Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Final Fantasy XI PC Requirements Announced 315

Posted by Hemos from the this-goes-out-for-all-the-neals dept.
PKFC writes "Square has begun taking applications for the Final Fantasy XI PC Beta test which starts on June 18 in Japan. The minimum specs are: Win 98, PIII 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, a GeForce card and 4.5 GB of hard drive space, while the recommended specs include a 64 MB video card and a Pentium 4. The 4.5 GB is used for game data, the PlayOnline software and the ever popular, Tetramaster. The PC version will be fully compatible with the PlayStation2 version allowing people on either system to play together. Be warned that the links go to Japanese web sites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Final Fantasy XI PC Requirements Announced More

Final Fantasy XI PC Requirements Announced

Comments Filter:
  • I got bored of that a while ago. If this has anything like the translation stuff of PSO, it'll be cool.
  • Dammit! I knew I should have learned Japanese.

  • I still want FF IX and FF X on the PC.

    I just can't bring myself to shell out the money to buy a console after spending so much money on my PC gaming machine. Of course, it probably doesn't help that my monitor is as big as my television.
    • "I still want FF IX and FF X on the PC."

      Unfortunately they made such a mess of the conversion of 7, and particularly 8 that PC sales were poor, therefore they stopped bothering.

      Go buy a PS2 and play the games the way they were meant to be played! (I think FF9 works on the PS2).

      graspee

      • They sure as hell did make a mess of 8 (it wouldn't even work on a GeForce without looking like crap!) I thought 7 worked out pretty well, but i dunno.


        FF9 does indeed work on PS2, that's where I'm playing it now. Same with Chrono Cross. I played 7 and 8 PC-only. I gotta say, though, the low resolution of the 3d sprites of FF9 on PS is really horrible, relative to 8 on the PC. Thought the animation and background look better than 8, because everything is at such low resolution, you can hardly tell who anyone is. I would certainly have bought a PC version of 9, assuming it didn't have the incompatibility problems of 8.


        And 10 on the PC would totally kick ass. The whole problem of the PS1 conversions was the abundance of lowres prerendered graphics. But 10 didn't haveanything prerendered outside of movies--it would have looked so awesome at 1024x768, and more importantly ANTI-ALIASED. Oh my God, poor FFX needs to be anti-aliased so horribly bad.


        But both despite being on the wrong platform, both games are way better than the horrible FF8...

  • consoles ARE cheaper (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by ejaw5 ( 570071 )
    Win 98, PIII 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, a GeForce card and 4.5 GB of hard drive space, while the recommended specs include a 64 MB video card and a Pentium 4.

    well, this end the arguement on whether PCs or consoles are more practical for gaming. A $299 Playstation 2 sounds quite better if you're just in it for gaming.
    • It's even cheaper now, as both the XBarn and PS2 have dropped down to just $200 (less than a modern 3D card). Hell, I bought an open box GameCube for just $110.
      • Yeah, but don't forget that FFX for the PS2 requires that you buy added peripherals, including an external hard drive. Altogether, the game will cost up to $150, ignoring monthly costs. The PC gamer can ignore that added cost.
        • Your sig says it all:

          "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit; there's no point in making a damn fool of yourself"

          Yup... you just made a damn fool of yourself. Final Fantasy 10 (which I own and completed a few months ago) does NOT require the hard drive kit or any added peripherals (except maybe having a rumble controller and PS2 Save card), and definitely does not require any monthly costs. The game cost me about $55 when it was released, not $150.

          And besides, the hard drives that they will be selling will go inside the PS2, not external. If you look at the back, there's a removable panel which reveals an empty bay just the right size for a hard drive.
    • well, this end the arguement on whether PCs or consoles are more practical for gaming. A $299 Playstation 2 sounds quite better if you're just in it for gaming.

      Different things suit different people. I'm not going to list all of the reasons, but a PC suits me much better than a game console. But one thing that you missed and that does favor your belief is that the PS2 came down in price about a month ago, it's now $199 US (as is the X-box. And the PS-one is $49, with the cube at $149)

    • Completely Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Chasing Amy ( 450778 )
      > well, this end the arguement on whether PCs or consoles are more practical for gaming.
      > A $299 Playstation 2 sounds quite better if you're just in it for gaming.

      Add to that the cost of a PSX (not all PS games play perfectly on PS2), a Gamecube and N64, an Xbox, thousands of arcade machines, etc. because the PC is a unified gaming platform and the rest aren't. I can play almost any PC game from 1996 on my PC today, yet the same isn't true about playing every Nintendo game from 1996 (N64 era) on a Gamecube today--can't be done.

      In addition, the generalized hardware of the PC allows for all consoles to eventually be emulated as PC processing power increases; every console prior to the N64 and PSX is emulated with near-100% accuracy, so that all of those consoles' games can be played on a PC with ease. Not to mention the over 1600 arcade games emulated at the moment by MAME, upping the ante significantly. Oh, and add to that all of the classic 68k Mac games, which can be played on a PC perfectly using Basilisk ][.

      In other words, maintaining a PC gaming platform allows access to literally tens of thousands more games than a PS2 or a Gamcube will ever be able to play. It also offers near-complete backwards compatability, great future compatability due to easy and inexpensive (if nothing radical is done except every couple years) upgrade paths, and compatability with most of the console systems through their eventual emulation.

      In addition, the hardware specs you listed for FFXI on the PC aren't very grat--I have a system superior to the requirements in every way, and I built it a year and a half ago.
  • I know disk space is a dime-a-gig these days, but...WHY in the hell is this so high?

    I'll have to erase some of my pirated MP3s... ;-)
    • Content, content, content... If square is known for nothing else, it's producing assloads of content.

      • But 4.5 gigs of content? Does that mean that this will be distributed on DVD only?

        4.5 gigs translates to roughly 6 and a half CDs, and that's not counting the installer files that likely will only live on the install media. If this holds true, are we looking at a game made up of at least 7 CDs?

    • Re:4.5GB on disk??? (Score:4, Informative)

      by alibash ( 586186 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @12:38AM (#3720210)
      The reason it's so big is because PS2s can read DVD-rom, but square doesn't require that their beta testers can. So they give you a bunch o' cds and load them to your hard drive.
      I'm pretty sure in the Final release will allow reading content off dvd.

      The thing that makes me sad is that I think they say you have to be in Japan to beta test =(

      Things like this make me care enough to make me stop lurking, get an account, and finally post =)
  • Since google doesn't support Japanese yet, then I think this link might be useful...

    AltaVista's Translation [altavista.com].
  • I'm not to sure as to what to think about FFXI being online. On one hand, I'm happy to see a major company with a well known-name backing up the Genre, but on the other (and much more acurate) hand I know that it is way too soon in the genre for a major series to get converted over.

    At least if anything, we should be learning from past mistakes and problems and put games into a sort of D&D-style MUD type of play with lots of PVP combat. Instead what we are getting is a half-assed game about beating monsters for hours on end while talking with others.
  • i would not advise running the game on a 128 meg ram box because with that little ram there is now way you would not thrash through some swap space when the rest of the program requires such power...
  • Look at what you needed to run the PC versions of Final Fantasy VII and VIII - and those were *crappy* ports, but damn, they needed a lot of horsepower, even if they were acting as a PSOne emulator.
    • Did you even play FF7 on the PC? I mean, apart from the slightly subpar "windows integration" (the FF7 window being captioned "DEFAULT" for example) it blew me away.

      Sure, it's wasn't freaking Quake 3 graphics, but considering what they were given, it was pretty impressive and slick. The videos could've used a better compressor (True Motion 2.0 sucks and is heavily proprietary) and optimally they would've been higher-res, but that's really just nitpicking. I wouldn't even have noticed if I hadn't extracted the videos to MPEG4 for a certain project of mine.

      The text was nicely antialiased, and the game retained *SO* much of it's original "feel". something that no other console->PC port that I know of has ever been able to touch.

      There were nice videos in FF8/PC, which only existed because Squaresoft did the port themselves, and were presumably more accomodating to themselves rendering higher res videos than they were to Eidos. Other than that, FF7/PC was much nicer. :P

      ... My not-so-humble opinion.

      • Don't forget the kick-ass XG MIDI soundtrack and the free Yamaha S-YXG70 softsynth for w9x. Anybody who ever considered actually buying one of Yamaha's softsynths back then was better off buying FF7PC for $10-$20 instead.

        < tofuhead >

      • What blew me away in FF7 on the PC, was the beauty of the animations when you "cast spells", you know, the invocation thing.

        I was playing on a modest PC (200Mhz processor, 3Dfx Voodoo2 card) and frankly I an still in awe when I see the artwork which was put in these sequences.

        I wish they would release each of these spells into a separate .exe file which one could launch at will, without having to be in the game, very much like what direct-3D demos show nowadays.

      • Final Fantasy VII for the PC kicked ass because there were no textures. Actually, there was one that I can think of, and that was Barett's tattoo. The polys were all gourard shaded, I believe, which means that when the rez was bumped up, the shading bumped itself up along with, and all was good. When VIII came out, it used textures. And when they ported it to PC, they didn't think, or didn't want, to resample all of the textures. So they simply get blown up, and look like crap.

  • And thus... (Score:2, Funny)

    by keyne ( 524280 )
    ...Square tests teh PLayOnline servers by being posted on SlashDot :o
  • Be warned that the links go to Japanese web sites.

    /. it equals to declare war on Japan. So becareful gentlemen.

  • Revolutionary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by URoRRuRRR ( 57117 )
    The PC version will be fully compatible with the PlayStation2 version allowing people on either system to play together.

    Wow. This is sure to bring a new level of respect between consoles and PCs. Offically few to none of the computer game makers have accepted consoles like they should, only porting their games to the systems. Now they're taking them and letting consoles and PCs play together. How long before we can Lan PS2s with out machines to play games like Unreal Tournament 2? I know the PS2 has firewire, maybe we can use that for hardware and push manufacturers to bring us cross-compatable games. Together, we can make it happen.
    • 4x4 Evolution was Dreamcast/PC/Mac interoperable like....2 years ago. This is NOT anything new.

    • How long before we can Lan PS2s with out machines to play games like Unreal Tournament 2?

      Um... the XBOX has been able to do that since the first person pulled one out of a box.
  • Well, I'm glad to know that a) I won't have to throw down a bucket of cash just to upgrade my PS2 to be able to play the game (hard drive and ethernet) and that b) I have a computer capable of running this, but overall, I'm still not terribly excited about FFXI.

    I think Square is trying to do too much too soon and as a result will marr the series and stands to loose a considerable amount of money when all thid PlayOnline bullshit goes belly up. Here's hoping FFXII, in the hands of Square's most under-appreciated designer Akihiko Yoshida, will redeem the series which I have not fully enjoyed since FFVII.

  • Online. grrrr (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm worried about the direction that Final Fantasy is taking. I'm not looking for another everquest ripoff. Final Fantasy 7 and 9 were both greatness. VIII and X were .... ok...

    I think the true Final Fantasy fans will demand a separate series. Make one Final Fantasy Online and make the other Final Fantasy XII or whatever.

    Stick to what WE like, A great story, a good villian, twists and turns, a cute chick, and a few tears for those we loose.

  • Communication in console MMORPG's? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dmwst30 ( 463874 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @12:15AM (#3720153)
    Games like Everquest have been around for several years, and boast the advantage of a keyboard to make in-game conversations simple and efficient (if not gramatically correct). However, the PS2 doesn't come with a keyboard. It IS compatible with a USB-keyboard, from what I have read. Anyone planning on NOT using a keyboard if they play this game? Without the ease of communication it would allow, sounds like the game would be alot harder.
  • i'll just go with the console, thanx...the last thing i need to do is take up more hard drive space than the rest of my stuff combined for a single game.

  • FF 9 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @12:20AM (#3720166)
    After playing FF 9 for about eleven hours straight yesterday, I would like to beleive that I could invest some serious time in a Final Fantasy MMRPG.

    Still, I don't know how fun it would be if you had to play for even a month to get as far as you can get on the single player games in a week.

    I dunno. Being surrounded by cute Square-style anime girls might just make it worth it.
  • Does anyone else find the irony in the fact that most stories on here discuss open source product etc but this is a Beta test that you need Windows to participate in ? not to put too fine a point on it but it does make me smile a little...

    • Re:maybe this is redundant but.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by martissimo ( 515886 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @01:19AM (#3720323)
      Does anyone else find the irony in the fact that most stories on here discuss open source product etc but this is a Beta test that you need Windows to participate in ?

      no offense intended here, but how often do you see releases for the "latest and greatest" games that dont require Windows?

      Even Neverwinter Nights which was supposedly gonna include linux "out of the box" wont be doing so with the gold release, and to top that off will require a windows install as a dual boot to even let it work once it does.

      even a linux junkie will generally acknowledge that windows has a place for PC Gamers, sure there are some people who deserve big credit for trying to bring gaming to linux, but it's far from a large market

      • Hey moderators, can someone mod this guy down?

        There is no indication that you'll need a windows installation to register NWN or download other components of the game.

        Their press release about going gold simply states that you will need the Windows CD.

        Insightful? Yeah right...

        Dinivin
        • there is certainly speculation about what will be required since bioware hasnt clarified the issue yet.

          but considering that linux was supposed to be supported "out of the box" at first, and that now seems certain not to happen... who knows?

          all we know is that you will certainly need the windows CD at this point for registration, and critical data updates... you can assume that they will support said data updates in a linux environment if you like, but it surely isnt certain since nobody will know how the linux support works until a month or so after release for windows (which is far from what they said they would do long ago)

          • If you're not so sure what the situation is, why did you say, with such surety:

            "and to top that off will require a windows install as a dual boot to even let it work once it does."

            Please, just admit you were talking out your ass and that Bioware has never given you any indication that this is the case.

            Dinivin
            • hey they stated the game would ship linux ready out of the box, is that gonna happen... NO

              they hyped the cool features of the toolset to create your own worlds, is it gonna work in linux...NO

              they go gold and state that you will need the windows binaries to register and download updates... if you think you are gonna be able to do that in a linux environment i guess you are a glass half full type guy... me, well i guess you can figure out how empty my glass is ;)
              • Again, just admit that you're talking our your ass when you said: and to top that off will require a windows install as a dual boot to even let it work once it does.

                Please note that you didn't say it may require. You said it will require. Yet you have no proof of that. All you have is your own speculation.

                Dinivin

      • how often do you see releases for the "latest and greatest" games that dont require Windows?

        Board games don't need Microsoft Windows. Card games don't need Microsoft Windows. Athletic games (basketball, dodgeball, etc.) don't need Microsoft Windows.

        Restricting "games" to mean "video games" produces the following: None of the games released for the PlayStation 2, Nintendo GameCube, Game Boy Advance, or Palm OS uses a Microsoft operating system. (Xbox OS is a slimmed-down Win2k, and some Dreamcast games run Windows CE.)

        Restricting "games" to mean "video games designed for computing devices not sold explicitly for playing games" seems to exclude most current x86 PCs.

    • Does anyone else find the irony in the fact that most stories on here discuss open source product etc but this is a Beta test that you need Windows to participate in ? not to put too fine a point on it but it does make me smile a little...

      Microsoft has a monopoly on consumer software products and services, and this is one symptom of that monopoly. Why does this make you "smile a little"? Do you honestly enjoy being locked into a single product; smug in the assurance that since there are no other choices you are able to surround yourself with other "successful" software users and laugh at people who are trying to change the situation? I'm sorry, but why do you even bother reading slashdot?

      Ahh yes, I answered my own question...

      • I'm sorry, but why do you even bother reading slashdot?

        I wonder myself... I make a comment on something and immdiately join the ranks of the group of people who obviously dont know anything else... completely missing a link to a LINUX site in my sig, a site i post articles on Linux on.....

        Maybe im in the wrong place - i recall when this site stood for intelligent comment and discussion - now it seems it stands for other things..

  • What to Choose? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by xSterbenx ( 549640 )
    Well, its seems I have quite the dilemna. Should I buy FFXI on PS2 or PC? My PC more than meets the requirements listed (64 Geforce2 GTS Pro, 1.2 Ghz t-bird, etc). However, my home entertainment system (surround sound, 36' WEGA TV) makes PS2 games look and sound really good, much better in fact than PC games. I've played EQ on PC before for a bit; was fun, but sitting in an armchair in front of a computer for long periods of time can get pretty stale, especially after doing it all day at work, while with the PS2 version I can sit on my couch, in my living room. Of course, then I would have to somehow fit the keyboard in somewhere so that I can use it comfortably.

    Its a hard choice to make, and I'm interested in what opinions people have as to which would be a better buy, the PC or the PS2 version, given these attributes? This isn't something I've ever had to thought about before in terms of an MMORPG, since there havn't really been any cross-platform games until now (or at least none that I've been interested in).

    • > with the PS2 version I can sit on my couch, in my living room.

      Nothing says you can't do that with PC games. I have a video card with TV-Out and have my PC situated in the same room as the TV, so... Add in a wireless keyboard, and you're set.
    • TVs, as nice and big as they are, suck once you're used to good image quality.

      Go play GTA3 on a PC in 1280x1024, then go back and try to play it on a console hooked up to a TV. no comparison!

      I'd say invest in a way to play PC games more comfortably. Either be able to hook it up to your TV/Audio system and get a good surface to control it on from the couch, or get a better chair (and audio) setup for your PC.

  • Funny Stuff (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SomeOtherGuy ( 179082 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @01:19AM (#3720326) Journal
    Hmmm..Sounds like they should be getting kickbacks from Maxtor, Nvidia, and Micron for making sure you have to have a screaming PC to play the same game that can be played on a PS2. (I know that the PS2 is pretty fast as far as consoles go...But having to have a 64 meg Vid card, 4.5 Gigs of HD space, 128 Megs of memory, and a fast CPU -- makes me wonder why they can't optimize a bit on the PC side).

    BTW -- I am having oodles of fun playing Warcraft II and Red Alert on my Pentium 200MMX laptop with 1.5 megs of Video Ram and 64 Megs of memory -- Sad that game companies nowdays think that resource rape will make up for clever design and gameplay. I will clap loudly for any company that can publish a 2002 game that does not require the latest 3D card and oodles of CPU and memory to be fun.
    • I will clap loudly for any company that can publish a 2002 game that does not require the latest 3D card and oodles of CPU and memory to be fun.

      Sorry, there is no "pong" slated for release in 2002.

    • Increasing game demands drive hardware sales which let us all encode DIVX movies faster and render our star wars fan-film CG. You're asking for the speed of progress to decrease? Ask the medical community how many lives have been saved because progress in computer fields allowed the costs of medical devices to drop. Computers are facilitating unraveling the mysteries of DNA. If you can't handle the speed of progress that's your fault. Buy a new computer every five years instead of three. Spend the first three years with the hottest games around. Spend the last two with bargain bin titles from last year you overlooked. Or get hooked on MMORPGs. Those only get complete overhauls every two to four years.
    • BTW -- I am having oodles of fun playing Warcraft II and Red Alert on my Pentium 200MMX laptop with 1.5 megs of Video Ram and 64 Megs of memory -- Sad that game companies nowdays think that resource rape will make up for clever design and gameplay.

      In this case it's just that the game is being designed for the PS2 hardware. It's a PS2 game first, and a PC port second. On the PS2 you can do a lot of specific trickery that takes advantage of its architecture. On the PC, you need a system that lets you get the same visual results but by using a *generic* graphics API. So where there might be some low level fiddling that will let you do certain things on the PS2, you have to do it the so-called "correct" way on the PC, and that may be much more expensive.

      Still, there are some advantages of PC hardware over the PS2, like 8:1 texture compression and multitexturing.

      And, of course, you're comparing games displaying a few dozen 2D sprites per frame with a game that's drawing 20,000+ texture-mapped, shaded, and filtered triangles per frame. That's maybe too obvious to point out, but you seem to have missed it.
  • Looking up this info at my friendly neighbourhood computer store. NB. Prices are in CDN$

    Win98: $150

    Celeron 1GHz: $110

    128MB RAM: $35

    Geforce2MX:$70

    Maxtor 20GB: $100

    FFXI: $70 (probably)

    Total: $535 CDN (about $300US)

    It's hard to find P3s and Geforces anymore. And most of the stuff people will probably already have from before. And it assumes you already have a mobo, monitor, etc, etc.

    Well, what's the point of the above calculation. Procrastination mostly, I have a final exam tomorrow. Secondly, I have everything except for the video card. Being a poor ass student, I want to know what it will actually cost me to play FFXI.

    So I'm thinking, do I want to upgrade now or upgrade when Doom3 comes out (which won't be out for another year at least). In a perfect world, I would upgrade now and in a year (Not to mention a few times in between).

    Goes to show that the major reason to upgrade is usually when that new game comes out. And for some people, when the next version of Windoze is released. Personally, I'm still dual booting with Win98 and only boot out of Linux to play games. So logically the next question is: Any word on native Linux support or (blech) Winex support?

  • PC Games are irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)

    by foonf ( 447461 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @02:48AM (#3720545) Homepage
    This story, for some reason, seems to epitomize perfectly what I have been feeling about PC video games for the past couple of years:

    First, its a port of a console game. Any successful PC game these days, except for a few extremely successful franchises, either is ported from a console, or is ported to a console immediately. Except for those few extremely successful games, the financial requirements almost require that it be available on as many platforms as possible. The kind of diversity and originality that used to characterize computer games, since their origin in text-based strategy and adventure games in fact, can no longer be supported by the adolescent and console-driven market of today.

    Second, the hardware requirements are completely out of touch with most computers actually in use. A lot of people who don't play video games probably have computers less than half as fast as the recommended system, and are quite content with them. Aside from people with new machines, and people building systems specifically for playing video games, it is out of reach of a surprisingly large number of computer users.

    And the people who have the hardware to run this...a strong majority of them are probably sufficiently involved with video games that they own a Playstation 2 anyway. Considering this I wouldn't be surprised if video games on the PC disappear altogether shortly, especially as special-purpose toy systems like video game consoles increase in power. This could be a potentially postitive development in two ways, not only removing a major impediment to the proliferation of Free operating systems on desktop PCs, but also removing a large subset of users from the Wintel orbit entirely (after all, whats the only PC operating system you can run on a Playstation 2...yeah, thats right, [GNU/]Linux).

    • Uh, circular arguments here...

      Any successful PC game these days, except for a few extremely successful franchises, either is ported from a console, or is ported to a console immediately.

      So your argument is, that any game either starts on PC and goes to consoles, or starts on consoles and goes to PC. Well, umm, duh. That's the entire subset of ports, a to b or b to a!

      Not to mention you're actually wrong. Let me know when consoles have even half of the top PC games of the last year - CS, RtCW, Tribes2, SoF2, the Sim/Civ games, MoH:AA, Dungeon Siege... and all the RTS type games. Heard any news of Warcraft 3 or Neverwinter Nights or Morrowind making it to console? No. they just don't work there.

      Sure, there are some ports (GTA, Soul reaver, and stuff) but they don't do nearly as well on PC. Some games suit different environments (and more specifically, different control mechanisms) better than others.

      the financial requirements almost require that it be available on as many platforms as possible.

      Well, yes. If you have a game on platform A that is obviously popular and suits platform B's usual demographic, why not port it? exclusivity is not a good thing. As M$ will probably find out. hehe.

      The kind of diversity and originality that used to characterize computer games, since their origin in text-based strategy and adventure games in fact, can no longer be supported by the adolescent and console-driven market of today.

      Wrong again. There are different types of platform, as you said yourself, and there are different types of games. And different audiences.
      In so far as this not being as good as "the good old days", _every_ computer back then had the same game, or clones of the same game, be it hunt the wumpus, double dragon, summer games or whatever. Whether you had a spectrum, C64, Amstrad CPC464 or whatever, your selection was pretty much the same.

      Second, the hardware requirements are completely out of touch with most computers actually in use. A lot of people who don't play video games probably have computers less than half as fast as the recommended system, and are quite content with them.

      I disagree strongly. The hardware requirements for FFXI (to stay on topic) are components over 2 years old (P3-800, any geforce), which is well within the life-cycle of a usual upgrade. And this is for a game that isn't even nearly out yet! There are processors almost 3 times as fast, and graphics cards with twice the _recommended_ (not minimum) memory that have been available for months!
      have a look at computers on sale these days, you can't even BUY anything with less than a 1Ghz processor anymore, even at entry level. I'm sure you don't need it to run your text adventures, but then again FFXI and other games are not targeted to that audience. "People who don't play video games" probably don't care either way anyway, so it's a moot point.

      And the people who have the hardware to run this...a strong majority of them are probably sufficiently involved with video games that they own a Playstation 2 anyway.

      This makes no sense. "People who have invested a lot of money to get a kickass PC gaming system probably bought a different system so they can play games on that instead." Wtf?

      PCs still remain the most powerful gaming platform. Hell, the Xbox has just had its arse kicked by the Geforce4 and it's only been out a few months. There are niches to every side of gaming, from Gamecube to PS2 and Xbox to PC. And of course you playing your text adventures.

      Each to their own, I guess, but please, don't dismiss something just because you don't understand it.

      Fross

      (and FWIW, as you should have seen on this forum many times, Free operating systems are just as available for consoles as they are PCs!) :)
    • People have been predicting the demise of the PC as a gaming platform since goodness knows when but it is still with us.

      There could be many reasons for this. Perhaps it is because within a year high end PCs are always able to outperform the most recent consoles. Perhaps it's because certain styles of game (e.g. Civilisation or the best selling (PC) game of all time the Sims) just works better with a default PC setup. Perhaps it's because PCs have a bigger installation base.

      Don't get me wrong, for the most part I prefer console games (actually the only console I own is a GBA and very good it is too) but it's too easy to fall into the trap and write off PC games. Most of the popular online games are still PC based and the fact that Square has chosen to release FFIX for the PC (rather than the Xbox) shows that it still considers to be a viable platform. Also note that the requirements state that it needs Windows (not Linux). Just because Linux runs on the PS2 doesn't make it any more viable as a gaming platform.
    • > Any successful PC game these days, except for a few extremely successful franchises, either is ported from a console, or is ported to a console immediately.

      A point of order: very, very few successful PC games are ported from console. If companies could understand the concept of making good ports it would be much different. Most ports from console suck. The games that tend to be successful on multiple platforms are usually designed from the ground with each platform in mind.

      Also, there aren't a huge number of ports from PC to console. Sure, there are a few. But the best games (Baldur's Gate II, Counter Strike, Warcraft III, NWN, etc.) are unique to the PC or the console (Halo, Smash Brothers, etc.). Not only that, forget the multiplay styles. PC: Online multiplay only, console: Sit in the same room.

      Maybe what you're talking about could happen. Could. Won't. A high end PC will always kick a console's tail. A console, OTOH, will likely always be much cheaper. They are two seperate worlds. They're happy together and neither is going anywhere.
    • (after all, whats the only PC operating system you can run on a Playstation 2...yeah, thats right, [GNU/]Linux)

      How is Linux a PC operating system any more than an embedded operating system or a mainframe operating system? For that matter, how can you say it's a PC operating system that runs on a game console? Isn't that contradictory?

      I'm sure NetBSD will run on the PS2 soon enough. It runs on the Dreamcast, and on everything else, so why not? And MS has an OS running on the X-Box, does that mean anything? Nope.

      'The PS2 will kill windows because you can run Linux on it' makes no sense whatsoever. Please, think before you post.

      --Dan
  • They can make a game that takes up 4.5 Gigs of precious magnetic storage, but they can't make an English version of the website. Or should I say Engrish.
  • There is something in the equation which I fail to understand.

    FF7, FF8, FF9, etc were all games originally for the PS2, later ported to the PC. The original ports to the PC ran fine on a modest setup; in my case I had a Pentium 200 and a 3Dfx Voodoo2 card at the time, and FF7 ran beautifully.

    So, my point is, why do the PC specs inflate so much, whereas the games run on the same original hardware for years (a PS2 from 3 years ago is still basically the same PS2 today, right ?)

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Yes I have to admit, I am somewhat out of the consoles loop :)

        I didn't know that all final Fantasy previous to FFX were only released on the original PS. I suppose that this largely explains the beefed-up PC specs then !

        Anyone can comment on my last point ? (if there a chance to be able to extract the real-time animations for spells in fights)...

    • FF7, FF8, and FF9 were released for the PS1, FFX and FF Online were designed for the PS2... Hence why they were released so quickly for the PC (less optimizing for the emotion engine of the PS2, the systems were largely set up for PC emulation, hence why they seemed to run slower than the original PS1 games would run on Bleem! and other PS1 emulators)...

  • With that much game data... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wackysootroom ( 243310 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @07:58AM (#3721102) Homepage
    I would assume that one of the system requirements was not mentioned. With 4.5GB of game data, I would have to think that the game will not be distributed on CD-ROM, but DVD. This would require having a DVD-ROM drive in your system.

  • It's a dead giveaway. (Score:3, Funny)

    by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:37AM (#3721205) Homepage
    Yoda works at Alta Vista between prequels.

    Translating [altavista.com] japanese [square.co.jp] pages.

    Typical Jedi grammatical manipulation.

  • Don't think FFXI will be too popular.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Tuesday June 18, 2002 @08:50AM (#3721259)
    The fans of the Final Fantasy franchise for the most part will probably not be that interested in XI. People get Final Fantasy games because they want to play through a story at their own pace and reach a conclusive finish. A story that is complete in and of itself, not an ongoing MMORPG. That is a different type of game altogether. With a MMORPG, in order to have any cohesiveness among characters, your schedule is tied in with other people's. The story does not reach an end, but just continues on and on and on, *if* there is any sort of story at all.

    I know a lot of Final Fantasy fans who plan to skip any online-only installments. I heard that in Japan sales were below expectations. I'm sorry, but Final Fantasy appeals more to fans of standalone game, and a different set of people go for things like Everquest and those people don't get excited over the name "Final Fantasy". First the movie, now this, it's cool to see Square experiment, but perhaps they should get XII out faster :)
    • People get Final Fantasy games because they want to play through a story at their own pace and reach a conclusive finish.

      I get Final Fantasy games because I like the gameplay and the writing. I've dreamed about having a well-done RPG that I could continue playing indefinitely, where the whole world would change and grow as time went on, and depending on what you did.

      For example: a world, at the start, with a government/monarchy/whatever, and rebels who want to usurp them. Players can bop around in the world, or join one side or the other. Depending on the outcome of in-game events, the world changes. Rebels get crushed, or take over the government. Throw in some intrigue, evil bad guys, quests, and so on. A dynamic FF world, maintained and extended as time goes on. Sounds like fun to me. No more unlikely 'happily ever after', just a continuing gameplay with real-person interaction.

      Besides, I've always wanted to take on someone in an FF-style battle. I'd love pitting my character against others'.

      --Dan

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close