Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Chat With the Final Fantasy XIII Team

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the drink-lots-of-potions dept.

56

1up's Shane Bettenhausen had the chance to sit down for a chat with the team behind FFXIII. They discuss the multiple versions of the games planned, the character of the title's heroine, the futuristic setting, and just a little bit about the game's battle system. From the article: "At first sight, it might seem like an action game, but FFXIII inherits the long tradition of the numbered FF games, which is the active-time battle command system. We are trying to use a similar system to what you've seen, but the major difference is that the battle will be speeded up considerably. In the past, you had to wait to input commands, but our goal here is to reduce that waiting time as much as possible, so that the battles are greatly speeded up."

cancel ×

56 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I have a question... (-1, Redundant)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495824)

When will it really be the Final Fantasy?

Re:I have a question... (3, Informative)

Xylaan (795464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495856)

Actually, the name 'Final Fantasy' is because it was expected to be the last thing Hironobu Sakaguchi would be creating before retirement, as well as possible Square's final game. However, its immense popularity created sequels, and the rest is history [wikipedia.org] .

How can the FIRST response get scored Redundant? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495867)

How can the FIRST response get scored "Redundant"?

Re:How can the FIRST response get scored Redundant (2, Informative)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495884)

because people who dont understand what "Final" in final fantasy means keep asking the same thing

Re:How can the FIRST response get scored Redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15496144)

Because every Final Fantasy thread includes an obligatory "How can it really be FINAL fantasy if blah blah" question and an obligatory "Actually here's the explanation" response. Both comments are redundant. (Mine is just off topic.)

Re:How can the FIRST response get scored Redundant (1)

lpcustom (579886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496463)

I believe your comment is redundant as well.
Beside's everyone knows FFVII was THE final fantasy to end all final fantasy....yet they keep making them.

Re:I have a question... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15496057)

Whenever people realize that playing the 13th version of the same system is just stupid, even if it's "speeded up" and has even more impressive cutscenes. Maybe they should just try making a movie and forget the game.

Oh, wait, THEY DID. And it BOMBED, forcing Squaresoft to sell to Enix.

I'm sure, eventually, people will figure out that playing the same game with 13 different "back stories" is pointless, and we will see the final Final Fantasy. I'm hoping that when the Wii dominates the PS3, we'll finally see the final Final Fantasy, and console RPGs can move on past being pointless battle simulators. Oblivion should be the standard, not the exception.

Re:I have a question... (0, Flamebait)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496159)

Allow me to translate for you:

...playing the 13th version of the same system is just stupid, even if it's "speeded up" and has even more impressive cutscenes.
You're all stupid for playing this game!

I'm hoping that when the Wii dominates the PS3...
I'm a fanboy!

Oblivion should be the standard, not the exception.
Someone made a good game, so now we should all clone THAT game instead! Then, ten years from now, we'll bitch about Oblivion clones!

Now, for the record, I don't play video games much at all these days. When I do, it's usually sitting in my friend's living room. However, when I do play, I enjoy Halo 2 just as much as Warcraft III and just as much as any Final Fantasy. Are you telling me that I'm an idiot because I will enjoy playing FFXIII? Or better yet, are you telling Sony that they're stupid for making a 13th (14th) game whose predecessors have broken sales records?

I think you're an anti-Sony or anti-FF fanboy and you don't care what the game has, you just want to see it burn. Don't criticize a game before it's even released.

Re:I have a question... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15496271)

It's the 13th version of the same game. It'll have HD graphics. That's it. Yeah, if you're looking forward to FF13, you're stupid. Fact of life.

Someone made a good game, so now we should all clone THAT game instead! Then, ten years from now, we'll bitch about Oblivion clones!

Where did I say they should clone Oblivion? Oblivion is an actual role playing game. You create a character and then play through the world however you choose.

Square-Enix makes rail-playing games. You unlock crappy cutscenes via completing various tasks in their battle-simulator. There's no role playing involved at all, no strategy, and very little thought. It's practically passive entertainment.

If creating open-ended gameplay is "cloning" Oblivion, then yes, people should clone Oblivion. The fast the rail-playing game genre dies, the better off gaming will be.

Are you telling me that I'm an idiot because I will enjoy playing FFXIII?

Yes. Yes I am. You're an idiot because you will enjoy playing the same gameplay that has existed for the past 20 years, with the only change being that it'll be high-def.

When Squaresoft tried to make a movie based on Final Fantasy, it completely bombed. That should give you an indication of just how great the stories are in the Final Fantasy games. Combined with boring, pointless, and above all stupid gameplay, Final Fantasy has absolutely nothing going for it.

If you enjoy playing it, you're an idiot. If sheep would stop playing the stupid games, they wouldn't be breaking sales records.

Wake up! You're not a little kid anymore. You don't have to "play" non-interactive games any more.

Re:I have a question... (4, Insightful)

joystickgenie (913297) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497119)

So you're saying that you don't like final fantasy sequels so everyone should play the 4th iteration of elder scrolls. Why is a sequel of one so much better then a sequel of another?

Both games are good they are just for different audiences. From my point of view I actually hate open ended game. To me when a developer says they are making an open ended game they mean they are making a game completely devoid of plot.

Why is it everyone should want to play a game where you get to do nothing of any importance, your character doesn't matter and the world stays completely stagnant no matter what. Why do you have the have a choice in everything that happens in a game? Why are your ideas only the good ones? Are the only good books "choose your own adventure" books? Or are those too rail based for you as well?

Wake up! You're not a little kid anymore. The world doesn't revolve around you. Other people ideas and stories to tell, listening to them may be entertaining and beneficial to you. Entertainment has been long dominated by non interactive story telling. Theater, movies, books, and music are all non interactive mediums with interactive counterparts but the non interactive part of it has always been more popular.

Bringing the final fantasy movie into this is completely irrelevant too. The final fantasy move was nothing like any of the game. It was its own work. I think the only reason they game it that name is because the marketing department said it would be a good idea. If they just called it "the spirit within" I don't think it would have had nearly as bad of a reputation.

I will say that RPG is the not the correct term to call a final fantasy game or any other the others like it. They are interactive stories. But for a long time now they have been called RPGs and RPG when talking about video games does not mean the same thing as RPG when referring to pen and paper games so I'll keep referring the them as such.

Re:I have a question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15497528)

Oh, WTF, why did this get modded up?!

From my point of view I actually hate open ended game. To me when a developer says they are making an open ended game they mean they are making a game completely devoid of plot.

So, what was the plot in Super Mario Brothers? In Super Smash Brothers? In Pac-Man? Games don't need a plot. If you want something with a plot, trying watching a movie or reading a book.

Why is it everyone should want to play a game where you get to do nothing of any importance, your character doesn't matter and the world stays completely stagnant no matter what.

Good question, why would anyway want to play Final Fantasy? Because nothing really changes throughout those games. You have zero impact on the world. You have zero impact on the way your character evolves.

Are the only good books "choose your own adventure" books? Or are those too rail based for you as well?

No, dipshit, "choose your own adventure" books are kind of like Final Fantasy: both use the wrong media for what they're attempting. Final Fantasy is, effectively, a graphical "choose your own adventure" book - just without the "choose" part. A book isn't interactive. Games are supposed to be interactive - that's the entire point to a game! If the game isn't going to be interactive like, say, Final Fantasy, it might as well be a movie.

Theater, movies, books, and music are all non interactive mediums

The plural of "medium" is "media", and no kidding. A GAME, unlike those, is supposed to be interactive . When you play a game, you're supposed to play a game. Final Fantasy misses that part.

Bringing the final fantasy movie into this is completely irrelevant too.

No, it's not. The Final Fantasy movie was literally all Final Fantasy cutscenes with no non-interactive "game" section. It demonstrated quite clearly how crappy the Final Fantasy stories are. It's entirely relevant because it demonstrates perfectly how the Final Fantasy games are nothing more than long, boring, movies - just for consoles. They're not games, and anyone who thinks they are is, by definition, an idiot.

(I hate this stupid new CSS crap, it messes up "plain old text" so that the only way to get quotes to inline properly is to use "HTML Formatted" with blockquotes. I shouldn't have to manually format my post with HTML to make it look right.)

Re:I have a question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15514036)

Why do you employ a universal definition of what games are "supposed to" be like beyond what people find fun to play? Some people like games with extensive plot - some people find that all the hype about "deep" interactivity in game development today takes too much away from plot. Who are you to tell them what kind of games they are "supposed to" enjoy?

Re:I have a question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15497568)

When Squaresoft tried to make a movie based on Final Fantasy, it completely bombed. That should give you an indication of just how great the stories are in the Final Fantasy games. Combined with boring, pointless, and above all stupid gameplay, Final Fantasy has absolutely nothing going for it.


Like any game base movie had success.

Speeded up? (1)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495842)

FFX-2 had battles that were so "speeded up" that they felt like... just a mess. I haven't gone past the first mission.

Are folks really so impatient that waiting a few seconds to input a command is just intolerable? I fire up FFIV-FFVI from time to time and just tool around in the battle system--I _enjoyed_ the old turn based system. Hell, the FFX system wasn't so bad, either. I guess they're trying to cut out either the "random battle" syndrome or just make them as "painless" as possible.

(Don't pin me as too slow to keep up, either. I've held my own in FPS since Quake.)

Re:Speeded up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15496072)

Are folks really so impatient that waiting a few seconds to input a command is just intolerable?

One of the biggest complaints about Final Fantasy VIII [amazon.com] was that summons took forever. They were a major part of the game, one couldn't do without them, and it was just the exact same animation over and over. Long battles can be interesting if the animation is varied, if the unexpected can occur, but since in a Final Fantasy game one gets in hundreds of battles, it would be a lot of work for the producers to come up with enough different scenes for the player to stay interested.

I really wish there were battles nowadays where you could just tape down a button [gamespot.com] , go to sleep, and wake up to find you've reached a very high level, as in Final Fantasy VI (III in the U.S.)

.

Re:Speeded up? (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496550)

FFVIII summons were only a major part of the game for people who didn't understand the battle system. The real high damage/second was from limit breaks.

FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (2, Interesting)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496179)

FFX almost perfected the active-time battle system in my opinion. It kept the order of initiative preserved, kept you from getting pounded on if you needed to dig into the menus (which I hate), and allowed you to pound away as fast as you could select actions. FFX was just smooth.

The only was ATB could be made better is to eliminate any need to dig into menus without getting rid of the pretty. I wish FF XIII luck, but I'm not sure I like where the series is going with FF XII in terms of control schema.

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (2, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496334)

FFX didn't use Active Time Battle, it used a turn based system...

Yes, FFX's system was better than ATB is, because you don't have any pointless pauses while waiting for bars to fill, turns just occur in order and the action only stops to allow the player to select a new command. However this new system isn't the turn based system FFX used. The interview doesn't give enough information to say more than that, though.

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496605)

Yes, FFX's system was better than ATB is, because you don't have any pointless pauses while waiting for bars to fill,

Nit: you did have pointless pauses between turns. In specially constructed situations, you can end up waiting longer than you would in an ATB game at even slow speed. It's just that the pause is very short during normal gameplay, so short that you didn't even notice. :) And I like CTB more than ATB myself too.

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496820)

Well, compare it with FFIX where the ATB bars usually filled faster than the attack queue cleared so it was effectively turnbased and your actions took forever to resolve. Not good if you fill your bar, select heal and by the time it's that character's turn the target is long dead.

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

truedfx (802492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496976)

Indeed. I did say I was nit-picking. :)

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497614)

FFX didn't use Active Time Battle, it used a turn based system...

It sort of used both. It used the same basic algorithm as the Active Time Battle, it's just that instead of rolling the clock along once your turn arrives, it stops and lets you select your action, and allows you to see the order of actions assuming all future turns are a basic attack.

With this system, you can actually see whether, for instance, your "delay attack" attack is worth firing, because when you point it at a monster you can see its turn being affected (assuming it connects, although in FF it pretty much always does during normal play). Sometimes it would delay the turn but it would still go before your characters anyhow, which you can see if you read the bars correctly.

It's not a straight turn-based system; this is why it's possible for one character to go twice in a row, for instance, or why every time your Summon fought another Summon, when you used your (forget the exact term) mega-attack you got whacked about three times in a row by the other summon before you got another turn.

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497793)

That's still turn based - turn based doesn't mean "everyone picks an action and they all resolve," it means "based on turns" and in FFX's case, each "turn" only one participant got to take an action.

It's essentially Final Fantasy Tactic's "charge" system (in fact, I think FFX called their system "Charge Time Battle" or something weird like that) - each participant in the battle takes a turn, and then has to recharge a "charge" count based on their speed. The character with the lowest "charge" count goes next. So characters with high recharges would get to go more often than other characters. (Making Haste fun.)

Unlike FFT, actions occured immediately - in FFT, actions also had to be "charged" before occuring. Most actions "charged" fast enough that they occured immediately after the character received a turn, but some took longer. However, in FFX, actions could have longer recharge times, making a character have to recharge longer after certain actions - which is why using a Summons limit would cause them to allow opponents to get in several attacks before they were ready again.

In any case, it's still turn based - not pseudo-real time like Active Time Battle is. Once a character was charged in ATB, other characters kept on charging. A character only actually performed an action after the action was selected - so if you didn't do anything, your characters would still be attacked, in "Active Time."

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498046)

That's a great post, but while it's quite clear to me you think you were disagreeing with me somehow, I can't actually find the point of disagreement.

Perhaps you don't understand the "sort of" in "sort of used both"? Obviously it's a turn based system, duh. But it has a lot in common with the active time system, too, and tactically it's better understood as a frozen ATB system with no action delays than the older, simpler round-based systems; manipulating your opponents turn has no equivalent in those round-based systems and that's a qualitative difference.

There isn't the binary distinction you think there is; it's a continuum with the old-style "one-round, one-turn" system of yore near one end and the Grandia II-style system near the other (which actually takes the system a step further by adding positions in, although it sounds likely that FFXII will that too).

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498015)

FFX's battle system was functionally identical to standard ATB with the option (available in all ATB-using FF games) to have the clock pause when your turn came up.

This is the mode in which I always play FF games because I hate being pressured by the clock. I play RPGs tactically and not as an exercise in speed and reflexes, so to me FFX was the perfection of how I play the ATB system.

Re:FFX almost perfected the ATB system. (1)

Volvogga (867092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498235)

FFX almost perfected the active-time battle system in my opinion.

Well, I know it's been said already, but I figure I'll add my 2 cents in. I really, really disliked FFX's battle system. I can't argue with much of what you said. It was well written for what it was, and it did seem to run pretty smooth, but I don't think it's like the ATB at all. At least not if you play a Final Fantasy game with ATB set to... was it called active? Well, the setting that isn't 'Wait'.

I liked having to input my commands quickly, and if I was indicisive, I paid for it with the monster getting an extra hit or two in. I never knew when he was going to strike, and what magnitude that the attack would be. I may run the battle all the way through, or halfway through it I may need to rappidly find a new strategy. My infromation was kind of limited... I liked that.

I thought that FFX kind of killed that for me. I knew exactly how things would effect the enimey, and I could sit there and test out different attacks and see what they would do without actually doing them. Then you got the fact that you can sub characters, and that made it all the less chalenging. I could put in a bunch of heavy hitters, then when a big attack hit, throw in the healers, heal, take them back out and put the damage masters back in. At least that's how it played to me. I thought it was too easy, to sum it up. Didn't challenge me enough.

At the same time, I could take the Grandia series's battle system for an example. That one shows the action times of the enimies and the characters action times like FFX does, and you cause serious time effects to your enimies with certian types of attacks. However, you had to be pretty good at figguring out the timings it took to do such things. Also, it was kind of a sacrifice to perform time and status attacks damage wise, more so than FFX anyway.

So while FFX-2 may not have been as clever a game as FFX in so many ways, I still had more fun with it gamplay wise than FFX. Put some of the challenge back.

If this team that is working on FFXIII want to try to give me a system that will challenge my reflexes as much as my stratigic abilities, I'm all for letting them try. It will certianly be interesting... whether it is gold or pure crap.

Re:Speeded up? (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498032)

None of the battle systems bothered me except Final Fantasy. Holy crap was that slow! How my brother got through playing that game on the nintendo at the age of 14, I'll never know. I beat it on an emulator but that's only because I played that battles at 4x speed.

It was like this:

First player-character attack animation.
Wait 3 seconds...
DLDO does 3 dmg to IMP
Wait 3 seconds...
Second player-character attack animation.
Wait 3 seconds...
WHOR does 8 dmg to IMP
Wait 2 seconds...
IMP perishes.
Wait 2 seconds.
BTCH casts FIR3.
Wait 3 seconds.
Spell animation
Wait 10 seconds for each of the 8 imps to die.

Don't even get me started when each character gains a level. And giving the characters immature names is only entertaining for the first 10 or so battles.

After the first 10 or so battles... (1)

Dorceon (928997) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498118)

...you wish you had named everyone the same as the villain (Kefka, Sephiroth, or what have you) to make the conversations more interesting. (C'mon Sephiroth, we have to go rescue Sephiroth from Sephiroth! et al.)

Re:Speeded up? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15498379)

Final Fantasy has a battle speed manipulator built right in. At the title screen you could pick anywhere from 1-8. It just defaulted to 1 so anyone could read the slow text. At 8 most battles are over in 10 seconds. Not to mention this is the case in pretty much all square games. They just don't always make it obvious that you can speed up the battles.

1980's-style turn-based interface = "active"? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495847)

"...but FFXIII inherits the long tradition of the numbered FF games, which is the active-time battle command system..."

I think that's the first time I've heard FF's 1980's-style turn-based interface described as "active".

Re:1980's-style turn-based interface = "active"? (3, Informative)

snarlydwarf (532865) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495950)

Really? Because they were called that in the games themselves.

FF6, for example, wasn't properly turn-based: each character had a timer on when their next action could be done. if you sat and did nothing, the mobs would still attack, while each of your characters was ready.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Time_Battle and note that this was even used in ChronoTrigger, another SNES title.

This has been in most of the numbered FF's since FF4. Even FFXI is basically the same thing, though you don't need to choose 'Attack' specifically, the concept of attack speed and delay is integral to the mechanics.

Admittedly FF1-3 were turn based, but FF4 did start a "long tradition" of Active Battle System.

Re:1980's-style turn-based interface = "active"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15496254)

Shhh! ...

You mustn't disturb the yung'uns...

We gotta keep the whole "There was nothing in Final Fantasy before FF7" conspiracy going.

Don't even mention C-T, or S-O-M, if you know what I mean.

Quiet down!

Re:1980's-style turn-based interface = "active"? (1)

th1ckasabr1ck (752151) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495953)

The original Final Fantasy had strict turn-based battles. Later games used "Active Time Battles" [wikipedia.org] which gave each character the ability to act when their time-based gauge filled up. The "turns" were based per character and not based on your entire party.

Re:1980's-style turn-based interface = "active"? (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495991)

I find it so funny reading this comment right after reading a comment about someone wondering why todays players are so impatient as to suck all the fun out of the games by making them faster and faster pace, even when there is no need to or rather the system its based on actually makes you not want to because it loses the whole meaning of the game.

For example, fast pace battles in a game intended to be based on the slow pen and paper turn based system, the whole point of Final Fantasy (a D&D clone)

Well I guess we have the traditional play in Dragon Quest now for those people who want a throwback to better days.

Back to the roots (1)

scrabbleguy (980944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495914)

It's good to hear that FFXIII is going back to the roots with their battle system and not going along the same route as XII. Granted, we haven't received the game yet but the demo of XII really turned me off.
XIII is starting to sound like a game I'll enjoy. Of course, I still don't like the idea of announcing three of them at once. If I have to buy and play all three to get the complete story then I won't be a happy camper.

Modern Final Fantasys (0, Flamebait)

Supersonic1425 (903823) | more than 8 years ago | (#15495980)

I really miss the old settings of the pre FFVII games. Bring back the epic tales of knights and castles, and leave the dull Blade Runner-esque cities to lesser games, I say.

"the numbered FF games?" (1)

jbellis (142590) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496060)

Does he really mean, "All the mainline FF games?" Or did he leave off the word "odd?"

(Honestly curious; I've just played FFVII, which was ATB, and FFX, which was not, as I understand the term. So odd-numbered would fit my two data points.)

--
Carnage Blender [carnageblender.com] : Meet interesting people. Kill them.

Re:"the numbered FF games?" (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496854)

1-3 and 10 were turn based, the rest uses that combination of the worst aspects of realtime and turnbased called "Active Time Battle".

Re:"the numbered FF games?" (1)

bunbuntheminilop (935594) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498836)

Are you guys sure? FF10 had a display on the right hand side that shows who was attacking and in what order, so even though the actual time wasn't shown, it was surely implied.

Re:"the numbered FF games?" (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15500157)

All TBS games with per-unit turn orders (as opposed to per-side) use that. The difference to ATB is that with ATB the game doesn't pause during the turns and if you're too slow while giving out orders the enemy might act before you do. Sure, in effect it's the same as ATB if you had superhuman reflexes that allow you to choose the action within a few frames (the stop ATB option does not stop the ATB bars in he first menu you see) and there was no delay between order and execution (when an attack animation is playing the other characters have to queue up their actions but ATB bars keep filling, most noticeable in FF9) so the time between attacks remains constant.

Blast from the Past. (1)

RoffleTheWaffle (916980) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496065)

We already had something like a high-speed Final Fantasy. Who here remembers Seiken Densetsu 3? Who here remembers just how well that actually worked, how it took place in real time, how you could quickly switch between characters to control them so you could micromanage battles, or how you could program the AI of your other characters to make them behave a certain way in battle to automate the process, and how easy it was to access items and magic in battle? It was pleasantly un-nightmarish while being fast paced and highly intuitive, unlike what FFXIII is looking to be at this point.

Meanwhile, somewhere, somebody on a Square Enix design team is scraping the bottom of a barrel labeled 'Creativity' with a rusty spoon... The line how they want to essentially make the female lead a 'female version of Cloud' really got me. Just let the series fucking rest until you come up with some good ideas, okay?

I loved those games. (1)

Mustang Matt (133426) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496128)

The American release was called Secret of Mana. I played a translated version of Seiken Densetsu 3 (Secret of Mana 2 I believe?) on an emulator and it was fantastic as well.

One of the coolest features of this game is that it was multiplayer. Someone could pick up the second controller and take control of one of the toons.

Re:Blast from the Past. (1)

ralph alpha (956305) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496141)

You must have missed Seiken Densetsu 4 at E3.

Re:Blast from the Past. (2, Insightful)

NATIK (836405) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496267)

I dont trust AI, I want to micromanage everything in a game, I practically only play turn based games, so I have time to do everything I want to and not have something disrupt me. This is one of the reasons I have always loved Final Fantasy, I want to be able to leave the game to itself in the middle of a combat situation and come back to the exact same screen.

I am saddened by all these gamers and developers shouting "REALTIME FTW" all the time as there are some people like me who detest realtime gaming.

Re:Blast from the Past. (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496309)

Actually, if you want to go for the best high-speed battle system that Square's put out, I'd have to vote for Kingdom Hearts II. I'm not generally a fan of real-time RPG combat systems, but KH2 is a pure joy to play and get a lot of incredibly flashy mileage out of 4 buttons. It's extremely pretty and fun.

(I do love Seiken Densetsu 2 & 3, by the way, but KH2 is just so over the top.)

Re:Blast from the Past. (1)

Pzychotix (949807) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498666)

You mean a lot of flashy mileage out of two buttons. Jump. Attack. And maybe the random reaction command.

Just end it already. (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496240)

I think it's time to put the Final Fantasy series to rest. This one is going to be more of the same with fancier graphics. But it's still got the same tired gameplay, the same kind of over-used storyline and the same types of whiny, troubled characters.

The Final Fantasy games were good, but not after having been redone for the hundredth time.

They should just do one spectacular finale and leave it at that. Call it The True Final Fantasy.

Re:Just end it already. (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497001)

More of the same? What's always been great about the Final Fantasy series was that it never stopped evolving. Turn based turned to ATB turned to Gambit. Buying spells at shops turned to jobs turned to espers turned to materia turned to draw/junction turned to spheres. Settings are wildly different.

Honestly, if you take away chocobos, moogles, and Cid and change the names of the games, you couldn't even tell they were a series. They'd just be extremely-good JRPGs.

Re:Just end it already. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497244)

You do realize they sell these things is droves everytime they release it right? They're not going to stop making them because they, as proud artists, feel it's time to put the idea to rest. So long as it generates profit (and with Final Fantasy we're talking a LOT of profit), they'll continue to make them. I'd be willing to bet that they'll start to remake some of the older ones too. Why? Because people will buy them.

Re:Just end it already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15497457)

And the same old pretty good success.

A 60 hours game playable a hundredth time before becoming boring gives about 6000hours. I'd say it's a lot of hours

Re:Just end it already. (1)

ral8158 (947954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15498069)

Have you even played them? It's unfair to go into Final Fantasy games and try and compare them to the earlier ones, they are COMPLETELY different. And tons of people still like Final Fantasy.

Re:Just end it already. (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 8 years ago | (#15499749)

Ya, I can see it now...

`Sir, market analysis shows that the Final Fantasy series continues to be a major hit, with demand still high. Although releasing one would help make us all richer, I feel we should stop making them cuz... uh... 12+ is enough!`

Vastly Different (1)

Nazmun (590998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15503382)

The games are vastly different anyway. Going from FF7 to FF10 and unless you know the names of the games, you'd never know that they were by the same company.

FFVersusXIII (1)

Kesch (943326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15496302)

Screw FFXII(I'm a turn-based fan myself. Long live FFX.). I want to know what this FFVersusXII thing is. There is a total void of information on it. The only thing that is stated is that Tetsuya Nomura (Kingdom Hearts and Advent Children) is leading the project. Just hearing that makes me salivate. Supposedly it will run parallel to the FFXII world and the "versus" in the title means something about changing directions. All very cryptic; all very exciting.

I didn't know it was possible to get excited about the FFXII suite of games before FFXII has even hit American shores, but it's happening!

At least there aren't gambits (1)

Gnostic Ronin (980129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497463)

I'm glad they're going with ATB. The gambit thing is just retarded. Imagine battles soooo lame that even the designer doesn't want you to have to play them. That's my take of gambits. It's like having a platform game with jumps that the game designer hates and thinks are waay too boring. So the cheap and easy solution is to give the player the ability to program the computer to *jump for them*.

No, it's retarded. People pick RPGs for the strategic combat and the story -- or at least that's why I do. So if your combat is so dumbed down that it seems like auto-battle (esp. as the default option) is a good idea -- fix the friggin' combat. Make it hard enough that the player wants to play the combat. Make the combat fun. Do the work rather than trying to hide behind an automated system. I play games to play them, not to watch as AI fights for me.

Hopefully, we'll never be subjected to auto-battleH^H^H^H^H^Gambits again.

Versus was coming to 360? (1)

OK PC (857190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15497623)

Yoshinori Kitase: Initially, we were thinking about making FFXIII on PS2 and FFVersusXIII on a next-gen platform.

Do you think they meant the 360 by the "next gen platform"? It's not like them to be coy, why didn't they just say PS3? In fact in the next sentence they say

But we altered that plan and decided to make both titles on PlayStation 3.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?