Final Fantasy?

[Squeek]

Re: Final Fantasy?

...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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

...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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

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.

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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Final fantasy 7 ps1 is total win

[Squeek]

Re: Final Fantasy?

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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

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]

Re: Final Fantasy?

We all thought 8 looked brilliant.

Then we played it.

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

[xealix]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Yes that is very true XII was not that great, but it was not horrible just new to the series, and i feel that is probably something we will have to get used to. Also it is true that just cause i game looks great it can be misleading, but square still has much more info on the game to release.

[Ultimate fighter v2]

Re: Final Fantasy?

Hmm, interesting thread. Honestly, I've played FF I-VII, IX-X and I must say that the only games that stuck out were VI and X. Final Fantasy X was truly one of the best games of all time IMO. That being said, I felt more like I was watching a really well-done movie than playing a game. The cinematics were beautiful, and in terms of graphics, they are on par with modern day gaming.