aspects.
#72 Sep 30 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,426 posts
i dont see the game becoming more WoW, if anything its becoming more FFXI. remember, XI had instanced "raids" too. they just didn't call them that, because no one called them that until wow came along.

what really looks exciting to me are the caravan escort quests, since that should go a little way towards making the game feel more alive.
____________________________
monk
dragoon

#73 Sep 30 2011 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,046 posts
But to damage a brand and to ruin a brand are two different things. ;)

There is a reason why Final Fantasy is a successful franchise in spite of just how much it seemingly changes. For you see: Final Fantasy doesn't really change. On the surface it appears that way and many gamers may rush to the fore to say that Final Fantasy #sub1 did great damage because it changed so much of Final Fantasy #sub2.

But the reality is that they aren't really different games. The key word here is reinvention.

The gamers only approach a game with a single perspective: that of the end user. But from a business standpoint, what makes FF a titan in the industry is that its brand is pliable and subjective. What makes a Final Fantasy? Is it the chocobos and moogles? The nomenclature of the spells? Similar narrative arcs? Nomura's designs? Real mythology cross-references? The ATB? It could be any of those in any number. Look at any game in the numerical line: in some cases we see much of one and few of the other. In others we see the exact opposite. 10 didn't have an ATB but 7 did, 6 had an overworld but XIII didn't, XI had mountable chocobos but VIII hardly did.

In short: it's bankable nostalgia and a natural intrigue about "how are they gonna do it this time?" that brings back gamers. Just face the facts: why should anyone who liked 7 enjoy 10? They are virtually incomparable… except of course for the elements which define Final Fantasy games in general.

So 14 was a ***** up… in the short run that's a big deal. But the reality is that people will buy 15 because they want to see how it's done again. Just like there are no doubt commercial at the super bowl that are a hit or miss, many of these don't disrupt in the long run the successful products they advertise. To the contrary: people come back still wondering what the future looks like.

…or maybe people are just quick to forget too. :p
#74 Oct 01 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
*
158 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The Final Fantasy brand has been greatly damaged for more than a decade.


Yep. When it started going downhill is subjective, but for me, it was when I played FFIX. After I beat the game, I thought to myself, "wtf?"

So long as they're incapable of putting out games of GREAT quality like Chrono, Xeno, and the older FFs--Square is "dead."

No one wants graphics if the story is uninspiring and there's only campy FMV action movies. How about a compelling story, like what we got in FF6, Chrono, or any of the PSX golden-era RPGs?

What the **** happened to Japan is what I'm wondering. The JRPG formula was great, and they'd still be making AMAZING games if they just stuck to the formula. I oft hear that it'd cost too much to develop JRPGs in an open world format like how it used to be; so making a string of failures for "JRPGS" is better than developing one or two PROPER games?

I don't care if it has to span 4 goddamned BD discs: give me a JRPG worth playing again.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 4:29pm by ghosthacked
#75 Oct 01 2011 at 11:07 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
ghosthacked wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The Final Fantasy brand has been greatly damaged for more than a decade.


Yep. When it started going downhill is subjective, but for me, it was when I played FFIX. After I beat the game, I thought to myself, "wtf?"

So long as they're incapable of putting out games of GREAT quality like Chrono, Xeno, and the older FFs--Square is "dead."

No one wants graphics if the story is uninspiring and there's only campy FMV action movies. How about a compelling story, like what we got in FF6, Chrono, or any of the PSX golden-era RPGs?

What the **** happened to Japan is what I'm wondering. The JRPG formula was great, and they'd still be making AMAZING games if they just stuck to the formula. I oft hear that it'd cost too much to develop JRPGs in an open world format like how it used to be; so making a string of failures for "JRPGS" is better than developing one or two PROPER games?

I don't care if it has to span 4 goddamned BD discs: give me a JRPG worth playing again.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 4:29pm by ghosthacked


There are still pretty good JRPG'S comming out, just not on the main console's, the psp and ds are where its at.
____________________________
MUTED
#76 Oct 02 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,962 posts
ghosthacked wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The Final Fantasy brand has been greatly damaged for more than a decade.


Yep. When it started going downhill is subjective, but for me, it was when I played FFIX. After I beat the game, I thought to myself, "wtf?"

So long as they're incapable of putting out games of GREAT quality like Chrono, Xeno, and the older FFs--Square is "dead."

No one wants graphics if the story is uninspiring and there's only campy FMV action movies. How about a compelling story, like what we got in FF6, Chrono, or any of the PSX golden-era RPGs?

What the **** happened to Japan is what I'm wondering. The JRPG formula was great, and they'd still be making AMAZING games if they just stuck to the formula. I oft hear that it'd cost too much to develop JRPGs in an open world format like how it used to be; so making a string of failures for "JRPGS" is better than developing one or two PROPER games?

I don't care if it has to span 4 goddamned BD discs: give me a JRPG worth playing again.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 4:29pm by ghosthacked


I can't even, you're talking about the golden age of 16 and 32-bit RPGs, yet the series started going down hill after FFIX the 32 bit RPG that paid homage to the era of 16 bit Sakaguchi FFs? Does not compute...


Ostia wrote:
ghosthacked wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The Final Fantasy brand has been greatly damaged for more than a decade.


Yep. When it started going downhill is subjective, but for me, it was when I played FFIX. After I beat the game, I thought to myself, "wtf?"

So long as they're incapable of putting out games of GREAT quality like Chrono, Xeno, and the older FFs--Square is "dead."

No one wants graphics if the story is uninspiring and there's only campy FMV action movies. How about a compelling story, like what we got in FF6, Chrono, or any of the PSX golden-era RPGs?

What the **** happened to Japan is what I'm wondering. The JRPG formula was great, and they'd still be making AMAZING games if they just stuck to the formula. I oft hear that it'd cost too much to develop JRPGs in an open world format like how it used to be; so making a string of failures for "JRPGS" is better than developing one or two PROPER games?

I don't care if it has to span 4 goddamned BD discs: give me a JRPG worth playing again.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 4:29pm by ghosthacked


There are still pretty good JRPG'S comming out, just not on the main console's, the psp and ds are where its at.


And those that are on larger consoles, and even some on the handhelds, aren't coming here. The Japanese games market has changed a lot since the 16 bit era, the kinds of games they want to play, and the kinds of games we want to play are diverging. It's making it a riskier and riskier investment to bring B-tier games overseas. Can we really make a profit selling this Moe-filled JRPG in the West? Market research says no! And they're probably right.

It's time to bust out the Rosetta Stone (Japanese) and start importing if you're a big JRPG player, that being said there are a few good games on the horizon that are coming here.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2011 1:07pm by RamseySylph
#77 Oct 03 2011 at 1:31 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
RamseySylph wrote:
ghosthacked wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The Final Fantasy brand has been greatly damaged for more than a decade.


Yep. When it started going downhill is subjective, but for me, it was when I played FFIX. After I beat the game, I thought to myself, "wtf?"

So long as they're incapable of putting out games of GREAT quality like Chrono, Xeno, and the older FFs--Square is "dead."

No one wants graphics if the story is uninspiring and there's only campy FMV action movies. How about a compelling story, like what we got in FF6, Chrono, or any of the PSX golden-era RPGs?

What the **** happened to Japan is what I'm wondering. The JRPG formula was great, and they'd still be making AMAZING games if they just stuck to the formula. I oft hear that it'd cost too much to develop JRPGs in an open world format like how it used to be; so making a string of failures for "JRPGS" is better than developing one or two PROPER games?

I don't care if it has to span 4 goddamned BD discs: give me a JRPG worth playing again.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 4:29pm by ghosthacked


I can't even, you're talking about the golden age of 16 and 32-bit RPGs, yet the series started going down hill after FFIX the 32 bit RPG that paid homage to the era of 16 bit Sakaguchi FFs? Does not compute...


Ostia wrote:
ghosthacked wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The Final Fantasy brand has been greatly damaged for more than a decade.


Yep. When it started going downhill is subjective, but for me, it was when I played FFIX. After I beat the game, I thought to myself, "wtf?"

So long as they're incapable of putting out games of GREAT quality like Chrono, Xeno, and the older FFs--Square is "dead."

No one wants graphics if the story is uninspiring and there's only campy FMV action movies. How about a compelling story, like what we got in FF6, Chrono, or any of the PSX golden-era RPGs?

What the **** happened to Japan is what I'm wondering. The JRPG formula was great, and they'd still be making AMAZING games if they just stuck to the formula. I oft hear that it'd cost too much to develop JRPGs in an open world format like how it used to be; so making a string of failures for "JRPGS" is better than developing one or two PROPER games?

I don't care if it has to span 4 goddamned BD discs: give me a JRPG worth playing again.

Edited, Oct 1st 2011 4:29pm by ghosthacked


There are still pretty good JRPG'S comming out, just not on the main console's, the psp and ds are where its at.


And those that are on larger consoles, and even some on the handhelds, aren't coming here. The Japanese games market has changed a lot since the 16 bit era, the kinds of games they want to play, and the kinds of games we want to play are diverging. It's making it a riskier and riskier investment to bring B-tier games overseas. Can we really make a profit selling this Moe-filled JRPG in the West? Market research says no! And they're probably right.

It's time to bust out the Rosetta Stone (Japanese) and start importing if you're a big JRPG player, that being said there are a few good games on the horizon that are coming here.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2011 1:07pm by RamseySylph


I just finished FFIX recently for the first time, before i got to the last dungeon and turned it off when necron showed up out of nowhere.... Now that i finished the game, sure the ending is cool and all that, but that necron part was stupid as stupid gets.

As for Jrpg's comming out of japan, by no means are they B-tier games, DQIX good game, Black Sigil an awesome game(Reminds me of FFVI), Ifinite space(Really one of the best games i have played in the last 5yrs), Legend of heroes: Tales of the sky(Awesome S-Tier game), Radiant History(Another awesome Jrpg for the DS). Just to name a few
____________________________
MUTED
#78 Oct 03 2011 at 2:05 AM Rating: Good
***
3,962 posts
Ostia wrote:
As for Jrpg's comming out of japan, by no means are they B-tier games, DQIX good game, Black Sigil an awesome game(Reminds me of FFVI), Ifinite space(Really one of the best games i have played in the last 5yrs), Legend of heroes: Tales of the sky(Awesome S-Tier game), Radiant History(Another awesome Jrpg for the DS). Just to name a few


You're confused about something.

First of all, a b-tier game doesn't mean the game is of a lower quality, it simply means the investment into the title was much smaller, and/or it's not part of an already established AAA franchise (See: Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Halo, etc.)

Some of the games you listed are in fact B-tier games, like Radiant Histor(ia) (Not history) it's not a part of a larger AAA franchise, and it's a portable game. At some point it becomes hard to tell where the line begins and ends for B-tier on a handheld system, so one could argue either way.

My main point is though, that games without a huge existing fan base to consume them, and games that don't have a huge budget the developers need to recoup and hope will show through and attract players to the game with shiny graphics, are making it over here less and less because the developers don't consider it to be worth it to localize the game.

Just look at NoA and the debacle with the recent Wii JRPGs that won't be coming over here (most likely, they can't make up their minds.) By no means am I saying that all of the games not coming over here are bad, and if you think that, you're confused and making far too many assumptions. I read Japanese (sometimes, when I'm awake!), and I have imported more than my fair share of JRPGs.
#79 Oct 03 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Ryneguy wrote:

I simply can't imagine a bunch of SE decision-makers sitting around a table, and the question comes up of "Hey, which game could we update into an HD iteration so we can release it on PS3 as a cash cow?" and the answer wasn't Final Fantasy VII.


FFX HD is just a matter of porting it to the PS3 and increasing the resolution and textures. None of the game's assets except textures need to be remade. FFVII would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. There's also the fact that virtually all of the original source code, uncompressed FMVs, models and other assets used to make FFVII were lost somehow. Either they didn't back it up or they reused the backup tapes to back something else up, or someone who didn't know better tossed out "all that old obsolete garbage".

They wanted a quick easy project that would make them a ton of money for little effort. FFX fits this, FFVII doesn't.



Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 10:52pm by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#80 Oct 03 2011 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,106 posts
I'm just gonna throw in here that I loved FFXIII and am drooling over the sequel.

And for the record, no, FFXIII wasn't the game I hoped it would be. I was looking for a big-world optional-sidequests tons-of-exploring traditional RPG. The game we got wasn't that. But, my disappointment at not getting what I hoped for didn't change that I really enjoyed the game. I have more than 100 hours on it and I still haven't quite done everything. I sure sounds like some people in this thread dislike FFXIII because it's not what they hoped for, rather than because it's a bad game.

I also loved VI and X, and quite enjoyed VII and IX.

And while I'd love to see a proper remake of VII (the original doesn't hold up well, in my opinion), I recognize that it would take nearly the resources of a full game to make, which is dramatically different from the FFX HD release that probably took two interns a weekend.
#81 Oct 03 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
There's also the fact that virtually all of the original source code, uncompressed FMVs, models and other assets used to make FFVII were lost somehow.
Smiley: dubious Never heard this before.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 9:58pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#82 Oct 04 2011 at 1:15 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
bsphil wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:
There's also the fact that virtually all of the original source code, uncompressed FMVs, models and other assets used to make FFVII were lost somehow.
Smiley: dubious Never heard this before.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 9:58pm by bsphil


When Eidos made the PC version they had to start from a copy of early beta source code that was found on a hard drive. Nothing else could be located. That's why the PC version uses the MJPEG movies and low res palletized textures off the PS1 disks. The original RGB image files and uncompressed movies had been lost as well as all of the scenes and models used to render movies and static background images for the game.

Edited, Oct 4th 2011 4:21am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#83 Oct 05 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Decent
I just want to throw in with the lot of FF7 detractors.

I honestly could not stand that game. Like was said earlier, story is everything with FF, and Cloud honestly spends 90% of the game sulking. I know this seems to be a theme in JRPG, but I can only tolerate the reluctant hero for so long before he needs to transform (Kain) or get killed.

Since FF9 I've only actually purchased portable titles, and I think the Tactics sub-series is fantastic. I don't know why Square constantly tries to fix what isn't broken, but that is 100% of what is wrong with FF in general. With FF14, they took the worst parts of every MMO and mashed them together, and presented it as "different".

The 1.19 patch has helped a lot, but will not be enough for me to not try SW:TOR. Maybe if advanced jobs come out soon, but we all know what will happen if it's rushed out before more competition arrives.
#84 Oct 06 2011 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kyzr wrote:
I can only tolerate the reluctant hero for so long before he needs to transform (Kain)
Oh derp, been a while.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 10:57am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#85ghosthacked, Posted: Oct 06 2011 at 6:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) FFIX was the last FF on PSX, and I refuse to count it as part of that PSX golden era. I don't care so much for the SNES rpgs outside of Chrono Trigger and FF6; I don't care what FFIX paid homage to--the game was a major letdown.
#86 Oct 06 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
Somewhere along the way, they forgot how to make rpgs great, and one aspect of "great" meant creating a "dynamic" world that people would want to see more of.

And yet XIII sold into the stratosphere, and enough people "want to see more of" it that it's getting a sequel, with more of it.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with your opinions about the XIII.

I personally quite liked IX as well, which you didn't seem to like at all. Opinions are funny that way. But, more importantly, opinions are irrelevant to SE. SALES FIGURES are what SE cares about, and from that perspective XIII was fantastic.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that SE isn't in the business of making classic JRPGs any more, but rather has moved on to something a little different. That is clearly a frothing twitching ball of bitter to people who love JRPGs (myself included), but it doesn't make the record-selling FF games that they ARE making bad, just different.

I'm not sure SE could make money selling games aimed at the "hardcore" JRPG audience. Programming teams are huge and production budgets are boggling, but the market for JRPGs doesn't seem to have grown with the rest of the industry.
#87 Oct 07 2011 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good
***
3,962 posts
ghosthacked wrote:
...but after FFXIII it seems not to be the case.


Okay, so I'm getting the sense that you didn't like Final Fantasy XIII.

ghosthacked wrote:
The team that made FFXII isn't the team that's making the rest of FFXIII--so I couldn't care less.


So the team that... made the game you don't like...

Isn't...working on the games you haven't played...

Therefore... you can make the assumption that you...

Wait what?

Your own logic about the things you enjoy or do not enjoy doesn't even make sense. If anything the fact that the FFXIII team is not working on Type-0 and Versus XIII should make you more inclined to think that they might be worthwhile.
#88 Oct 07 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
*
158 posts
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
Somewhere along the way, they forgot how to make rpgs great, and one aspect of "great" meant creating a "dynamic" world that people would want to see more of.

And yet XIII sold into the stratosphere, and enough people "want to see more of" it that it's getting a sequel, with more of it.

Clearly, not everyone agrees with your opinions about the XIII.


As someone else in this thread stated, people just buy the games to see what's different. I've bought every main title FF since I became an "FF Fan" years ago. I don't "like" the games I'm playing, but I buy them with a hope that S-E got their act together on that particular game, but it's never the case. Are they bad games? No. But they're NOT GOOD when compared to the standards set by previous FFs. You giddy little fans get caught up in the emotional-draw of the fact that you're playing a corporate-sanctioned "Final Fantasy" that you're forgetting to hold to any sort of standard. Yeah, sure, I admit I get suckered into buying on release day because I recall those memories of playing kick-*** past FFs and I'm hoping for more of the same, but like I said, it's never the case, and eventually--with enough negative reinforcement--the habit of being an "FF fan" will cease.


As for the other guy who quoted me, I'm not even going to bother much with spelling it out for you: do you think the same team is working on all 3 iterations of the FFXIII Crystalis brand? The FFT (See: FFXII) team could've been thrown a bone there. The Tactics development team is the only decent "team" S-E has got left. Or did you misread my FFXII as FFXIII?

I'll just quote you and let you go over it, until it sinks in. FFXII != FFXIII

Quote:
ghosthacked wrote:
The team that made FFXII isn't the team that's making the rest of FFXIII--so I couldn't care less.


So the team that... made the game you don't like...

Isn't...working on the games you haven't played...

Therefore... you can make the assumption that you...

Wait what?

Your own logic about the things you enjoy or do not enjoy doesn't even make sense. If anything the fact that the FFXIII team is not working on Type-0 and Versus XIII should make you more inclined to think that they might be worthwhile.




No point in arguing with fanboys though; you're all hopeless. I'm getting the impression that some of you nasty people just love seeing your own words and are more concerned with the reinforcement of groupthink for the purpose of satisfying solipsistic agendas than anything else.



Edited, Oct 7th 2011 2:14pm by ghosthacked
#89 Oct 07 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,962 posts
ghosthacked wrote:

As for the other guy who quoted me, I'm not even going to bother much with spelling it out for you: do you think the same team is working on all 3 iterations of the FFXIII?

Edited, Oct 7th 2011 2:06pm by ghosthacked


No this is exactly what I was getting at. First of all you caught me, apparently I did miss read your original post - but I'm still not sure what the **** you are trying to imply.

To answer your either rhetorical, or assinine question though no - the "team" on XIII, Versus and Type-0 are all different. The XIII team is now on XIII-2. My point was if you think the team on XIII was incompetent and that's the reason you didn't enjoy the game, versus and type-0 have been developed by different development teams, hence you may infact - enjoy them.

**** if your major problem with XII was linearity, you may enjoy XIII-2 as well. The linearity wasn't a product of them wanting to make the game in that way, it was how they had to due to extenuating circumstances (namely the simultaneous engine development and learning curve moving to a new platform. )

The "tactics" "team" as you put it, Sakimoto, Yoshida and Matsuno has been blown to the four winds. Matsuno is now at Level-5. I was certainly not implying they have anything to do with XIII.
#90Ostia, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 1:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So yazmat and the tactics team is no longer in SE ? So wtf does SE has left ? that guy that makes every protagonist *** ?
#91 Oct 07 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
852 posts
Ostia wrote:
So yazmat and the tactics team is no longer in SE ? So wtf does SE has left ? that guy that makes every protagonist *** ?


As a *** dude, I can absolutely say those protagonists aren't ***. ...They're hipsters.
____________________________
#92 Oct 07 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
******
48,731 posts
ghosthacked wrote:
I've bought every main title FF since I became an "FF Fan" years ago. I don't "like" the games I'm playing, but I buy them with a hope that S-E got their act together on that particular game, but it's never the case. [...] No point in arguing with fanboys though; you're all hopeless.
The first part makes you a fanboy, the second part makes your ignorance to it hilarious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#93 Oct 07 2011 at 2:55 PM Rating: Default
**
557 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
ghosthacked wrote:
I've bought every main title FF since I became an "FF Fan" years ago. I don't "like" the games I'm playing, but I buy them with a hope that S-E got their act together on that particular game, but it's never the case. [...] No point in arguing with fanboys though; you're all hopeless.
The first part makes you a fanboy, the second part makes your ignorance to it hilarious.

I disagree--buying a popular video game every few years doesn't make you a fanboy, it makes you a fan, even if they disappoint. Buying the game, the soundtrack, figurines, spinoff titles, multi-platforms, collectors editions, and then replaying the games over and over so you know every character and bit of dialog by heart doesn't even make you a fanboy--doing so without any sense of perspective or willingness to criticize the FF brand makes you a fanboy.

How many people see the Saw films every Halloween, but don't really like them, and couldn't name the characters or even remember the convoluted plots from the previous year? How many people buy Madden every year, because sometimes they like to play with friends, and want to have the latest rosters? How many people pay monthly subscriptions to Blizzard, but only play a few hours a month? If it's not that much money to you, it's really not that big of a deal. Maybe the prospect of buying a new video game every few years is a really big deal to you, I dunno. I bet half the people here own virtually every major Mario game, and wouldn't consider themselves fanboys. People who own video game consoles buy video games. It's really not that hard.
____________________________


#94 Oct 07 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,962 posts
Ostia wrote:
So yazmat and the tactics team is no longer in SE ? So wtf does SE has left ? that guy that makes every protagonist *** ?


Yazmat? The boss of FF12?

Anyway... Matsuno left SE for Level-5, but Yoshida is the art director on this game (duh) and Sakimoto hasn't actually been employed at SE for a long time if I remember correctly. Most sound work is contractual.


yfaithfully wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
ghosthacked wrote:
I've bought every main title FF since I became an "FF Fan" years ago. I don't "like" the games I'm playing, but I buy them with a hope that S-E got their act together on that particular game, but it's never the case. [...] No point in arguing with fanboys though; you're all hopeless.
The first part makes you a fanboy, the second part makes your ignorance to it hilarious.

I disagree--buying a popular video game every few years doesn't make you a fanboy, it makes you a fan, even if they disappoint. Buying the game, the soundtrack, figurines, spinoff titles, multi-platforms, collectors editions, and then replaying the games over and over so you know every character and bit of dialog by heart doesn't even make you a fanboy--doing so without any sense of perspective or willingness to criticize the FF brand makes you a fanboy.

How many people see the Saw films every Halloween, but don't really like them, and couldn't name the characters or even remember the convoluted plots from the previous year? How many people buy Madden every year, because sometimes they like to play with friends, and want to have the latest rosters? How many people pay monthly subscriptions to Blizzard, but only play a few hours a month? If it's not that much money to you, it's really not that big of a deal. Maybe the prospect of buying a new video game every few years is a really big deal to you, I dunno. I bet half the people here own virtually every major Mario game, and wouldn't consider themselves fanboys. People who own video game consoles buy video games. It's really not that hard.


Buying a series over and over that you have fairly consistently been disappointed with, without researching first, then whining about it kind of does make you a fanboy.
#95 Oct 07 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
RamseySylph wrote:
Ostia wrote:
So yazmat and the tactics team is no longer in SE ? So wtf does SE has left ? that guy that makes every protagonist *** ?


Yazmat? The boss of FF12?

Anyway... Matsuno left SE for Level-5, but Yoshida is the art director on this game (duh) and Sakimoto hasn't actually been employed at SE for a long time if I remember correctly. Most sound work is contractual.


yfaithfully wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
ghosthacked wrote:
I've bought every main title FF since I became an "FF Fan" years ago. I don't "like" the games I'm playing, but I buy them with a hope that S-E got their act together on that particular game, but it's never the case. [...] No point in arguing with fanboys though; you're all hopeless.
The first part makes you a fanboy, the second part makes your ignorance to it hilarious.

I disagree--buying a popular video game every few years doesn't make you a fanboy, it makes you a fan, even if they disappoint. Buying the game, the soundtrack, figurines, spinoff titles, multi-platforms, collectors editions, and then replaying the games over and over so you know every character and bit of dialog by heart doesn't even make you a fanboy--doing so without any sense of perspective or willingness to criticize the FF brand makes you a fanboy.

How many people see the Saw films every Halloween, but don't really like them, and couldn't name the characters or even remember the convoluted plots from the previous year? How many people buy Madden every year, because sometimes they like to play with friends, and want to have the latest rosters? How many people pay monthly subscriptions to Blizzard, but only play a few hours a month? If it's not that much money to you, it's really not that big of a deal. Maybe the prospect of buying a new video game every few years is a really big deal to you, I dunno. I bet half the people here own virtually every major Mario game, and wouldn't consider themselves fanboys. People who own video game consoles buy video games. It's really not that hard.


Buying a series over and over that you have fairly consistently been disappointed with, without researching first, then whining about it kind of does make you a fanboy.


yazmat and Matsuno are the same person.... Anyways so SE has nobody left that can actually make a good game ?
____________________________
MUTED
#96 Oct 08 2011 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
ghosthacked wrote:
I've bought every main title FF since I became an "FF Fan" years ago.


ghosthacked wrote:
I don't "like" the games I'm playing


ghosthacked wrote:
No point in arguing with fanboys
No ****. You are one sad, deluded *******.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#97 Oct 08 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
303 posts
Realese versus 13 already square!
____________________________
Quote:
Busaman the Mighty wrote:
Man I barely remember life before wow. It was hard living in caves for shelter and fending off wild beasts with only a sharpened stick. Men women and children all dying from simple infections Food was scarce, sometimes all we had to eat would be a fallen member of the tribe.

Those were dark days indeed. Thank Raptor Jesus for delivering us from our sins with his only son, the World Of Warcraft


UNBAN ROG
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)