Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Square, FFXI, and the MMORPG 233

Posted by CmdrTaco from the games-people-play-together dept.
LukeG writes "Squaresoft's latest instalment in the ubiquitous Final Fantasy series will mark huge departure from previous titles, as they gamble on the popularity of massively multiplayer gaming on consoles. The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2." I'm interested to see the FF world taken to an MMORPG. If anyone can make the genre not suck, it's Square.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Square, FFXI, and the MMORPG More

Square, FFXI, and the MMORPG

Comments Filter:

  • Eh? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 )


    I don't get it. How final is a fantasy when there are dozen of them?

    Cheers, :)

    • Funny.. (Score:2, Informative)

      by ackthpt ( 218170 )
      I got modded as flaimbait when I asked same question at introduction of FFX.

      Looks like a nice game and Online play should be a big draw. My only concern is something my nephew drew to my attention in Ultima Online, that it's extremely difficult to get started unless you play relentlessly and have patience for being robbed frequently. Hopefully they'll have some method of protection for newbies, or robbery more difficult.

    • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ProfKyne ( 149971 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:17PM (#2793849)

      I don't get it. How final is a fantasy when there are dozen of them?

      Taken from www.videogames.com, here is the origin of the name "Final Fantasy". [videogames.com]

      Sometime in 1987, a small Japanese publishing company named Square Co. LTD. was in desperate need of a hit. Until this point, Square had mostly published smaller games for the Famicom Disk system. The titles sold respectably, but the modest installed base of Famicom Disk systems made blockbuster status an elusive goal. Hironobu Sakaguchi had an idea: why not create a game similar to competitor Enix's Dragon Quest? The console RPG was a big hit with gamers, and Sakaguchi thought that Square could significantly improve upon the basic formula. Thus work began on a massive one-megabit cartridge role-playing game that would attempt to revolutionize the genre. All of Square's resources, dreams, and hopes were placed on this single game. If it failed, Square would be no more. The project, as Square's final gasp, was given the name "Final Fantasy."

  • Eh... (Score:2, Redundant)

    by piecewise ( 169377 )
    Final Fantasy has, over the years, become a bit stale. I suppose it can be expected ten or however many sequels later.

    Multiplayer would be great, though. It would really let the game shine. Let's hope they can get it right the first time, though. I'm looking forward to other multiplayer games, though. Being able to hook up my PS2 (which I just bought and love) to a multiplayer version of Sega NFL 2K2. Network playoffs! Awesome! WarCraft III for PS2! ;-)

    Still.. one problem remains. I can't get cable modem service where I live! So i suppose it's all for nothing. I doubt these games would play all that great over some 56K hookup, and I do NOT put up with lag. It ruins the experience.

    We'll see what happens, but for now, I just don't care because the technology isn't accessible anyway.

    • Re:Eh... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dkemist ( 199970 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @11:53AM (#2793793)
      Doesn't your post contradict itself? "I suppose it can be expected ten or however many sequels later." -- Then you go on to talk about Sega NFL 2k2 which really doesn't qualify as a sequel -- it's the same game updated with graphics and players each year.

      Personally, I think one of the best things about the final fantasy series is that they keep the same basic playing feel and keep adding interesting twists. The materia system in FF7 was great and added a whole new dimension of strategy. I'm just started on FF10, but I already think the sphere grid level system is a great enhancement. Far from being sequels (the plots are unrelated) I think the final fantasy series takes a good game engine and keeps updating it with new concepts and new options. I'm already looking forward to a multiplayer version.
      • Sports games are different, there's only so far you can go in the way of "new features." But the graphics continue to improve, gameplay in 2K2 is really great, it's fast, it's fun. There are improvements that are made. Just compare them to PS1 football games. ;-)

        Anyway, the thing you love best about FF, I hate the most. My whole problem with FF is that they DO keep everything basically the same, and these "interesting twists" simply aren't enough to keep me playing for another six sequels.

        They ARE sequels, contrary to what you say. The game engines are very much related, if not the same, the graphics are the same (though improving based ont he console), and the gameplay is very similar. Changing up characters and the plot doesn't make it a new, unique game, when you feel like despite such changes, you're sitll playing the same game.

        Nevertheless, I do have respect for Square.. because despite the fact I no longer like the game at all, they are extremely successful and should continue to be. Just cause ONE of their customers (me) so far has defected doesn't really matter. :-)
        • They ARE sequels, contrary to what you say. The game engines are very much related, if not the same, the graphics are the same (though improving based ont he console), and the gameplay is very simila

          So, Quake and Halflife, Deus Ex and Unreal, Quake 3 and Alice, Quake 2 and Daikatana, Quake 2 and Anachronix are each the same game?

        • Well, at least in the NHL hockey series (the only one I play), the AI continues to get better and better and gameplay more and more realistic. NHL 2002 rocks (if you don't play the stupid NHL cards, which I don't). It's a VASTLY better game than even a few iterations ago.

        • Re:Eh... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by zeno_2 ( 518291 )
          Yea, I would have to agree with you.

          I LOVED final fantasy 1 for NES. There was really not many games like that, and I just was hooked. Being able to take your basic warrior, and when he got to a certain point, give him a new job as like a paladin was great.

          Final Fantasy 2 was great also, as well as Final Fantasy 3, each of them had the same basic game, but new story and whatnot. Back then, they had to depend on this story, character development, gameplay, and whatever else to keep people hooked. The graphics were just there to portray the above.

          Next, in the US at least, came Final Fantasy 7. First FF game (in the us at least) that was on a non-nintendo console. They put this game on the new bad boy of the block, the playstation. This is when I started to not like Final Fantasy. It seemed to me in this game that they were using graphics as the main hook to get people to play it. I didn't get hooked into the story, I didn't like the very linear gameplay in it. There would be times when I wouldn't have any idea where to go, I was stuck in a certain part of the world, and all I had to do was just follow the outer part of each screen until I found a door or something. A whole lot less adventuring in that game, as you were almost pushed to where you needed to go next. Needless to say, I didn't finish that game, I gave up about halfway into it.

          You can repeat that same story for Final Fantasy 8 and 9 also. I never bought 8, I think I rented it and thats about it. I did buy 9, didn't finish it. I just bought 10 (so im a sucker heh) and I am liking it more then the past 3, but it still comes down to a final fantasy game. For those who have played, I just beat my first blitzball game (against that damn team that taunted me a bunch) in the big tournament. Took me about 6 tries to do it, but i finally did it. I even got to use the Jeict Shot in the game, which was pretty cool looking.

          Im hoping to finish this one though, it seems a lot better, and the graphics are just jaw dropping. What is nice about this game is you dont get pulled from the game much. What I mean is that you will be walking along, and you'll run into something and it will go into a big scene, but it uses the same graphics, not cutting into a pre-rendered movie. There are pre-rendered movies in the game, but they aren't everywhere, and they are put in just the right places. I would also say that some of the movies in the game are better looking then final fantasy the movie.

          Well anyway, im hoping I will end up liking the game (ff10), I don't like the futuristic aspect of it much, but it has a lot of old world feel to it as well, peole using swords still and things like that. As for this next final fantasy that will be online, im sure its going to be a huge hit, seeing that final fantasy has a very large fan base already.
    • Square's lost its edge. The past five Final Fantasies are just reworkings of the same statistics systems and packing ever more video into the gameplay. This isn't to say the games aren't fun to play, but I just can't get excited anymore when I'm fifty feet away from my foe and magically injure him by waving my sword in the air (well, okay, they actually did something about this one).

      Add to this the fact that Square has virtually no experience in multiplayer gaming and I just can't get excited about the next installment, either. The Japanese are about as good at making this type of game as the US is at making RPGs.

      Really, I hope I can eat my words. I long for the days when I was so eager to buy a Square game (or any game) that I hung around Electronics Boutique all day waiting for the shipment to arrive.
    • Fortunately for DeJap and other translations groups I was able to play the first 6 titles in English (3 for NES, 3 for SNES).

      After Square rightfully left Nintendo (being the oppressive dorks who sold into the kiddy Bamboo Kazooie and Luigi with a vacuum cleaner for ghosts and making Link for the game cube look like a gay power puff girl), they became staid and boring. Half assed games with great graphics and systems, but horrible Jinglish translations, flawed plots (like Aris/Aerith dying from Sephiscoff's sword in a cut scene but PCs in battles took guns, swords, bomb hits (oft to the head) all the time).
      Square is a crap factory. I fail to see why people have been lulled into buying this crap eye candy over and over again. FF3J(NES)(Never released in US), FF4J(FF2US, SNES), FF5J SNES(Never reelased US) and FF6J (FF3 US/SNES), were so much better than any of the Slowny Playstation 1 games. That materia system sucked without people realizing it, none of the characters were prone to being an archetype. No thief, no warrior, no rogue, no wizard. Everyone could be Jesus Christ Superstar if you spend mindless hours "mastering" materia.
      RPGs need to give people a sense of success for task completion and skill mastery, not I got to level 99 by killing a swamp rat a million times and spent 3000 hours doing it, but I could get to level 99 faster by killing a king swamp rat 1500 times or a super duper über swamp rat 500 times.
      I'm happy to say I have better things to do with my life than level up on FF version 30, piss away time on EQ (death to Verant I quit so many years ago, I think that game is a waste - the GMs are babies too).
      I'll stick to stuff that is completable with high replay value. Neverwinter Nights looks good because you don't have to be subjected to the horribly crappy GMs of Verant and you can start your own server. After that horribly gay Final Loser movie, I hope Western Civilization realizes our cultures are a little more advanced in the art of entertainment, those Japanime cartoons are so staid, Japanese movies generally stink a la Godzilla, and their video games are starting to make more snore.

      Thank god for JRR Tolkien, a decent Fantasy movie (based on Tolkien) and an awesome pillar to a real genre of literature. 1000 Square video games and movies will never add up to one Lord of the Rings. Never.
      • I've had this discussion repeatedly with my Japanese coworkers. I think there really is a major cultural difference here.
        Frankly I can't stand the types of games that are made and sold in Japan. Basically, you can only play them once and there is no concept of "replay value". And the stories are very linear. My friends say they like them because they get engrossed in the story. The combat, levels, and other "gameplay" features are seen as superfluous.

        My friends also said that they tried "American" style games like the Ultima series, but the world was so big and they had so many options that they didn't know what they were "supposed to do" all the time. I tried to tell them that it's an adventure; you go explore and find the towns, dungeons, quests, etc. They thought that was to troublesome and "not fun."

        At least the Final Fantasy series makes an attempt to update the interface and graphics every version. There is a whole slew of RPG's that sell for 8000 yen a pop that have used the same boxy 2D engine and graphics literally since 1991 (think of the first Legend of Zelda.) These games are only kept fresh by slightly altering the story and adding new female characters to seduce.
    • How is what I said redundant when I was one of the very first posts? I was one of the first five, easily, because I posted right when the article was and when it had 0 comments. I think some people just like to use their moderator points. That's rediculous.

  • It's Been Done (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cancrman ( 24472 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @11:50AM (#2793784) Homepage
    It's called Phantasy Star Online. It did (and still does) quite well IIRC.

    • Re:It's Been Done (Score:2, Informative)

      by alvi ( 95437 )
      PSO is not really a MMORPG. The actual game is for four player parties. The only place where you see more than three other non-NPCs is the lobby... which is more like a chat room.
    • There is a difference between Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy XI. Let's compare two similar games, Diablo II and EverQuest.

      In PSO and Diablo II, you have a chat lobby, create a team, and go into a special game that just belongs to you and your team.

      In EverQuest and (supposedly) FFXI, you're in the same world with everyone else. You create a team and go off to fight monsters, and will see the OTHER teams fighting monsters as well.

      That's the line that seperates Multiplayer Online RPG's and Massively Multiplayer Online RPG's. In PSO, you couldn't interact with everybody playing the game at once, in FFXI, you (supposedly) can.

  • The Only Way (Score:4, Interesting)

    by druiid ( 109068 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @11:50AM (#2793785)
    The only way you'll see this doing well, is if Square makes it accessible to everyone, which would mean porting it to competing consoles. So far we know almost for certain that it should be coming out for the X-Box as well, but for the Gamecube it's only a rumor. Due to what Nintendo did just a few months ago when Square tried to apologize... Who knows if Square even got a dev kit yet. Overall, I don't know how Square's first foray into online gaming is going to be. Should be interesting, but the key is to get it to a wide enough audience.
    • FFXI is definitely going to be on the PC as well from what Ive read on IGN.com. I figure that the Japanese gamers will go nuts over FFXI, as for the US and Europe Im not sure. I think MMORPGs are a niche product that will never have a mass market appeal. With games like AO, EQ, AC etc. each having their established userbase itll be hard to get additional people to pay there 10$ or more a month for gaming. Unless its going to be like PSO, which worked, but essentially isnt more complex than Diablo and as such really doesnt qualify as an MMORPG like EQ is or FFXI supposedly is going to be.
      • "I think MMORPGs are a niche product that will never have a mass market appeal."

        I predict that within five years the game market will consist almost entirely of MMORPGs, with a small niche for single player games.

        • Re:The Only Way (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Filarion ( 548689 )
          If youd be predicting that online games would rule the market in 5 years Id be inclined to agree. MMORPGs however, like RPGs, are niche products. MMORPGs like AC and EQ require way too much time devoted to advancing your character. A lot of the people playing these games are fanatics and spend every free minute with those games. Not all of them Ill admit, but the game experience gets more rewarding the more you play, which is a problem for casual gamers - and Ill go out on a limb and claim that most gamers are casual gamers. I think concepts such as EAs Motor City might work in a couple of years, but MMORPGs are just too time intensive.
          • Yes, but one of the things that the publishers of the next generation of MMORPGs are working on are ways to make it possible to participate in the game on a sporadic basis. I think everyone recognizes that the current crop of MMORPGs require way too much time for most people to play.

        • Most people don't have time to play in MMORPGs. I already have enough obligations in real life, I don't need more obligations in virtual worlds.

          I know I can stop playing a MMORPG for weeks and then continue playing, but then I'll have missed thousand of events that happened while I wasn't there. So I think MMORPGs are doomed to be storyless games for D&D kiddies with +5 swords (who got the virtual sword from ebay with real money). And I hope your prediction won't ever come true.

    • Re:The Only Way (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:02PM (#2793807)
      It is highly unlikely it will appear on Xbox, not because it doesn't make sense (as the only console with built-in networking, it makes perfect sense) but because of Sony and that little 30% purchase of Square after the Final Fantasy movie fiasco. They're even on their board of directors now, and it's highly unlikely they would support Square developing anything for a major console competitor.

      In other words, it will be multiplatform, but expect those platforms to be PS2 and PC. The Xbox and Gamecube will be left out in the cold, though it's possible the latter will get it if Sony doesn't feel the markets overlap as much as they do with Xbox.

      They also face an uphill battle, because console owners will have to purchase additional storage and broadband adapters (another reason Sony wouldn't want it on Xobx but may support it for Gamecube). Currently in Japan, Sony's hard drive costs around $200, so in addition to shelling out $X for the game, you need to spend a few hundred bucks for a hard drive and the modem adapter. Few games that required additional hardware have ever done well, though this is one that is big enough to buck that trend.

      Early word on it out of Japan is the fans of the series feel it's too "Western," and are very unhappy with it in beta.
    • "The only way you'll see this doing well, is if Square makes it accessible to everyone, which would mean porting it to competing consoles."

      Huh? You're saying games only do well that are ported to other consoles? I don't think so. Many games do quite well while being available only for the PS2. Currently the PS2 has the vast majority of the new console market, and is still outselling both the Xbox and Gamecube.
      • Actually, I never said that. I'm talking specifically about FF:XI. When the hell did I ever say anything about all games needing to be ported?
        • Why is FF:XI different than any other game? Why would this game in particular need to be ported to other consoles to be succcessful? You did not make this clear in your post.

    • Apologized? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Decimal ( 154606 )
      What is this about Square apologizing to Nintendo? IIRC, Nintendo has always been the one to snub Square.
    • Square will not make a game for anyone other than sony. Sony owns way too much of Square - they're the 2nd largest shareholder after Square themselves. The reason behind it is remember Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within? Yeah. I liked it, but the public as a whole didn't, and it bombed. Well, Sony busts on up to square and is like:

      Sony: Hey, so i hear you lost money on that movie.
      Square: Yeah, about 1.1 million.
      Sony: Aww man! I hate that. Well, just cause we like you, here's 2 million bucks.
      Square: ...Um, OK. What's the catch?
      Sony: No catch (hehehe). Just make sure you remember who your friends are.

      No FFx titles for X box folks. I doubt nintendo, as well, despite previous relationships.

      Oh, and side note: i don't like 10, cause i didn't like 8 and the summon system is the same, but all the other improvemenets are great. I miss the card game. And where the heck is Xeno Saga?

      ~Z
  • Phantasy Star Online [phantasystar.net] has been a MMORPG on the Dreamcast Console for a long time. Its still pretty popular too, I wouldn't be suprised if its one the more popular Dreamcast Titles out there...

  • An MMORPG without a Keyboard !!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Average_Joe_Sixpack ( 534373 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:03PM (#2793810)
    I ain't gonna sit there and select letters with the PS2 gamepad to type "Owned"
  • ...is right here. [ign.com]

    my hope is that i can add a hard drive to my ps2 and connect to my current broadband connection and everything will be hunky-dory...

    any hope of that happening? probably not....

  • Multi-player console games. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john@lamar.gmail@com> on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:05PM (#2793814) Homepage Journal
    The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2."

    What about the DC online games? There is Quake3, Unreal Tournament, hell even Chu Chu rocket. What about Phantasy Star Online?

    The DC online games are great. Worms, WSB2K2, there is plenty. It was fun too!

    Basically, Squaresoft isn't going to be the first to test this.
    --
    • Hey, we're talking about MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games), not just online games. Phantasy Star Online is in this category, OK. But you have to admit the genre has not had a lot of games ont the console side. Enzo
  • Be careful, you could be very disappointed by the end result. And too much drooling could damage your keyboard.

    I waited impatiently for the movie, and was very disappointed. I've decided not to wait impatiently for this one. Besides, I think I've got plenty of time to finish Nethack [nethack.org] before this one is out.

  • PSO (Score:1)

    by S5o ( 102998 )
    ...The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience...

    Obviously, the submitter has never played Phantasy Star Online [ign.com], one of the best games for DC

  • Square... predictable? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Chris Canfield ( 548473 ) <slashdot.chriscanfield@net> on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:10PM (#2793826) Homepage
    There are a lot of things wrong with this article.

    First, FFXI isn't the first MMPORPG for a console... that honor (as far as I know) goes to Phantasy Star Online. As for the first "En Masse" game? I didn't have a NES modem, so I don't know.

    Second, FF VIII is generally reviled as the worst of the series, being essentially a rushed out the door half of the two-sides-of-war tale they wanted to tell.

    Third, neither this nor Phantasy Star should be considered a true MMPORPG, as this sounds like only groups can venture forth into the wild together. In Everquest you are likely to stumble across people who washed ashore on the small island in the middle of the ocean, but chance encounters like that are not possible if only groups can quest together.

    Online games like this lend themselves to character and community-building gaming, whereas all of the recent Final Fantasies have been story driven. While in theory most MMPORPG have a larger story arch, in practice they are basically a world with which gamers can explore, communicate, and form communities and heirarchies. Squaresoft is famous for jaw-dropping moments of twisting plot, and that amazing feeling of convincing the player that he is the second coming of the Messiah (see "Xenogears"). Neither of these is possible in an online game where basically everyone has an equal role. However, with an online game comes a sense of community, the sort of thing that Final Fantasy games have been known to cause people to abandon.

    I'm sure Square will pull this off with flare, albeit bumpy flare. FF7 was quite frankly amazing compared to FF6 (FF3 in the states), and the jump to online gaming gives Square the chance to make another massive jump in gameplay. If they don't just copy what is available, and they don't succumb to profiteering to cover for their atrocious losses on The Spirits Within, then this could very well be the greatest MMPORPG released this year. On the other hand, with one look at Square's release calendar (Snatched, apparently, from Eidos's dead hand), we can expect that next years new Final Fantasy release will be every bit as engrossing too. That is, if we bother to pick that one up.
    • "FF7 was quite frankly amazing compared to FF6 (FF3 in the states)"

      You're smoking crack. :) The best FF ever was 6, 7 was just mediocre. I'm almost done with 10 now, and it is great. Much better than 8 and 9. The only console rpg that I've enjoyed since FF3 has been Skies of Arcadia. :)

  • Synopsis -- just the facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by ProfKyne ( 149971 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:10PM (#2793827)

    For those who aren't interested in reading 9px Arial font with few line breaks, or the fanboy details/speculation (like what kind of magic Red Mages can use, or how desolate the Saltbelt Plains are), here's the meat of the story:

    • You can "communicate" with other players by selecting a symbol from a menu, which becomes like a "name tag" -- it hovers above your head, broadcasting your intentions to other players.
    • You can join a team of other players by broadcasting the right symbol.
    • At least in the beta, no multi-language chat facility (a la PhantasyStarOnline)
    • Teams can form alliances, up to three in an alliance
    • A leader must be selected when an alliance is formed, and this leader is highlighted in the game for all to see (i.e., a target)
    • Wandering monsters can be seen ahead of time and avoided
    • Not known if limit breaks are going to be included in battle
    • You can choose the race of your character, this obviously has implications for what its abilities will be
    • A class system may also be included. It has been designed, but it is still unknown at this point.

    All of that information is taken from the article, not my own a priori knowledge or opinion.

  • PSO (Score:1, Redundant)

    by DarkZero ( 516460 )

    The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2."

    It HAS been tested, and this game ISN'T groundbreaking. The game is called "Phantasy Star Online", and it was wildly popular on the Dreamcast. FFXI is interesting, but it's not the first of its kind, it isn't groundbreaking, and it's not an untested genre with the console audience.

    • Re:PSO (Score:1)

      by KevCo ( 2333 )
      PSO is not "massively multiplayer" The MMORPG has not been tested on the console yet. It's a fairly small thing to let a small group of people (4 or so) to adventure together online. Maintaining a persistent world where thousands of people can be connected and interacting simultaneously is a very different thing. I doubt that it will work simply because of the need to patch the game. Square cannot possibly test the game enough to have all the balance issues and exploits ironed out before it goes live. Yet, unlike a PC, there is no way to easily patch a console game.
      • Yet, unlike a PC, there is no way to easily patch a console game.

        There is if the game employs the PS2 hard drive, which is supposed to come with the Ethernet/modem, which the game will obviously rely on.

        J

  • Ethernet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Technician ( 215283 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:13PM (#2793838)
    Hopefully all the major console manufactures will provide ethernet connections and make the software multi platform. Then you could join a lan party with whatever box you had.

    It won't happen right away. Can you say product lock-in with propritory protocols? This ides of speaking a common language will take a while to catch on. It will only happen after sticking to a closed protocol proves to be much more detrimental to your sales more than it does the competition.

    MS is of going to require .net and passport trying for the lock-in, while everyone else goes high speed lan protocols not needing a remote server on the internet. Expect something propritory first. (like they already do with memory cards. Why couldn't they use a smart media or compact flash card?) They will have to join forces and use an open standard (TCP/IP or IPX maybe?) to pull an end run past the 800 Lb gorilla. Not everyone is going to buy a console and set of games from each manufacture just to have the correct software/hardware for the lan parties. Hopefully games on consoles will start to be compatible with PC platforms and they can sell the consoles because they are optimised for game play and start to clean up at lan parties with a mix of PC's and consoles. Then we should start to see the adoption common connections and protocols

  • Expecting to see, at some time down the road, Final Fantasy accounts/characters/etc. for sale on eBay. i.e. [ebay.com]

  • Too many sequals? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 68030 ( 215387 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:15PM (#2793843) Homepage
    I've heard it commented many times that the series as a whole is slowly declining and even more whining over Uematsu's musical ability, yet none the less the game continue to be popular enough to warrent a decent fan following. Each release will the first introduction to the series to many gamers. I would venture that many of those gamers do not own a SNES or NES that they could play the older games on, so the only frame of referance they have are the more recent sequals.

    Square wouldn't be making another sequal if they didn't think there wasn't a demand for it.

    Probably the same reason that almost half of the remixes at Overclocked Remix [overclocked.org] are from a Final Fantasy game. :P

    • I've heard it commented many times that the series as a whole is slowly declining...

      Not having been much of a Final Fantasy 7 fan, I've not really followed the game futher beyond that. The previous games definately had more for me the newer ones, but then again I'm from the school of thought that says The Secret of Mana, The Secret of Everymore, and ChronoTrigger are the best games Square has ever done. Ever.

      I've got Chronocross, but I've yet to actually get into it -- and I've had the game for a very long time so it's failure to reach out and grab me doesn't say very many good things to me.

      In true game-fanatic style, I will pick up FFX probablyl -- but I expect it'll be stale with lots of really sweet eye candy.

      As for those who think the music from the talents over at Square is declining, I would probably agree -- though I do admit it's still top notch ... again having not seen FFX yet I can't really fully comment on it ...

      I think the Playstation and it's fans have a different outlook on gaming than those of us who have been playing for more than 20 years.

      The gamers of today are heavily geared towards ProTainment, which Final Fantasy has become. Professionally crafted expensive productions for the mass market. "Games designed at the office desk" as (I believe) Yu Suzuki of Sega once said (maybe it was someone else from Sega...)

      Anyway -- Multiplayer Final Fantasy might be cool -- but I would much rather see it more closely resemble Diablo II's simplicity and inpersistance (not necissarily gameplay of course) than I would care to see it follow the Everquest or Ultima model of wasting time+life+gaming-enthusiasm+reason-to-live+etc...

      Basically what I'm saying is Multiplayer RPGs don't have to be drab life wasters, but game developers seem to think that's what the majority of gamers want. I would dare say they are dead wrong. I would say that a huge amount of gamers, particularly this new generation of gamers, DO want that. The rest of us... the old school people, we care about other things. Fun, mostly. Not insane states or years of life wasted building up virtual crap in a game to impress our fellow gamers.

      To some of us... it's just a game.

  • speculation (Score:1, Redundant)

    by mibat ( 209183 )
    I don't know if I trust this guy's opinion on how good or successful this game will be.

    For one, he declares FFVIII "the best game ever made." This is a matter of opinion, but I know that I was so bored and unimpressed with this game that I lost interest after about 20 minutes of playing. Out of the FF games that I've played, VIII was definitely the worst by far.

    FFXI will, contrary to this article's line of thought, not be the first MMORPG on a console. PS Online for the dreamcast, anyone?

    I for one would like to see some more info on FFXI before passing judgement. From the tone and questionable facts in this article, I think I would take it with a grain of salt.

  • it's the hardware, stupid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hnice ( 60994 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:18PM (#2793852) Homepage
    let's not get involved in 'ff is stale' or 'your console suX0rs' discussions. the issue here, as much as i love square, is the hardware.

    7 syllables to remember for the console industry, and if you don't believe me, ask sega's hardware division: no one buys peripherals.

    they'll buy an extra controller. they'll buy a hundred games. they'll pay an isp. but no one drops $100 on anything, once they've spent $300 on a console that plays mgs2, ffx, gta3, gran turismo, and ico just fine already. it's been tried, dozens of times, and it doesn't just fail, it puts companies out of business.

    now, sony's not going out of business on its hard drive/ethernet combo. i'm going to buy one. but i'm giant sucker with lots of disposable income who must play ff. but (slashdot aside) there aren't that many like me -- not enough to make this work. there were only 300k phantasy star online players, and that didn't even require hardware. sony will be lucky to get 250k people to buy their $100 hardware, and square may get half of those to PlayOnline. compare that to the millions of units of, say, ffix they've sold.

    i know, i know, a usb ethernet adapter -- you can also make your linux machine into a gateway for halo, but how many people are doing *that*? again, not counting me ;)

    i want square to do well here. and maybe other consoles will help, although last i read, they're thinking about nintendo and not ms, and the cube also has no connection. but the hardware is the issue here, and for all ff's sweet, chocolatey goodness, it's not going to sell much hardware.
    • Blockquoth the poster:
      7 syllables to remember for the console industry, and if you don't believe me, ask sega's hardware division: no one buys peripherals.

      Indeed - the keyboard never sold well for the DC, neither the mouse, the maracas, or the BBA. ;) Yet after the death of the DC, the peripherals became wildly popular..... Lesson to Sony: say the PS2's "dead", tell stores to raise the price to $800 because people will be snatching 'em up, and then start work on PS3.

      Ok, I see it now *envisions his karma going down* -1, Offtopic.

      --pi
    • 7 syllables to remember for the console industry, and if you don't believe me, ask sega's hardware division: no one buys peripherals.

      You're right. Nobody ever bought the memory card peripheral for the PSX.

      Oh no, wait, there was 100% market saturation for that peripheral.

      I guess you're wrong.

      • yeah, it's just that most people didn't need me to point out that i meant 'non-necessary peripheral'. the mem card wasn't a peripheral, it was a part of the console that sony knew they could charge extra for. same for 2d controller.

  • The end of the Final Fantasy series? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rayonic ( 462789 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:18PM (#2793854) Homepage Journal
    Whether or not this MMORPG is successful, it marks the end of Final Fantasy as we know it. The main series (1-10) has always been single-player with predefined characters and a linear story with an end. An MMORPG is none of that.

    Problem is, a lot of people probably want yet another traditional Final Fantasy game - I know my fiance does. It boggles the mind why they named this spinoff game Final Fantasy XI. They should have named it "Final Fantasy Online" or something, so they could pick up the main series again, if they wanted to.

    Capcom is a good act to follow in this case, especially with the Mega Man franchise. The original series is still intact, with the spinoffs relegated to their own series' (i.e. Mega Man X, Legends, etc). What if Mega Man 9 was a platformer, while 10 was an RPG, and eleven was real-time strategy? Nonsense.
    • I don't remember reading that they would stop making good-old single player FF games. Probably FF12 will be back to that time-proof formula.

      Anyway, they have long said they would venture into MMPORPG. I'll watch and see.

      As for the predifined characters and linear story being the essence of the FF series charm, I agree, but would also mention the ability to freely (well, come to think of it, far from freely indeed) explore the world. I've read in another comment that FF10 lacked that ability, only allowing you to "teleport" between locations, and it's a major shame. For that matter, I think that FF11 will still provide some of the fun we had with the earlier installments.

      Probably, the crucial point for Square will be to be able to offer us to play characters that have a story. Hey, if they manage to create NPC family members for most of the players, and past relations, friends and foes, that players have to take in account, it can be a great game!

      Well, this all comes down to the way the players will play this game, and the way Square will manage it in the long run.
  • I'm sorry, but I don't see the charm of Final Fantasy translating well to online play. I've always felt the primary plus to Final Fantasy was that it was not as much of a game, but exploring a story, discovering more and more until you reach a definitive end in which everything comes together, after 40-50 hours of gameplay, played as quickly or as slowly as you want. I really don't see how this sort of experience can translate to an online format.

    Aside from that, FFX was a big let down to me. Truly, the graphics are fantastic, and the story is quite good, but in trying to make the world more "realistic", they took a lot of the fun out of it. World map navigation as it was in all previous Final Fantasies was fantastic, and now it is completely gone. The closest you ever come is getting to move a cursor with coordinates around a map to search for destinations, hardly the simple fun of the old-school world map. And before that, there is no free movement, if you want to go back to the beginning half-way through, it is impossible. I wish they didn't deny free movement of the world, makes it somehow less engrossing.

    And all this propaganda making it sound like Square is being a pioneer is plain bs. As many others have pointed out, Phantasy Star Online is at least one example of it being done before...
    • I agree about FFX. I'm getting tired of FMV and losing control of my character so it can perform a scene. I'm definitely not a fan of the red arrow "Go this way, stupid" thing in X. These things would be tough to have in an online game, though. Hopefully they won't try.

  • Square is Terrible (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blueworm ( 425290 )
    How can people say Squaresoft is so good at making video games when the very design of their games is terrible? The latest installments in the final fantasy series have been marked by plot holes, lousy character development, poor and annoying combat systems, and too much combat to begin with. Everything that makes an RPG great as far as I'm concerned has been missing from the latest in the Final Fantasy series. The last good Final Fantasy was number IV. They should have just ended the series there. I think everyone is far too distracted by Square's flashy graphics to notice all the shoddy development in the games they've been producing as of late.
  • This will have a chance only if they can reduce the amount of time the players watch the story. . .

    A buddy of mine finished FFX over the course of 2 weeks, but said a good chunk of the time was spent watching the fancy graphics of the story being told, rather than playing/making decisions. In an online environment, this would get annoying and repetitive. I hope "cinema" in this MMORPG takes a small role. After all, a MMORPG should be a persistent world without a set quest - something that FF has never really been at all. . .
    • Exactly - Someone said that if you take all the fancy graphics away from a game, then the game should still be 80% as playable, and 90% as much fun. Look at Samba de Amigo - the basis is great, all the GFX EFX are great, but it doesn't overemphasize them.

      -pi
  • Well, I just got a great idea. I think I would MUCH rather have an MMORPG set in the Chrono Trigger/Cross world, than in the FF world. Why? Well, I still think these are the best RPG's to ever come out of Square. Most people think that at least Chrono Trigger is one of the best RPG's ever made. Who can blame them... great music, good graphics for it's time, innovative battle system, amazing storyline and multiple endings. The way it would transmute into a good MMORPG would be as such: Since one of the main elements of the Chrono games was time travel, the world could be limited to like one specific region or such, but you could travel to multiple times. Why have "made up" races for different regions when you can have races/beings from different time periods. A storyline could easily be made which would lend itself to an MMORPG universe as well. What would be even cooler, but I don't know how well it could be implemented, would be that things in the games could be dynamically updated due to things people in different time periods would do. For instance.. you destroy a certain monster (possibly with help from like a hundred people in that time period or such) and there's an open cave entrance in the time period after that one... I think it would work well and I know for damn sure at least one person (me) would play the hell out of it. I would kill (almost literally) for a game like this. Hmm, maybe I should make something myself :).

  • Show them the money (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TexTex ( 323298 )
    The success of FFXI will depend more on the continued support and continued subscription of their game rather than the one time purchase price which most console games offer. $9.95 / month to play something I already purchased is possible, but it's going to strip a lot of their audience away, especially the younger age groups of whom a credit card is still a few years off.

    PlayOnline.com claims they'll be opening up much of their other services which previously required a monthly fee, but will still charge for select, premire attractions. I think EverQuest made this a possible marketing opportunity. Square's just hoping one of the largest videogame fan bases will let them cash in.


  • http://www.playonline.com/ff11/download/02.html

  • Heh (Score:2)

    by Sludge ( 1234 )
    "The final fantasy world". Final Fantasy is one of the most commercially successful separations of franchise from content. Other than Cid the Airship mechanic, only the concept stays relatively the same between games. (Note: Japanese FFs that never made it over here seem to recycle engines with no more than minor tweaks)
  • ...WTF who said it sucks? I never played RPGs before I bought FF VII and I only bought it for my girlfriend as I am usually an FPS only guy. After playing FF VII for about an hour I was hooked and bought and played FF VIII, FF IX and now FF X( which I have 60 hours into and just beat ). Great games ( with the exception of 8 which didn't really do much for me ). My recent RPG experience is limited however, and other titles might suck. The FF series is good. For those that don't know in FF X there are talking charactors which are cool but the dialog is a bit cheesy at times and sometimes things are best left for your imagination to interpret instead of some cheesy voice-over actor.

    Gary

  • FF Games in a Nutshell (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @12:59PM (#2793952) Journal
    Note that this is my opinion only.
    If you think I'm on crack for liking FF4,
    that is up to you.

    FF1: Wander around aimlessly for hours on end
    getting poisoned, paralyzed, and ultimately killed
    by monsters. Surprisingly enough I beat it eventually after getting lots of help from my
    Nintendo Power player's guide. Of course, I
    was in 5th. grade at the time, so you can't blame
    me.

    FF2 & 3: Never released here at all, and I'm
    too lazy to play them on an emulator right now.

    FF4: The story and script are both cheezy, but
    for some reason I still have more fun playing
    this game over and over again than playing
    any other game, period. Difficult if
    you play the "original" version (not the
    hacked up version known as FF2 here in the US)
    or the Playstation version. IMO this is the
    greatest game ever made, and probably always will
    be.

    FF5: Also really fun. Not as good as 4, sorta
    better than 6... or at least a tad more difficult.
    Job System is kinda fun.

    FF6: Lotsa characters, lots of cool powers.
    Probably the first game in the series where
    it is too easy to create over powered chracters
    that can kill the last boss in a turn.

    FF7: Huge change of scenery for the first time.
    The first disc is lots of fun, 2 and 3 aren't
    quite as much fun. The first game that Square
    put graphics above story, unfortunately.

    FF Tactics: This game is challenging until
    about halfway through. Then it becomes easy
    when your guys are more powerful and you get
    all these special unique characters with
    overpowered abilities. Oh well, it is a LOT
    of fun, and is better than 7 or 8 for sure.

    FF8: Take one Leonardo di Caprio clone, throw
    in a bunch of other pretty looking guys and
    a crappy story. Then add some chocobos and
    pretend it is Final Fantasy. I still have
    nightmares about this game. Heck, the FF movie
    is better than this.

    FF9: Square caught a clue at how horrible FF8
    was and made this game much more like the SNES
    ones. The result is a kickass game that is
    almost as enjoyable as FF4 for me.

    FF10: I haven't started playing this game yet
    thanks to Super Smash Bros. Melee.

    FF11: I'm in agreement with those that think
    this should have been just called FF Online.
    IMO it shouldn't be part of the main series,
    but rather be a side game like FFT was.
    Mind you that I'm not against an FF online
    game at all. I hope I get to make my own custom
    black mage (complete with pointy hat). That'd
    be cool. However, I think the games in the main
    series should focus on the single player
    story based RPG.
  • What is MMORPG (i know what it stands for.. but what does it mean.. )
  • Anyone know where I can get PS2 hardware specs? Like how to build my own controller?

    email sager@andrew.cmu.edu
  • apparently ff IS stale, or they wouldn't be making a new adaption to MMORPG. the thing is, before, the newer final fantasy games drove sales, but hopefully (for them) not like this one. since multiplayer doesnt exist on console without making yuor screen a fraction of its already small size, which made multiplayer NOT very enticing. now...yuo can use the web going capability of the PS/2 to play REAL multiplayer...YAY!

    QED
  • How is this massively multi-player? It's barely even multi-player. Like Phanasy Star on-line, FFXI looks like it will only let you have a limited number of players (those on your "team") on the screen at any given time. This, in effect, is just letting you play with three buddies on-line rather than forcing you to have a multi-tap and three extra controllers. Any comparison between this type of ORPG and a MMPORPG like everquest or ultima on-line (where EVERYBODY who's playing can interact and fight and not just the few on your team) seems ignorant to me.
    • Did you actually bother to *read* the article... all of it?

      It's got everything from character creation to grouping... and not with just "three buddies", according to the article up to *18* people can be grouped at the same time.

      If you're not grouped you can indicate you're looking to join, or looking to start a group... WHILE WANDERING AROUND... seems pretty MM to me.

      Perhaps try reading the entire article next time?
      • Oh! You're right! I missed that you could have 18 people play at once. Now that's massive! :)

        Seriously, if action takes place with limited number of people (which is to say: some number less than you can cram onto the server) it's not massively multi-player, It's just multi-player.

        Sure, if you're not actually playing you can wander around looking for someone to play with. But in that case the world just becomes a big lobby. It doesn't matter how many people you can interact with in the lobby, because you're not playing. In that case, it's not massively multi-player, it's just massively multi.

        By definition you need to have all three of these elements ( thousands of people, together at the same time , actually playing a game) for something to be massively multi-player. It's not like this is an unrealistic goal. It's been done several times already. But it's clear from this article that this is not the direction that Square is taking.
  • Here is a link to some info regarding Final Fantasy XII, supposedly to be a return to single player format, not much info as it is still early in development, and I know some screen shots/promos that were presumed to be leaked were actually faked, so please take this info with a grain of salt. The GIA [thegia.com] I wanted to link to Gamespot.com info, but that site is blocked from works proxy, dah, someone else please search and post :o)
  • All of its predecessors were excellent, Final Fantasy VIII was, and still is, one of the best games ever made.

    That's VIII- as in decimal 8?? As in the WORST FF game ever made? I have serious questions about this guy's sanity, to say nothing of his opinions on gaming.

  • umm (Score:1)

    by ge6-oZZ ( 540105 )
    I am starting to think that I'm the only one who seriously dislikes modern square games. My 4 favourite games of all time are square: FF3, Secret of Mana, FF2, Chrono Trigger. I love all their old games on the SNES, but lately, they're games are shit. I haven't played FFX, so i can't include that, but FF7,8,9 and Chrono Cross were terrible (FFT was good though). Does anyone agree with me on this one? i'd like to know, because I think Square is getting WAY too much praise for the work that they are doing.

  • There is one way to be sucessful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @01:34PM (#2794024) Homepage
    Make your multiplayer game NOT REQUIRE your companies servers to work.. The entire doom and Quake series is a testament to this.. and The best examples of how not to do it is anything that works with WON online. (SOF is a great game, and I finished it in single player mode. but then the game becomes a throw away.)

    If I cant pop up the game, and select "play online" and then be presented with a list of games running from a list server (Open source so it's not that company hogging it) and play then it wont work.. WON games require you to sell your soul to them in personal information and then you have to go through their horribly slow servers. No I'm not going to create a login, no I'm not gonna watch your pepsi ad whil the game starts.

    If Squarsoft screws up their Multiplayer with stupid "lock IN" devices then they will fail. and they will fail horribly.
  • How big is the world? Is there really a detailed 3D world in which you can just keep going for days without running out of terrain? Is it seamless, or are there annoying "portals"?
  • I've only been mucking around with the FF series since VIII, but there's a definite Final Fantasy feel associated with the games. Notably, things like the battle system, spells and summonses. I think all these things may be too limited for a MMORPG. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of incredibly powerful characters running around in a fairly short time. Of course, my only other MMORPG experience has been UO, which had a Linux client for a while.

    I'm curious to know if Square can make a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer game and will be interested to see how they handle player to player communication. Even if you put a keyboard on your PS2, TV resolutions will kind of limit your dialog. For a font to be readible on your TV screen, you'll need to use big fat play-doh fonts.

  • Good luck, It's gonna be tough. (Score:4, Informative)

    by rgold ( 548642 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @03:08PM (#2794281) Homepage
    Over the past three months, I've been doing some business-model consulting to a company with a struggling MMORPG game. Given that experience, here are a few reasons why I think Square will have a difficult time with this (although I honestly hope they succeed)...

    1. Revenue Model I'd love to know how Square intends to charge for the game. Generally, MMORPG games for the PC use a two-part revenue model: $9-$50 for the game software, then an additional $5-$13 per month for a game subscription.

    Given the massively multi-player nature of the games, they require enormous support including servers, game masters, billing and account support and on and on. For a decent analysis of these costs, check this out [happypuppy.com]. The bottom line is that it's expensive, way more expensive than your normal game. Square has two sets of considerations here: They probably don't want to become the company to try charging a monthy fee to Console folks who tend to skew younger and have less experience with this genre. This would lead them to either jack up the software price and minimze the monthly fee, or design a game that runs more like Diablo and less like a true MMORPG. On the other hand, these games have network effects, the more people playing them, the more fun they are. That would encourage square to come to market with a low price and use the subscription model to make it up on the backend. It will be interesting to see which way they go.

    2. Audience and appeal Despite the buzz, the existing market for MMORPG games is very small, maybe 3.5-4 Million worldwide, and arguably only 1-2 million in the US. They are a unique bunch of people. Given the hardware issues its relatively clear that a console isn't the best platform for these types of games. To overcome that, a console game will need to broaden it's appeal and lower the complexity and learning curve considerably in order to succeed. It will be interesting to see what things square removes from the genre to do this. Based on the coverage in the article, it seems as though trade skills will go completely. So will (I guess) much of the politics and diplomacy with respect to clans and factions. What they have left will be something very different than todays MMORPGs. It sounds like MMORPG lite. Not a bad thing, just very very differnt.

    In the mean time, people like LucasArts are working on Star Wars Galaxies to try to popularize the genre a bit by using a huge and popular license. It will be interesting to see which way is more effective.

    3. Cost These things are big budget to develop. Given Square's failed film and new management, it will be interesting to see how much cash they are willing to risk on something this new. Square has never been known to go cheap, and I bet they risk a bundle on it. It had the potential to be another very high profile flop for them.

    But then again, nothing risked, nothing gained.

    It should be fun to see what happens. -rg

    • Re:revenue model (Score:2, Informative)

      by mapmaker ( 140036 )
      Square has already decided that their PlayOnline service will be subscription-based. Most gaming sites carried this news last week:

      http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n04a.html
      http://www.planetps2.com/news/#PQN343753
      http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,1087 0, 2836013,00.html

  • The review (Score:2, Informative)

    by willum448 ( 461084 )
    Final Fantasy XI: Online
    Even Square's been bitten by the massive online RPG bug; and they're taking the PS2 with them.

    This is one game that will have a lot to deal with. All of its predecessors were excellent, Final Fantasy VIII was, and still is, one of the best games ever made. So how can you possibly improve upon perfection? Well, this is Squaresoft we are talking about; they have decided to create a massively multiplayer RPG for the PS2. Cripes. Talk about taking the bull by the horns...
    This game, no matter how you look at it, will be groundbreaking. It will be astounding. This game should, in theory, take over your life. Why? Gather round kids, I will try to explain... This, ladies and gentlemen is the very first en-masse multiplayer game to ever grace a console. You will be able to join up with your friends from across the globe and go on an adventure through your PS2.We are talking Everquest with bells on, Phantasy Star Online with knobs and whistles, this should be the game of 2002. Well, for the PS2 anyhow.

    Final Fantasy XI is set on the planet Vana Diel, a paradise apparently, as are most Final Fantasy settings. However, things are not as they seem, Vana Diel has a rotten core and monsters and demons are rife. Ah. Right, yeah, as I said, a common Final Fantasy setting. That's more or less where the similarities end though. This is not your common RPG. This is special. Really special. Anyhow, more on the planet itself. Vana Diel is split into several kingdoms or areas, giving a potentially huge area to explore, at this time they are:

    The Republic of Bastok
    This area is where is humanoid races reside (more on classes/races later). Its an advanced nation with plenty of technology and valuable resources, including the classic Final Fantasy mineral, Mithril.

    United federation of Windurst
    This area is inhabited by the Tarutaru. The cities in this area have an almost organic feel, a perfect setting for the Tarutaru to work on their magic.

    Kingdom of San D'oria
    The Elvarn race resides here. There is constant threat of civil war, only a fragile alliance between the ruling Monarchy and the other parties stands between peace and complete destruction.

    Gustaberg deadlands
    A barren, dead space surrounding Bastock. No Flora survives here, only the withered remains of the past.

    Sarutabaruta Plains
    A vast, wide open plain near Windurst. Plenty of plants grow here, these attract monsters great and small to the area.

    Ronfaure Forest
    A lush, beautiful forest near San D'oria, a strange presence appears to reside here.

    Final Fantasy XI: Online
    Even Square's been bitten by the massive online RPG bug; and they're taking the PS2 with them.

    If all of these areas are as large as one would expect, the game shall be absolutely huge. However, will Square be capable of making a huge world without making it too sparse? The early images, though of poor quality (our apologies), do suggest an impressive attention to detail in terms of architecture and scenery. Which is encouraging. We will have to wait and see. I expect hidden cities and whatnot as well; do you hear me Square?
    In a general way (very general) this game works like Phantasy Star Online (or Everquest for you PC people), in the way that you create your character (I honestly will explain later) and are free to wander the vast world on your own or you can join a team, the really keen will start their own team. By choosing the 'looking to join team' from the sub menu your character will have a symbol by his head, informing others that you would like to join their team. You can also choose another option that informs others than you are creating a team, therefore allowing people to come over and ask if they can join. It seems easy enough to master. There does not, however, appear to be a multi-language chat facility like the one seen in Phantasy Star Online, this may be down to the fact that the early Beta version is intended for Japanese use only, when the NTSC and PAL versions are released, there should hopefully be one in place. From the early information available it appears that you can create alliances with other teams. Up to three teams can form an alliance between them, making it easier to vanquish those really hard foes between the eighteen of you. That's right, Eighteen players on screen at once, all attacking freely. It should be a slight improvement over the normal five or six! However, for an alliance to be possible, a leader must be chosen, he or she is then designated with a white marker (just the ticket for assassinations). This should lead to online arguments aplenty! Hopefully, in time, Square will find a way to allow even more players at one time in a battle, I for one would like to see a full scale war raging between two rival factions.... deadly.

    Final Fantasy XI: Online
    Even Square's been bitten by the massive online RPG bug; and they're taking the PS2 with them.

    The combat itself appears to be incredibly simple, yet effective. When you explore the world you can see monsters walking around, looking for trouble (a first as well, no more being sucked into unwanted battles!). You can either avoid them, or lock on and give them a kicking. I feel that a kicking would be in order most of the time. Anyhow, after a stylish switch from normal view to battle view, the fighting starts. All damage and vital statistics are reported via a colour coded window that is in view at all times. Classic Final Fantasy menus are still in place, with attack, defend and magic and whatnot still in place. However, it is not clear at this point if limit breaks are included, as they could be difficult to work out in the real-time environment. I hope that they are included as they are an important feature of any Final Fantasy game (FF8's Squall's 'Lion Heart' still looks awesome).
    Onto the Characters. For the first time in a Final Fantasy game, you create your own character. You start by choosing your character's race, they are as follows:

    Tarutaru
    Strange little magical creatures from the Windurst region, they have a strong magical field and make good mages. They remind me of Moogles.

    Hume
    A humanoid race, as close as you are going to get to human. Well balanced, technologically advanced all rounders. From the Bastock region.

    Elvarn
    Strong, tall and very proud race of elves. They make excellent warriors and are incredibly headstrong by nature but their pomposity leads to trouble. Found in their Kingdom of San D'oria.

    Mithra
    A slender, cat-like race who inhabit a small corner of Windurst. They are against all technology and rely solely on nature. Only the Females of the species are brave enough to venture into the outside world.

    Galka
    Huge, heavy set creatures, they are incredibly strong and troll-like. Only the males are allowed to leave the home towns.

    The races themselves are pretty standard fare, with warrior races and slender mages. This should allow most people to choose a race that suits their fighting style best, we shall have to wait and see how they all balance out, I have a feeling that the Humes will be a popular choice, everyone loves a mix of sword play and magic!
    There was speak of additional classes being available, on top of the race you have chosen (extra abilities and such) allowing you to customise even further. I might as well explain them, even though they may not make an appearance (I will update the comments page later with the news on them once it has been verified). Right. They are:

    Fighter
    Fairly simple. All of your stats will lean towards fighting with hardly any magical skills

    Monk
    Capable of a little white magic and a little red magic, also proficient at fighting.

    Thief
    Will be able to steal items off of the enemy, use a little red magic and be fairly good fighting.

    White Mage
    Will be able to cast protective magic, such as heal, cure, protect and such. Will be weak at fighting.

    Red Mage
    Will be capable of casting destructive magic such as fire, aqua, Ultima and others. Will be weak at fighting.

    This class system is very similar to the one seen in the early Final Fantasy games on the NES and is quite different to anything seen in the newer titles. As stated earlier, these classes and their system may not be included in the game, but here at Ferrago.co.uk we like to give you the fuller picture. After all, knowledge is power.

    So then, will this game be any good? I think it should be. It maybe a departure from the norm for Sqauresoft, but if anyone can pull this kind of project off it's them. They have constantly provided us with the most incredible video games (even a film), they have a pedigree and a back catalogue that is hard to ignore. This may well turn out to be the only game you will ever need. We all wait, fingers crossed, until summer. Or 2003 for us Brits. Damn.

  • I don't WANT an MMORPG FF (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mckwant ( 65143 ) on Sunday January 06, 2002 @06:17PM (#2794850)
    I, evidently, am the only human on the planet who does NOT want his gameplaying experience to be sandwiched between 133t h7x0rz talking fractured, misspelled english at each other while wondering "any girlz out there?".

    I happen to enjoy sitting by myself, undeterred by lag times or server outages, enjoying the content as provided. I may be the only one, but I hope not.

    FF allows you to get into a movie, and play a role. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else to provide content, nor do I want to have to find people to go adventuring with.

    If it's MMORPG only, I, for one, will not purchase it. Period.

    end of rant.
  • this article at the gia ( http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n01a.html ) points out some bad signs from Japan

    * 65% of the game retailers said it will not be a hit, citing such examples as the failure of the Saturn Netlink, the overwhelming price of the PS2 HDD peripheral and modem, and the Dreamcast's inability to sell its networking despite the modem's inclusion with the system.

    * "It looks too American," says to one fan

    Squaresoft has been having problems getting online content in it's games (ffx was to have a significant online play which was scraped) and the fact that the have already decided that FF 12 will NOT be online shows that they are getting cold feet over the online move.
  • "The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, "

    Um, can anyone say "Phantasy Star Online."
  • One of my coworkers tried it out over New Year's break. He said it's almost exactly like Everquest. It has a level system, and is pretty much just a hack&slash game.

    He says he's bored with it, and is going back to UltimaOnline.
  • It seems like FFXI will be a "Generic MMORPG" if The GIA's review is any indication. The Japanese gamers even complained about it seeming "too American!" I do not have real high hopes for this one. FFXII is supposed to go back to being offline, yippee :)
  • I really wonder how many people are going to fork over an extra X amount of dollars just to play FF11 online. Granted these are probably similar to people that bought a 250$ GeForce2 just to get an extra handful of frames in Quake3 but will they be willing to spend that sort of mula on their PS2? If you don't already have a PS2 will you be willing to spend 2X amount of money to get everything needed to play FF11 on top of the cost of the game's subscription? I'm not so sure. I'm half tempted to go buy a PS2 just to play FF10 since I've played and beat all the FF games up to 10.

    Personally MMO games don't appeal to me, the only halfway appealing aspect of FF11 is the FF part of it. The problem I've found with them is that despite all the hype about interaction and community, they are static worlds. You can't change the game by playing day after day. You can't get a bunch of characters together to break up some big boss guy's kegger and actually make a dent in the world. If you could I would be more receptive to them. Playing AD&D you can kill some evil leader of the Red Wizards or a Lichlord and blamo you brought peace and harmony to the land, you can do so whilst being a butcher turned adventurer walking around with a magical meat cleaver. Maybe I'm a small percentage of the MMO target audience but I wan't REALLY involving stories. I don't want to get really involved in building up my level so I can use a masterwork sword of +1 bashing. That and paper is relatively cheap which means I can play AD&D for about 50 years for the cost of all the stuff needed just to play FF11. Added bonus to using dice is you can actually raise money to further the period of game play by gambling in back alleys.
  • (1) The US economy is in the crapper for most, making purchase of a $300 video game console less appealing, as having food on the table and rent paid appeals more to the average base instinct... Similarly for the rest of the world economy, not many are going to find paying $300 to play a $60-$80 game appealing...

    (2)No PC ports foreseen... Even though they kind of sucked as far as real support was concerned, those of us who picked a Geforce2 upgrade for the computer in lieu of a PS1 would prefer to play it on the PC, rather than attempt to run it on Bleem!... Despite in theory the modern PC's ability to run the games capably, it makes me wonder if Squaresoft signed a contract with Sony to prevent any possibility of parallel PC releases...

    (3) Squaresoft, due to the usual ineptitude of sales analysts that exist within all game companies will assume that any reduced sales are a red light regarding a games success, and will assume the same regarding sales of FFX, thus delaying if not shelving future production on FFXI...

    (4) As their ads claim, 'Millions have played FFX', while they fail to note, however, is that millions of Japanese players (or a hundred or so American players who can translate Japanese on the fly) played the original version over a year prior to the release of the US version, which was out while the world economy was in considerably stronger shape...

    I'm not an expert on these things, but this seems a reasonable scenario... Any input?

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Close