Final Fantasy?

[Squeek]

And yet, the two games I mentioned that looked better than Final Fantasy 7 (thus needing more visual effects to pull off the realism) were on the Nintendo 64. Funny how that works.

Also, it would be great if you could check your facts. Square dropped Nintendo primarily because development costs for cartridges were too high (3x as expensive on average) and that programming for the cartridges was too complicated. They stayed with Sony because Nintendo insisted on using Mini-DVDs for Gamecube and they had already established themselves with the PS2 by the time X was to come out. It's no surprise to me that they're going multiplatform with XIII because of everything that I just mentioned for the jump to the PS1. PS3 development costs are enormous compared to 360 costs and Blu-Ray isn't exactly that much better than standard DVDs, especially when you consider load times, which are unbearably slow on the PS3 even after you install some things on your hard drive.

One serious problem that I see across the board with their 3D games is jumpiness. When I first saw the intro to FFX, I had to turn off my television. It was hurting my eyes. Everyone was jumpy. I don't see this in any N64 games, and Square has had this mistake all the way up to the PS2.

Finally, Chrono is infinitely better than Final Fantasy. It's the only franchise from Square that I can acknowledge as being good. Seriously, compare Chrono Cross to Final Fantasy 8. They were both released in the same year on the same console by the same company. Chrono Cross is just better in every way, yet nobody even knows about it. Tales of Destiny is better in every way. It was on the same console. Nobody even knows about it.

It really makes you wonder why Final Fantasy is the only RPG franchise people repeatedly buy every time when they ignore everything else. I'm going to reverse some of your logic back to you. How do I know Final Fantasy is bad by only playing one of them? Well, how do you know Final Fantasy is the best RPG franchise without playing all of the rest?

[leo172519]

I love seeing the technology difference from each FF especially the HUGE transition between VII and VIII, its like night and day.

EDIT: I agree with Squeek, Crono Cross was the better game although I never got to finish the thing

[MarukuAntoni]

I thought it was the combination of the two, format and cost. Square had a vision of making games with FMVs and other cinematics which couldn't be experienced with the 64 cartridge. Once the effects and designs were made, all the rendering would've taken up a lot of space.

A quote from Hironobu Sakaguchi:

"When we discussed designing the field scenes as illustrations or CG based, we came up with the idea to eliminate the connection between movies and the fields. Without using blackout at all, and maintaining quality at the same time, we would make the movie stop at one cut and make the characters move around on it. We tried to make it controllable even during the movies. As a result of using a lot of motion data + CG effects and in still images, it turned out to be a mega capacity game, and therefore we had to choose CD-ROM as our media. It other words, we became too aggressive, and got ourselves into trouble."

I don't know the deal with Blu-Ray as I don't see a total difference in quality. I just know that it holds more space. Like you said, it's no surprise they're going cross platform. They'd save more money, especially after losing so much from sales.

I know Square was interested in Dolphin, or Gamecube, but I don't know what happened after that.

I didn't say that Final Fantasy was the best RPG franchise. I said in another post that each franchise had their up and down games. I loved Xenogears story than any of the games in Final Fantasy. In my opinion, its story was better than any of the Final Fantasy games. It could've been a great franchise, but Xenosaga wasn't good. I think that people know more about FF than other games because fanboys do hype it up and it's possibly the only RPG they've played. They need to expand their gaming experience. I'm not sure where your last two questions stemmed from because there is no possible way you can.

[zidart]

Originally Posted by Squeek

And yet, the two games I mentioned that looked better than Final Fantasy 7 (thus needing more visual effects to pull off the realism) were on the Nintendo 64. Funny how that works.

Also, it would be great if you could check your facts. Square dropped Nintendo primarily because development costs for cartridges were too high (3x as expensive on average) and that programming for the cartridges was too complicated. They stayed with Sony because Nintendo insisted on using Mini-DVDs for Gamecube and they had already established themselves with the PS2 by the time X was to come out. It's no surprise to me that they're going multiplatform with XIII because of everything that I just mentioned for the jump to the PS1. PS3 development costs are enormous compared to 360 costs and Blu-Ray isn't exactly that much better than standard DVDs, especially when you consider load times, which are unbearably slow on the PS3 even after you install some things on your hard drive.

One serious problem that I see across the board with their 3D games is jumpiness. When I first saw the intro to FFX, I had to turn off my television. It was hurting my eyes. Everyone was jumpy. I don't see this in any N64 games, and Square has had this mistake all the way up to the PS2.

Finally, Chrono is infinitely better than Final Fantasy. It's the only franchise from Square that I can acknowledge as being good. Seriously, compare Chrono Cross to Final Fantasy 8. They were both released in the same year on the same console by the same company. Chrono Cross is just better in every way, yet nobody even knows about it. Tales of Destiny is better in every way. It was on the same console. Nobody even knows about it.

It really makes you wonder why Final Fantasy is the only RPG franchise people repeatedly buy every time when they ignore everything else. I'm going to reverse some of your logic back to you. How do I know Final Fantasy is bad by only playing one of them? Well, how do you know Final Fantasy is the best RPG franchise without playing all of the rest?

i don't say is the best RPG franchise but it's up there (like in second place in my opinion XD) but my library is 80% RPGs so i don't think you got a point when you say "Well, how do you know Final Fantasy is the best RPG franchise without playing all of the rest?", i don't think is the best but i don't think is as bad as you describe it.

also graphics don't matter at all, polygons or detailed graphics??? i don't care for them, i don't care if i got a super blu-ray detailed game or a crappy pixelated one (even though the polygons in FF7 are decent enough) HECK tales of the abyss animations are awkward and the backgrounds are like a ps1 megaman legends game, but do i care??? no is still one of the best games ever (and well FF7 is awesome but not the best just great)

[Squeek]

Graphics don't matter unless they're really, really bad.

There are three kinds of graphics in my opinion.

Horrible graphics, which severely underestimate the potential of the system they're on.
Decent graphics, which are standard for the system they're on.
Great graphics, which push the limits of the system they're on.

Among those three categories, there are three more categories. Graphics that make the games worse, graphics that don't change the gameplay at all, and graphics that make the game better.

Final Fantasy 7's graphics are pathetic, and they make the game worse. Tales of the Abyss's graphics are horrible-decent by some people's standards, but they actually make the game better. Trying for realistic graphics like FFX did will make the game look worse. Stuttering framerates, choppy animations, and so on. You won't find this in Tales of the Abyss. And yes, I know FFX came out long before Tales of the Abyss and that FF7 was one of the first games on the PS1, but there are other games that came out around the same time that prove that realistic graphics were easily possible at that time.

And graphics don't make a game, either. Take Crysis. We all know it's the biggest graphic-pushing game out there now. I hate Crysis. It's just shallow gameplay mixed with horrible controls and a worthless plot. I really like first-person shooters and I've played dozens of them, so in this regard I think I actually have a meaningful opinion.

[zidart]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Graphics don't matter unless they're really, really bad.

There are three kinds of graphics in my opinion.

Horrible graphics, which severely underestimate the potential of the system they're on.
Decent graphics, which are standard for the system they're on.
Great graphics, which push the limits of the system they're on.

Among those three categories, there are three more categories. Graphics that make the games worse, graphics that don't change the gameplay at all, and graphics that make the game better.

Final Fantasy 7's graphics are pathetic, and they make the game worse. Tales of the Abyss's graphics are horrible-decent by some people's standards, but they actually make the game better. Trying for realistic graphics like FFX did will make the game look worse. Stuttering framerates, choppy animations, and so on. You won't find this in Tales of the Abyss. And yes, I know FFX came out long before Tales of the Abyss and that FF7 was one of the first games on the PS1, but there are other games that came out around the same time that prove that realistic graphics were easily possible at that time.

And graphics don't make a game, either. Take Crysis. We all know it's the biggest graphic-pushing game out there now. I hate Crysis. It's just shallow gameplay mixed with horrible controls and a worthless plot. I really like first-person shooters and I've played dozens of them, so in this regard I think I actually have a meaningful opinion.

but then that just contradicts yourself... saying they don't matter then saying that bad graphics actually make it better (and by the way there's a difference between GRAPHICS and STYLE.... example difference between Tales of the abyss and Tales of Vesperia thank you very much).

sometimes game's graphics are not that good but that actually doesn't make it better or worse, even if the graphics suck big time (even though FF7 were very nice for being one of the first 3D RPGs Note: i said "one of the" not "the first") and i already said my example, Tales of the abyss has a nice style but the graphics have some problems and the characters just don't move naturally (but who cares still best game ever IMO).

yes there were games with better graphics back then but does that necessarily make FF7 a bad looking game for its time? i don't think so, and quite honestly an RPG is not in the list of games that "Graphics that make the games worse" (besides the battle cutscenes were good looking anyway)

[tsugomaru]

And in the end it's all opinion. So what if someone hated FFVII graphics and thought that ruined the game for him? That's his opinion and nothing you say is going to change it.

You can argue about your philosophies about how graphics should or did influence a game, but in the end, it's different for everyone. I myself will ignore bad graphics if the game's design is extremely good, but it would definitely be nice if the graphics weren't choppy. I have friends who would rather choose to play a game with good graphics and completely ignore bad design characteristics.

~Tsugomaru

[Athefre]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

And in the end it's all opinion. So what if someone hated FFVII graphics and thought that ruined the game for him? That's his opinion and nothing you say is going to change it.

You can argue about your philosophies about how graphics should or did influence a game, but in the end, it's different for everyone. I myself will ignore bad graphics if the game's design is extremely good, but it would definitely be nice if the graphics weren't choppy. I have friends who would rather choose to play a game with good graphics and completely ignore bad design characteristics.

~Tsugomaru

Same here. I think it's weird that almost every time I go to the game section of Walmart I see a group of kids hovering around the PS3 demos constantly saying "Look at those graphics!".

Another related thing I would like to comment on is how some people will buy a game just because they liked what they saw in the commercial. But maybe they don't know about these online game sites and forums to keep up with and research games before they make their decision.

To stay on topic I'll say that I don't like many of the Final Fantasy games. I'm a Dragon Quest guy though

FF1: Interesting to play because it makes me remember my NES days.
FFVII: Couldn't get into it.
FFVIII: I loved the story but couldn't get into the battles or the usual FF (annoying to me) minigames
FFIX: I liked the style but more minigames...
FFX: Fun
FFXII: I loved this game, I spent 90 hours on this.

[plasmix]

I haven't seen anyone mention the terribleness of VII's fixed camera. Pressing in a direction could send you up to 45 degrees off your mark. Pretty much ruined exploration for me.

Also, to whoever said that VI's storyline was cliche, did you play up to the part where Kefka destroys the world halfway through the game?

[Phynx]

FINAL FANTASY 7 FTFW! Nuff said.

[Squeek]

...no. That's not "nuff said".

If you have an opinion, elaborate on it. You can't just declare a game to be the greatest ever for some arbitrary reason.

Also, to whoever said that VI's storyline was cliche, did you play up to the part where Kefka destroys the world halfway through the game?

That's actually pretty cliche, sorry.

[Phynx]

Originally Posted by Squeek

...no. That's not "nuff said".

If you have an opinion, elaborate on it. You can't just declare a game to be the greatest ever for some arbitrary reason.



That's actually pretty cliche, sorry.

Aye, I shall, so, to elaborate on what you said about FFVII's graphics being so horrible, take in a few factors. First off, FFVII set ground breaking feats with it's quality of 3D visualization. It truly tested the extent of the Playstation's hardware capabilities. It was quite revolutionary for its time.

As for them being bad, yeah, they are horrible by today's standards of graphic quality. But back then, they were unbelievably amazing to everyone who seen them. Also, the graphics making the game worse? That's a personal opinion. I for one am a true fan of it and the graphics for it are truly a classic in terms of 3D. I for one think they improve the game as it is, BUT, say if they made a remake of FFVII with cutting edge graphics nowadays, yeah, it would completely change the game for improvements sake.

But as far as classical games go, FFVII sits in its own category that really helped define a new genre of gaming.

EDIT - Sorry, I overused the "I for one" phrase...

[Squeek]

So. Final Fantasy 7 is the best game ever because it has shiny graphics.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

And yes, I do look back on the graphics and call them pathetic. I've posted this exact same example before. Look back on graphics from games not made by Squaresoft/Enix. They're timeless. Does anyone even suggest that Super Mario Bros. 1 on the NES has bad graphics? No! They're bad by today's standards, but it's exactly what you need to make a perfect game with the hardware you have. And that was one of the first games on the console! I can think of literally hundreds of other examples in the history of video games where I look back now and don't even notice the graphics despite being on a 2-bit, 4-bit, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit console.

That's not the point. The graphics may have seemed revolutionary at the time, but it quickly became obvious that a bit more time in the development tank would have produced a much better result. It was pretty damn obvious to me that the game was rushed. If you look back on it now and compare it with other first-generation PlayStation games (a category that it is not in as it came out three years after the console was released) you will see that it looks absolutely pathetic.

1994: The console is launched at the end of the year.

Tekken

1995: Still the first year of development.

Ridge Racer
Rayman
Twisted Metal

1996: Two years into the life of the console

Resident Evil
Tekken 2
Crash Bandicoot
Tomb Raider

1997: Three years into the life of the Playstation. Three years.

Final Fantasy 7

Hell there are dozens more from 94-96. I didn't own a Playstation as I had no idea they even existed back then (I was 8 when the console launched) so I don't know them all, but I've played some of these games. Tomb Raider, Biohazard (Resident Evil), Twisted Metal, Tekken, Rayman, etc. I never once criticized their graphics despite playing these games after I had an N64. Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Tekken, Tekken 2, and Crash all had better graphics than FF7 despite being released early in the life cycle of the Playstation. Imagine that.

You want the graphics to be good to justify the fact that you love the game so much. That's not a reason the game is good. Graphics do not make a game. They do break the game in some cases, though.

[Phynx]

Originally Posted by Squeek

So. Final Fantasy 7 is the best game ever because it has shiny graphics.

I'm gonna go ahead and say no.

And yes, I do look back on the graphics and call them pathetic. I've posted this exact same example before. Look back on graphics from games not made by Squaresoft/Enix. They're timeless. Does anyone even suggest that Super Mario Bros. 1 on the NES has bad graphics? No! They're bad by today's standards, but it's exactly what you need to make a perfect game with the hardware you have. And that was one of the first games on the console! I can think of literally hundreds of other examples in the history of video games where I look back now and don't even notice the graphics despite being on a 2-bit, 4-bit, 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit console.

That's not the point. The graphics may have seemed revolutionary at the time, but it quickly became obvious that a bit more time in the development tank would have produced a much better result. It was pretty damn obvious to me that the game was rushed. If you look back on it now and compare it with other first-generation PlayStation games (a category that it is not in as it came out three years after the console was released) you will see that it looks absolutely pathetic.

1994: The console is launched at the end of the year.

Tekken

1995: Still the first year of development.

Ridge Racer
Rayman
Twisted Metal

1996: Two years into the life of the console

Resident Evil
Tekken 2
Crash Bandicoot
Tomb Raider

1997: Three years into the life of the Playstation. Three years.

Final Fantasy 7

Hell there are dozens more from 94-96. I didn't own a Playstation as I had no idea they even existed back then (I was 8 when the console launched) so I don't know them all, but I've played some of these games. Tomb Raider, Biohazard (Resident Evil), Twisted Metal, Tekken, Rayman, etc. I never once criticized their graphics despite playing these games after I had an N64.

One thing that FFVII had that these other games didn't, a HUGE map with more areas to visit than most games of that time. The overall file size to FFVII is a majority dump on the graphics. The game is just huge. You have to accept the fact that a game THAT big during that time wouldn't have the ultimately best graphics it could have had.

Those other games were only decent in their graphics because they were rather small and short in storyline. Well, as opposed to FFVII anyway. You have to give Squaresoft credit for delivering what they did in the short time they did it.

I will agree with you though, if they spent say another 6 months to a year, it would've looked even greater. But that didn't happen so what it is now is far more than I could've asked for a PS1 game.

[MarukuAntoni]

Originally Posted by Phynx

One thing that FFVII had that these other games didn't, a HUGE map with more areas to visit than most games of that time. The overall file size to FFVII is a majority dump on the graphics. The game is just huge. You have to accept the fact that a game THAT big during that time wouldn't have the ultimately best graphics it could have had.

Those other games were only decent in their graphics because they were rather small and short in storyline. Well, as opposed to FFVII anyway. You have to give Squaresoft credit for delivering what they did in the short time they did it.

I will agree with you though, if they spent say another 6 months to a year, it would've looked even greater. But that didn't happen so what it is now is far more than I could've asked for a PS1 game.

It's the point I'm trying to make. If you ever make videos/amvs with all those effects and then render them, how long does it take? A long time because of all the data. FF7, like Phynx said had so much detail with all those towns. Some of those towns were huge too, so it's no surprise of the graphics. Yes, they probably did rush it, but they probably had a good reason. Deadline?


You contradicted yourself here bud.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Graphics don't matter unless they're really, really bad.

There are three kinds of graphics in my opinion.

Horrible graphics, which severely underestimate the potential of the system they're on.
Decent graphics, which are standard for the system they're on.
Great graphics, which push the limits of the system they're on.

Among those three categories, there are three more categories. Graphics that make the games worse, graphics that don't change the gameplay at all, and graphics that make the game better.

Final Fantasy 7's graphics are pathetic, and they make the game worse. Tales of the Abyss's graphics are horrible-decent by some people's standards, but they actually make the game better. Trying for realistic graphics like FFX did will make the game look worse. Stuttering framerates, choppy animations, and so on. You won't find this in Tales of the Abyss. And yes, I know FFX came out long before Tales of the Abyss and that FF7 was one of the first games on the PS1, but there are other games that came out around the same time that prove that realistic graphics were easily possible at that time.

And graphics don't make a game, either. Take Crysis. We all know it's the biggest graphic-pushing game out there now. I hate Crysis. It's just shallow gameplay mixed with horrible controls and a worthless plot. I really like first-person shooters and I've played dozens of them, so in this regard I think I actually have a meaningful opinion.

[LLaMaSaUceYup]

Final fantasy 7 ps1 is total win

[Squeek]

That's not exactly true. While the game is longer, it's probably not true that it took up more space as a result of graphic needs. Once you create a game engine, you put it on the disc and then put the story, the graphics, sound, etc. on it as well. Let's say the engine is 400mb and the discs are 700mb. You can fit 300mb of graphics, sound, story, etc. on one disc. If your game takes 900mb for this, you will need 3 discs as each disc is forced to use that 400mb file as a default on each disc. The bigger the engine, the less space you're left with. If you add FMVs to the list, which are absolutely huge, then you're really not putting much of anything on any disc aside from that one engine.

But I don't know that for sure because nobody lists the contents of the disc online. Stupid Internet.

I did find this though:

"Among the difficulties faced was the potential inability to render 3D polygon models based on the designs of Yoshitaka Amano, the series' long-time character designer. As his style was considered too exquisite to be compatible with the visual format of the project, this issue was addressed by bringing Tetsuya Nomura onboard as the project's main artist, while Amano aided in the design of the game's world map. Previously a monster designer for Final Fantasy V, Nomura's style was more reminiscent of manga, and considered easier to adapt. Another problem faced during development was a rushed production schedule. Veteran series composer Nobuo Uematsu commented in the liner notes of the game's soundtrack: "There is one thing common in all the Final Fantasy games. None of them are complete"."

So basically they scaled it back from "good" due to time constraints. Confirmed. They also knew the game was incomplete and could have been better. Confirmed.

I also found this somewhere else, which is something I hear all the time.

"FF7's graphics are light years beyond anything ever seen on the PlayStation"

And you might think that's just some random fan who doesn't know what they're talking about considering just how many better-looking games were out for the console already. And I wish that were the case. No, that's IGN from 11 years ago sounding exactly like all the fanboys do.

Now I can absolutely understand loving a game for its graphics (though I think it's stupid to do so). Just not final fantasy 7. Unless you really, really love stiff animation, plastic models, expressionless faces, jagged polygons for limbs, then I cannot see why Final Fantasy 7 is your choice of best game ever made solely based on its graphics.

If you want me to stop, simply post "Final Fantasy is my favorite game because of the sum of its parts: innovative 3D environments, an engaging story, and yet another Uematsu composition that didn't fail to impress." I'd disagree with you, but I'd respect your decision and wouldn't pursue it any longer. Saying it's your favorite game for its graphics doesn't make any sense. It's as if you didn't play the game at all, instead sticking your face inches from the screen to marvel at how pixels move across pre-rendered background images that look muddy and fake compared to SNES titles.

Edit: I've just read a post from a fan of the game wondering why they didn't use the battle graphics on the overworld map. And it wasn't because it was easier to use polygons that look like ass. No, it was for "style". So, the technology existed, as I've posited before. They chose to ignore it.

Sorry but it's hard to feel emotion for a main character's death when she looks like two triangles on a cylinder with some kind of pile of ferrets on her head.

[xealix]

I know I'm pretty late in this forum, but for me its FF 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 that are the best haha. how ever 13 is looking better and better. I'm glad square is putting it on 360, but i do plan on getting a PS3 eventually.

[TheRapingDragon]

how ever 13 is looking better and better

Unfortunately Square do have a good amount of talent in making things originally look good. You can't deny their movies look good. i thought XII looked amazing. The gameplay was, in my opinion, horrible.

So don't believe everything you see until you play it.

[Squeek]

We all thought 8 looked brilliant.

Then we played it.

Thus heralded the age of pre-rendered CGI scenes shown as "trailers".