View Full Version : Final Fantasy 13!!!!!!!
CODEZERO
05-09-2006, 12:14 AM
here some images of ff13 bonding both kingdom heart makers and the producers of Advent children
im excited :)
http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/127/reviews/928790_20060508_screen001.jpghttp://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/127/reviews/928790_20060508_screen003.jpghttp://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/127/reviews/928790_20060508_screen002.jpghttp://www.filehigh.com/serve/13591/157014.jpghttp://www.filehigh.com/serve/13591/157019.jpg
xodkrm
05-09-2006, 1:26 AM
Its funny how they make all the so-called "screen shots" of games so high-quality.
mcflurry_1982
05-09-2006, 1:36 AM
ok i dont understand something. if the game is called "final fantasy" why are there 12 sequels? shouldnt it be called "never ending fantasy"?
ok i dont understand something. if the game is called "final fantasy" why are there 12 sequels? shouldnt it be called "never ending fantasy"?
Don't be a fucking smartass.
Thats such a poor response to FF.
This isn't new news, I think 13 has been in idea-planning for awhile. Looking forward to 12 myself.
-Neo
Looks good, even though no FF game can ever match up to the splendour that was X-2.
(But the 2nd and 3rd pics remind me a bit of Yuna, actually. )
FF13 might look interesting, but I think I'll focus on 12 for now.
Giantfish
05-10-2006, 12:19 AM
Shouldn't they finish 12 first? Or am I just being ignorant of console game release dates as usual?
xodkrm
05-10-2006, 1:52 AM
Ive never even tried or seen FF.
Is it kinda like Golden Sun?
(Golden sun is for gameboy Sp. IT ROCKS)
B.A.Baracus
05-10-2006, 2:36 PM
They should make a Final Fantasy and stop milking the series to death.
I think it is going to die with XII for alot of people.
Apparantly that whole, 'action/see-the-monsters/kinda turn-based so it seems FF' thing doesn't rub off too well...
Ahh, I still have you VII...:D
They should make a Final Fantasy and stop milking the series to death.
They should stop making:
Zelda Games.
Metroid Games.
Halo Games.
Mario Games.
Command and Conquer Games.
FFS, that such a stupid arguement.
-Neo
B.A.Baracus
05-10-2006, 3:43 PM
But Halo only has one sequall out. And thier never gonna stop making Mario games.
But Halo only has one sequall out. And thier never gonna stop making Mario games.
Uhm, halo has 2 sequals, or is this Halo 3 hype just rumours or something?
Final Fantasy is a name, nothing more. The different FFs are never direct sequals like Halo or Metroid games might be. The only exception was FFX-2, but even that wasn't a direct sequal -- it had a totally different gameplay to it from FFX.
The point being that complaining about "omg there are so many FFs why don't they stop" is a poor arguement.
Look at the other games that are popular:
Half Life (HL2)
Doom, 1 2 and 3, 4 now?
Quake 1, 2, 3, and 4 I believe.
Even Warcraft itself, there are what, 5 or 6 different warcrafts counting expansions? Not to mention WoW O_o!!
Hell, someday you might see an ad for Warcraft X =D
-Neo
B.A.Baracus
05-10-2006, 6:15 PM
I think that way because each sequel made after FF7 has significantly decreased in quality(save 10). They are currently trying to make money off of the name that 7 & 10 made for the franchise, I personally don’t think they care for the quality of the game as much as the revenue it produces. Every main character after FF7 was just a Cloud clone, and each game after 7 just copied off 7’s side characters too, that’s another reason why Im currently disappointed with the series. Does every FF game have to have the same basic characters?
-Cute ditsy girl who steals
-Cloud clone
-The token big titty girl
-The savage beast character
-The quite/shy healer that dates the main character
-The big jerk nobody likes
-And we cant forget the white haired villain
I know 7 got some of its charaters ideas from prior games, but they were origanal for the most part.
The list goes on, the only original character in FFX was Wakka, I couldn’t find a prior copy of him.
Sqare-Enix (is that their new name?) knows they will get away with making a few more shity games, because people will buy them regardless. Im guessing they will wait a few more sequels before making another good FF. All I ask is for original characters, and whatever or whomever they are, please no more anime hair.
Speaking of originality they should make a re-make of FF7 with better graphics, bigger world, and more side quests, now that would be cool, not original, but cool.
I think that way because each sequel made after FF7 has significantly decreased in quality(save 10). They are currently trying to make money off of the name that 7 & 10 made for the franchise, I personally don’t think they care for the quality of the game as much as the revenue it produces. Every main character after FF7 was just a Cloud clone, and each game after 7 just copied off 7’s side characters too, that’s another reason why Im currently disappointed with the series. Does every FF game have to have the same basic characters?
What the fuck? Cloud clone? Did you even played 8 or 9 through? What, did you see 9 and think "omg I can't do over 9999 damage so it sucks?~!?!?!?!"
Same basic characters? Thats a pretty funny.
-Cute ditsy girl who steals
Rikku? Yeah. Not in any of the ffs except X.
-Cloud clone
Point out who specifically, because cloud is a pretty specific character. Although they did seem to over play the whole reluctant hero bit (until 9 at least).
-The token big titty girl
Yeah. That was like 1, in seven actually. Have you even played the other FFs?
-The savage beast character
I wouldn't call Kimhari a savage. There were no beasts in 8 or 9, there was Umaro in 6, but in 4 and 5 there were people.
-The quite/shy healer that dates the main character
-The big jerk nobody likes
-And we cant forget the white haired villain
Except for the white haired villian (for some reason I think this is something to do with japanese) your points all revolve around FFX and 7.
I know 7 got some of its charaters ideas from prior games, but they were origanal for the most part.
The list goes on, the only original character in FFX was Wakka, I couldn’t find a prior copy of him.
Sqare-Enix (is that their new name?) knows they will get away with making a few more shity games, because people will buy them regardless. Im guessing they will wait a few more sequels before making another good FF. All I ask is for original characters, and whatever or whomever they are, please no more anime hair.
Speaking of originality they should make a re-make of FF7 with better graphics, bigger world, and more side quests, now that would be cool, not original, but cool.
... "speaking of originality... lets copy a game that was already made!!!"
Seriously man, go away.
8 had a fucking awesome storyline, if not annoying gameplay style (although I liked it).
9 went back to FF's "roots" so to say, and had some awesome character development.
10 went into some kind of wierd ass "Lets give gamers a movie!" or something. I swear, it was like playing a movie, with a few battles added here and there for fun.
10-2 was actually quite innovative in the sense that it was the first FF game to have a non-linear and mission based gameplay. Which I liked to some extent.
11 - not played it, don't intend to (MMORPGs = not for me).
12 looks promising, but I rarely read into/all about games before i get them. I've ruined a couple games and movies doing that.
You want to speak of a good FF? Final Fantasy 6 was probably the best in the series, even counting 7. But it was on the SNES, so not many people have played it. Not many people can get past its bad graphics either... but thats fine.
You are free to believe what you wish, but having only played FF7 and FFX (apparently) don't act as if you know every FF =/
-Neo
B.A.Baracus
05-10-2006, 6:32 PM
I havnt played 8 or 9 but I have played most of the ones prior to 7, exept maybe the very first and FF tactics.
You know your sig still bugs the crap outta me.
Its Maester, not Mayster =/
-Neo
B.A.Baracus
05-10-2006, 6:55 PM
You know your sig still bugs the crap outta me.
Its Maester, not Mayster =/
-Neo
My mistake:P
Sikawtic
05-10-2006, 7:33 PM
I <3 VII.
X was ok, but I didn't get into X-2. And I hate IX ... VIII was meh, but omg VII. I <3 it.
And those could be in-game... the PS3 is teh shit.
bah.
FFVII is overrated.
-Neo
Revelade
05-10-2006, 8:08 PM
My rant isn't particular on FF games, but RPGs in general. Yes, that means turn-based, real-time and such. Of course I'm not a hardcore RPG player, which means I don't know every battle system out there. However, from the games I've played, I've found patterns.
Enemy AI sucks. They do the same typical patterns again and again. The only reason they are challenging are their stats, which brings me to my next point.
Stats are fun to look at, but that's merely all you do. When you do an attack, you can't control exactly how that attack is done, other than choosing a target. This leads to boring gameplay where all you do is choose when and who to attack.
Another problem is that you can already decide who will win/lose based on stats. Let's say a level 3 potato fights a level 9 potato. C'mon now. But then say you have protoss cpu versus zerg cpu. 50/50 indeed.
I do like how RPGs are easy to play, which means learning curves aren't harder than choosing attack, watching or button mashing. However, I feel that it also limits the game too much.
In conclusion, I don't like games where (str, atk, def, etc.) attributes decide the battle. Either you have faster reflexes (CS, racing games), or you have great logical skills (chess, puzzle games). These games aren't as predictable in determining who will win.
I would direct you to low level games of almost every final fantasy out there, but then I would just assume you would ignore me.
Personally I think defeating FF6 with a level 1 character is pretty fucking hard.
I've found enemy AI has increased in recent FF's. Especially with the advent of specialized spells (ie: Reflect -- monsters will cast reflect on you and then reflect curing spells off you to heal themselves // cast reflect on themselves to cast offensive spells on you -- stuff like that).
And claiming RPGs are easy is kind of a strange statement. I don't really want to believe that you actually believe that, but I guess if you've not played many decent rpgs then you might feel that way :/
-Neo
They made one of the earlier ones for GBA, it may even have been VI...
I shall find my bro's GBA.
I suppose VII could be considered overrated, for a few reasons.
1. Films and stuff added on have hyped it up.
2. It's the one everyone is introduced through, it seems. It's the only one I've played, and not for long, but the story is sucking me in. even allowing me to ignore the fact the turn based battles are random and always when you least want them...
3. At the time, it was quite a graphical leap, I hear, and games can hook people with graphics. For example, if God of War looked awful would it have still got OPS2's attention? Would it balls.
4. Tifa :D
No, 6 isnt out on GBA, which is sad :(
Only 1 and 2, and 4. 3 is coming out for the DS (totally redone). 6 is *hopefully* coming out for the gba soon.
FF7 could be considered a graphical leap for its time... but not really. There were other games I think that did that better, especially on the PSOne.
-Neo
Sikawtic
05-11-2006, 7:55 PM
Revelade: Played Legend of Dragoon? Best. Attack. System. Ever. Although... the spell system sucks ass so it's a trade-off.
Revelade
05-11-2006, 8:28 PM
You mind describing it?
I once had a PS, but the only games I had were NFSIII, Gex: Enter the Gecko (puzzled faces on my friends after saying that) and... that's probably it.
My point is that I don't believe in the level system period. You get stronger, yet the enemies get stronger later, which means there's no point in getting stronger in the first place. Maybe it's to make first area enemies easier? Then do that. Weaken the enemies.
Many people seem to think that if you are good, the game should be a cakewalk. Why not have a system that has progressively harder enemies as you level on? This might sound basic in the world of RPGs, but apply it to say FPS games.
Player 1 is pro awper. He can take out half of the other team. Say you add a system that weakens him. While he might argue that he should be rewarded for being good, teh rest of the players get a fair game and he still gets a challenge.
Look at Mario Kart. Top racers get ass items, ass players get top items. Sound fishy? Maybe, but it works.
Hmm... so what's the point of my post?
From my limited viewpoint of RPGs, FF7, FF:CC, X-men Legends, Gauntlet Legends, Diablo 2, gameplay depends on statistics, which isn't something you can control at the moment. It just comes down to whoever slaved their life fighting stupid monsters wins (which I guess is fair because I wouldn't want to do it for hours).
Other games like FPSs challenge reflexes, while games like chess challenge strategical thinking. These are dependent on the player because he controls the outcome of the game, not his stats.
Of course you could argue that RPGs require decision making as well such as choosing from attack, magic, run, item, etc, but then the problem leads to the AI or innate statistics. That means if he's an ice creature, you use a fire attack. He can't change who he is, therefore you can take advantage of that.
Or better yet, put yourself in the ice monsters position. What would you do? You would obviously choose the choice that's best suited for your survival. In that case, run.
Basically, I want a game that's fun to play as both sides in a conflict and that outcomes can not be predicted, meaning each side has a 50/50 to win.
When I think of RPGs I think of myself mowing down orcs, a little down time for healing and repeating on and on and on... Even if there is a good plot, the gameplay makes me focus on leveling or finding the super-rare-xxx item.
A good example of a game I could stand is Killer 7. While the gameplay does have stupid AI enemies, there is leveling and some puzzle elements, these are very easy to do, therefore I was allowed to analyze the story, which in turn pressed me to endure these tasks to learn more.
I guess I wasn't arguing anything other than I find the RPGs that I've played repetitive because enemy AI is limited, predictable and fixed. Perhaps I have specialized tastes.
I don't mean to be rude, but with your limited view on RPGs its not really fair of you to make sweeping comments llike that =/
There are games like FF8 where the monsters level up *with* you so as you get stronger, so do the monsters.
There are also games like FFX where the monsters are harder and harder (ie: many people when climbing the Moutain get stuck at Seymour) almost impossibly so if your not prepared.
There are plenty of RPGs that need to be thought out (ie: your chess example) as you progress. Some even include puzzles and the like (an older example would be Zelda a Link to the Past) so to act as if RPG's take no skill // are to easy // etc... is just really lame =/
Forgive me for not enjoying a game that relies solely on reflexes and cheap shots.
-Neo
xodkrm
05-12-2006, 9:43 PM
They should stop making:
Zelda Games.
Metroid Games.
Halo Games.
Command and Conquer Games.
-Neo
/agreed.
all those games suck ass
Sikawtic
05-13-2006, 1:59 AM
In dragoon there was addition systems, each character could learn 0(the archer characters... should still have it imo (there's an archer you fight in the arena's who has very addition-like attacks :/) to 7 (main character) each one differing in amounts of additions you have to complete, and speed/timing of each addition.
What is an addition? well you will only strike once, but as your strike hits, a box flies towards a smaller box on the screen, if you hit the x button at the right time, you get to hit them again. Only by mastering the attack can you do the most damage with your character.
Also, I can think of 2 big "reality check" bosses who you can drift up to... and get totally anihilated by. Meaning you have to spend hours training just to beat them.
Man oh man... they need a LoD sequel :(
Darkslayer633
05-14-2006, 10:42 PM
ok i dont understand something. if the game is called "final fantasy" why are there 12 sequels? shouldnt it be called "never ending fantasy"?
its called final fantasy, because at the games creation square was going under and the origional final fantasy was their last attempt at a hit game that would keep them around.
Demon_Child
05-14-2006, 11:17 PM
Bingo. Back then the RPG genre'd games at the time of Final Fantasy's release had been dominant by Squaresoft's rival in the RPG game development, Enix. Enix, and their Dragon Quest series had the most firm grip on the RPG market. And Squaresoft's answer to that was a last ditch effort in an RPG titled (you guessed it) Final Fantasy at the latter part of 1987.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.