Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PlayStation (Games) Entertainment Games

Final Fantasy XIII Still PS3 Only 124

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the still-counting-good-ps3-titles-on-one-hand dept.
Square Enix recently announced some of the games to be showcased at their "private party" in August. Looking at the games listed we see that Final Fantasy XIII seems to still be PS3 only and the rumors that Final Fantasy Agito XIII was canned seem to be highly overrated.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Final Fantasy XIII Still PS3 Only

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    When wasn't it expected to be PS3 only?
    • Maybe it's like an article stating that "Elvis is still dead"
      Just in case someone forgot.

      Or for when the zombies come.
    • Re:uh.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:45PM (#23756781)
      When the PS3 was absolutely tanking and the Xbox 360 was dominant, Square Enix announced that they were considering porting FFXIII to the Xbox 360.

      Later, Square Enix announced that they've licensed the Unreal 3 engine.

      So there was a lot of speculation that they were planning on bringing FFXIII out on the Xbox 360.

      Since then, the PS3 has moved from absolutely pathetic to just plain luke-warm, and the Xbox 360 has completely failed in Japan. So it makes less sense now then it did some two freaking years ago when they first started leaking screenshots.
      • Microsoft should be offering them millions if not billions of dollars to make it an xbox exclusive. Japan is one of the largest gaming markets in the world, and FF games get huge lines and are real console movers. I would expect the PS3 to make a huge jump after this is released in the US and Europe alone.

        However, if it were an XBox exclusive, even for just a year, they would be able to mount a serious attack in japan and move consoles in one of the biggest video game markets in the world.
        • Re:uh.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by CastrTroy (595695) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @09:50PM (#23757921) Homepage
          Sadly, I don't think that even Final Fantasy could make the Japanese want to buy an XBox. It would just alienate the fans. Considering the popularity of the systems, and the fact that FF doesn't require amazing graphics, I'm surprised they don't put it out on the Wii.
          • by KDR_11k (778916)
            the fact that FF doesn't require amazing graphics

            Huh? To me it looks like the graphics are the biggest selling point of recent FFs.
            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              I'm not sure if it is the biggest selling point, but Final Fantasy games always have above average, if not almost revolutionary graphics at their release.
              • by 7Prime (871679)
                Not sure I agree. FF6, FF8 & FF9 definitely were ahead of their time, graphically. Some would argue that FFX was, though in many ways, it's more just a lighting and voice update to where FF8 was. But FF4, FF5, FF7, and FF12 were merely average graphics for their times. Granted, they made better usage of their graphics than most games. FF7 also pioneered 3D RPGs, however the result was pretty low quality compared to most other 3D games of its time. FF4 should hardly count, since most of its development w
          • FF doesn't require amazing graphics
            If that were true, Square wouldn't have been so insistent on having the increased storage of an optical disc during the FF7 days, and Square wouldn't have spread mush rumors about the N64 that ended up moving the developers of all RPGs but two (Quest 64 and Aidyn Chronicles) to the PS1.
            • Re:Remember the PS1 (Score:5, Informative)

              by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday June 12, 2008 @09:07AM (#23762687) Homepage
              The storage space was more about full motion video than it was/is about good graphics. You can't put FMV and CD Quality sound on a cartridge. This time around Nintendo put DVD on the Wii, and it has just as much storage as the XBox. The PS3 has blu-ray, which adds a ton of storage, but I've never seen FF shy away from using multiple discs. The N64 had more than enough power to display all the graphics that FF and any other RPG of it's time had. It was actually better at actual graphics than the PS1. The PS1 just had a lot more storage space. For a quick comparison. Zelda: Ocarina of Time was under 30 MB. FF VII, I believed, filled up 4 CDs.
              • The storage space was more about full motion video than it was/is about good graphics.

                Then why not just do the cut scenes in the game engine like FF1-3 for NES, FF4-6 for SNES, and Metal Gear Solid for PS1 did?

                You can't put FMV and CD Quality sound on a cartridge.

                PS1 FMV audio wasn't exactly CD quality either. It was usually 4-bit ADPCM at 38 kHz, not 16-bit linear PCM at 44.1 kHz. Stronger audio codecs such as MP2 were capable of running on N64, and both Star Fox 64 and Star Wars: Rogue Squadron used this.

                FF VII, I believed, filled up 4 CDs.

                I thought FF7 was 3 discs and FF8 was 4.

                • by CastrTroy (595695)

                  Then why not just do the cut scenes in the game engine like FF1-3 for NES, FF4-6 for SNES, and Metal Gear Solid for PS1 did?

                  I'm not sure why they didn't do that. It worked just fine for Ocarina of Time, which was wildly popular. It may be easier to do certiain things in FMV, especailly when the game engine doesn't support all the special effects you want to show. When the CD based systems first hit the shelves, all the developers were really excited about FMV, because they couldn't do it previously.

              • You can't put FMV and CD Quality sound on a cartridge.

                Resident Evil 2 for N64 [ign.com] begs to disagree with you. To a certain extent, at least.

          • by Sunz (1306699)
            Very bad news. I am the owner of xbox 360
      • by aeoo (568706)

        the PS3 has moved from absolutely pathetic to just plain luke-warm, and the Xbox 360 has completely failed in Japan

        From where I stand, PS3 has moved from like-warm to boiling hot. I've had xbox360 (actually 2, since I didn't bother replacing the first one that failed) for about a year now. I'm sad to report there is a grand-total of one, count-em, JUST ONE GAME, that I have honest-to-god enjoyed: Rainbow Six Vegas 1. And then there were were a few OK games, like Halo (ho-hum), The Darkness (decent), Mass Effect (underwhelming, but still entertaining), and Oblivion IV (great game ruined by the shitty console, as I ex

  • FF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Speare (84249) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @06:39PM (#23755961) Homepage Journal
    Final Fantasy has always been focused on one platform. They push the hell out of every polygon budget, every memory limit, that they can get out of the hardware. Even if the core libraries are easily portable, I can imagine they don't relish the thought of porting or dual-targeting the title, because the game will not look as good on one of the platforms. For a title that is all about visuals, that's hard to take.
    • by Gabest (852807)
      Final Fantasies on the ps2 are technically among the simplier games. They just don't abuse the hardware as most big titles do. Polygon count is also very low.
  • Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilentBob0727 (974090) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @06:40PM (#23755985) Homepage
    The Final Fantasy series is a console mover.

    FFI came out for the NES in 1990. I loved it so much I had to beg my parents to buy me a SNES for FFII/IV.
    Then FFVII came out for the Playstation. Fortunately, it did so well that they ported it to the PC. Then FFVIII tanked on the PC and FFIX released only on the playstation, so I went out and bought one, allowing me to scoop up Anthology, Chronicles, and Origins in the crossfire.

    Then FFX came out for the PS2. I loved FFVII and FFIX so much I had to buy myself a PS2 to play FFX.

    Then the original FFII and FFIII came out on the WonderSwan Color. In Japan only.

    Then the original FFIII came out for the Nintendo DS. Guess who went out and bought one.

    Unfortunately for Square-Enix, I did not love FFXII so much that I will be buying a PS3 to play FFXIII. The spell is finally broken. Or I'm getting older.
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      More bad news for you, then, Sony have also announced that "Get Off My Lawn 2: The Reckoning" will be a playstation3 exclusive as well.
    • Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @06:55PM (#23756177)
      Somehow I think that FFXIII will be PS3 only.... Then a FFXIII: Wii Edition will be released on the Wii, and lastly a FFXIII DX version will be released on the 360. Its only a matter of time, though I think a port to the Wii would be more likely then the 360 (with SE seeing FFCC:MLaaK a $15 downloadable game is selling extremely fast...)
      • by KDR_11k (778916)
        15$ plus paid-for addon content. If that makes them money they might shift more resources into developing downloadable games with tons of "horse armor".
    • FYI they also released the original Final Fantasy II along with Final Fantasy I as part of "Dawn of Souls" for Gameboy advance
      • Yeah... In my frantic attempt to cobble together an accurate list of US Final Fantasy releases, a couple slipped by my otherwise ironclad recall abaility.
        • They also did remakes of FFI and FFII for the PSP. There's also a remake of FFIII for the DS, and an English translation of FFIV for the DS is in the works.
    • by Skatox (1109939)

      Unfortunately for Square-Enix, I did not love FFXII so much that I will be buying a PS3 to play FFXIII. The spell is finally broken. Or I'm getting older.
      I felt the same.
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      While I really enjoyed FF 1,5, and chrono trigger, I have to say that I'm not impressed with the recent ones. I actually stopped playing at FF VII, because it was just so damn boring. The game is boring enough in that you have to spend time leveling up to complete your quests. But that's bearable because the quests are fun, and challenging, and make you think, and the story is good too. FF VII was terrible, because they made the fight system so excruciatingly long. 20 to 30 seconds of animation for eac
      • by KDR_11k (778916)
        I compare FF5 and FF8 (never played 7) this way: In both you'll fight Odin on a time limit. In FF5 it's 1 minute, in FF8 it's 20 minutes (granted, that's including the short dungeon he's in but you can solve it almost fully, leave and return to reset the timer).
    • ... I bought a Playstation for FF7. Got it, played it, hated it. The story was palatable (despite a loathsome protagonist), but I hated - HATED - the incessant load time and the overly streamlined gameplay. Yeah, the game was a breakthrough for streaming off of the disk, but it basically swapped "loading..." for gameplay that felt like it was slow motion underwater sludge. I traded my playstation for a laptop. Years later I tried 8 and didn't care for it; 9 and didn't care for it, the anthologies and d
    • Re:Utter bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Forkenhoppen (16574) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @10:16PM (#23758211)
      FFXII was set in a world created for the earlier game Final Fantasy Tactics, and the team was lead by the folks behind that game. As far as I know, all previous games have had a completely new world, with the possible exception of FFIX.

      I am a touch concerned, though, as you are, about the upcoming Final Fantasy games. This recent approach by Square-Enix to make the Final Fantasy series into multiple-game affairs spread across everything from portables and cellphones up to the latest cutting-edge home console is causing them to over-think and over-engineer the worlds in which their characters reside. The games, or to be more specific the stories, are losing their focus and suffering for it.

      On the upside, at least they're re-releasing Final Fantasy IV on the DS with updated visuals. (That's FFII from the SNES) It'll be nice to take that trip back in time to when the worlds were self-contained and focused on the premise rather than providing fodder for all the requisite/inevitable spin-offs.
      • by tlhIngan (30335)

        I am a touch concerned, though, as you are, about the upcoming Final Fantasy games. This recent approach by Square-Enix to make the Final Fantasy series into multiple-game affairs spread across everything from portables and cellphones up to the latest cutting-edge home console is causing them to over-think and over-engineer the worlds in which their characters reside. The games, or to be more specific the stories, are losing their focus and suffering for it.

        Actually, the only one I can think of that's spawn

        • I'm told it's not the best FF out there (FF5/6 apparently are, but I haven't played those)
          In my experience, it breaks down this way: approximately half the FF fans believe FF6 is the best, approximately half believe FF7 is the best. I fall into the latter camp. You really have no cause to believe what you heard about FF7 being the best, since it's pretty evenly split.
          • And I'm one of those few oddballs who believes Tactics is the best :D
            • I'm playing Tactics on the PSP at the moment, and it is really damn good. Also really damn hard, unfortunately.
              • by ahsile (187881)
                There a couple issues with tactics for those who first play it: a) if you don't have a clue how to unlock certain jobs, the AI will outpace you quickly. b) If you don't use random battles to level up (levels and jobs), you're going to be hurting later.

                I believe the first time I played the game I was in the mid-30's by the end. I got hopelessly stuck fighting some dragons near the end... and there was no going back. These days I've played the game to death and have a party fully decked out. The only challeng
              • by enderjsv (1128541)
                Trust me, the difficulty actually makes it more enjoyable. I played through the tactics sequel on the game boy advance. It was an okay game, but the fact that it was far easier than it's predecessor made me feel as though I was missing out on something.
            • by ahsile (187881)
              Amen! Had to get a PSP so I could take the game with me! Although I gave up on the other FF titles a long long time ago.
            • by apoc06 (853263)
              ditto.

              FF tactics gets overlooked due to the fact that it was a turn based strategy game, but the story is generally accepted as much better than most of the core canon titles.

              id love to see a true ps3 sequel to tactics. the GBA one was decent, but the story was lacking and the DS one doesnt look too appealing. square needs to drop a FF story onto a disgaea-like gameplay mechanic and it would sell tons.
          • In my experience, those who played VI before VII think VI is better. Those who played VII before became spoiled by the video sequences and graphics, and couldn't stand playing VI - so they think VII is better.
            • Not necessarily true. I played FF6, and I think it is a great game... just inferior to FF7. Say what you will, but I honestly believe, having played both, that FF6 is the inferior of the two games (and not because the graphics are bad, I can overlook that easily).
              • Yes, but which one did you play first? My point is that in general, people prefer one of the two. In 99% of the cases, they prefer VI if they played VI before VII, and VII if they played VII before VI.
                • Fair enough, but you made it sound as though all those who prefer FF7 are graphics whores, and that's why they prefer it (and won't even try FF6). I'm just saying that isn't the case.
            • My preference for FFVII has nothing to do with the graphics. I played Chrono Trigger for the first time in 2000 or 2001 and it's still one of my favorite games.
        • by tmalone (534172)
          I've finished many and left many at the very end. I never finished 2 (IV in Japan) or 5. I stopped playing both at the end because I was done. I was getting ready to go fight the last bad guy and I just couldn't bring myself to care enough to grind my way through some horribly long dungeon, fight the "last bad guy", then have him change forms and fight him again. I hate this convention in RPGs where the final bad dude has to be at the end of a dungeon and has to change forms. Games rarely have good enough p
      • Final Fantasy X and X-2 take place on a different world but in the same universe as FFVII. There is an interesting article by one of the creators (Nomura I think) who says that the Al Bhed flew to Gaia (FFVII planet) and became Aerith's "Ancients".
        • Actually, at the end of X-2 a guy named "Shinra" is talking about discovering vast amounts of energy that could be harnessed for electrical power emanating from the "Farplane", the place where dead things go in that universe.

          In FFVII, "Shinra" is a former munitions manufacturing corporation that controls the world through the sale of Mako, electrical energy drawn from the "Lifestream", the "place" where dead things go in that universe.

          Square-Enix has said that this is intentional.

          I choose to believe that a
      • Final Fantasy III and VIII seem to use the same world. Here's more info: http://www.rpgamer.com/editor/2005/q2/050205gm.html [rpgamer.com]
    • by microTodd (240390)
      I'm in the same boat as you...hardcore fan of the old school, the new ones not so much. I think part of it is that Sakaguchi is no longer with Squeenix. If you've got a 360 try picking up his game "Lost Odyssey". It actually feels more like "Final Fantasy" than FF12 did.
      • Blue Dragon, I didn't care for. Lost Odyssey, however, is an excellent game. Both include the Japanese language track. And with Star Ocean 4, Infinite Undiscovery and Last Remenant all coming to Xbox 360, it's a great day to be a JRPG fan. Mark my words, we'll see both MGS4 and FFXIII on 360.
    • It's interesting that you call FF a console mover, because I certainly felt the same way. However, perhaps I'm just getting too old as well, because I'm finding that there are a lot of things that are pissing me off about FF games -- especially the newer ones, but the older ones as well, as I replay them.

      • Doing something early in the game can ruin something later in the game. Here, I'm not talking about a choice that you make, where if you choose to do thing A early in the game, you get to do quest X la
      • I played through XII once and gave it away. I played straight through and didn't do too many sidequests other than some hunts, which was a welcome alternative to grinding. I did max out everyone's lame-ass "license board" and buy decent spells and abilities... *when* I could find them. When I beat the final boss (in whom I had zero emotional investment), I watched through an HOUR of cinematic crap expecting there to be more game before I realized with dismay that the letters on the screen spelled "THE END".
      • by jlechem (613317)
        I had FF IX bit me in the ass on this one. I forgot to buy the super hard core magic spells while in the town. Later on in the game this town gets locked and you can no longer enter it. My mages were pretty much crippled from then on to the end of the game.
        • I forgot to buy the super hard core magic spells while in the town. Later on in the game this town gets locked and you can no longer enter it. My mages were pretty much crippled from then on to the end of the game.

          Thank you -- another huge mistake committed in some games: things that you cannot go back and do later! The idea that I should catch everything the first time through a dungeon / level / area / etc. is ridiculous. I should be able to go back and complete things that I missed. Perhaps FF VIII

  • by denzacar (181829) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @07:19PM (#23756477) Journal
    As if millions of voices suddenly cried out "DUH!" and then were silenced.
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @08:34PM (#23757325)
    Given Square's obsession lately with cutscenes. They seem to love having lots of prerendered cutscenes in the game, rather than using the game engine. Well, that is the one area that a Blu-Ray drive will be advantageous in gaming. While you don't really need the space for game assets, you certainly could if you want to have an hours of HD cutscenes.

    Personally, I'm not a real fan of the whole cutscene thing. I'd rather you use the engine all the time, more immersive to me, and game graphics these days are good enough that it isn't as though you need a cutscene just to express detail the engine can't.
    • I have seen a whole lot of people using the "Its all sound", "Its only cut scenes", "They are duplicating all data", etc. Its as if no one can believe that games can be 25GB or larger.

      MGS4 is so large that they will have to remove the Japanese language so that it will all fit on their dual layer 50GB disk.

      Combine that with Final Fantasy's tendency to be one of the largest games released and the bar set by FFXII (Dynamic loading to allow more people on the screen than most PS2 games while reducing load
      • Using MGS4 as an example of a game that is huge for a reason other than cutscenes is NOT a good idea.
        This is the game that has MULTIPLE (that's right MORE THAN ONE) cutscene OVER 90 MINUTES.

        That means that even if there were only 2 and they were the only cutscenes in the game, you'd be looking at over 3 hours of video.

        This means MGS4 has a LOT of space out of that 50GB dedicated to cutscenes.
        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          This is why I'm happy I went with the Wii. I do not have 90 minutes to invest in a cutscene for a game. I want to play games. I don't want to sit around watching movies. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd watch a movie. We used to joke around and wish that our Nintendo had a skip-the-shit button, so you didn't have to sit through all the junk those games had. Little did we know how bad games would get.
          • I want to play games. I don't want to sit around watching movies. If I wanted to watch a movie, I'd watch a movie.
            If different teams make the game and the movie, you get crap like Super Mario Bros. (1993) [wikipedia.org] that doesn't follow the game at all. Would you rather have cut scenes or Uwe Boll?
        • by apoc06 (853263)
          1) MSG4 does not have cutscenes over 90 minutes long.

          2) more importantly, MGS4 does all of its cutscenes within the game engine. i cant recall a single FMV cutscene in any MG game [correct me if i'm wrong here, but i have played every single one]

          3) if anything, i would bet that the high quality audio takes up a significant portion of that space. [in game voice, cutscene audio, effects, music, the various "retro" music and podcasts available on your in game ipod]

          4) in terms of pure HD video, there are a few
          • The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and Mass Effect, arguably, have more dialog than Metal Gear Solid 4... multiple discussions, different paths... and yet both games fit on a single DVD. Visually, Mass Effect and MGS4 seem to be on par, neither game looks more outstanding, visually, than the other. How can Bethesda and Bioware make games with TONS of dialog and artwork fit on a single DVD and, yet, MGS4 requires 50 gigs?

            I don't buy it, even Rockstar fit the entirety of GTAIV on a DVD with no comparative loss t
            • by apoc06 (853263)
              1) i dont think that MGSIV uses 50 gigs. maybe a tad bit more than the space available on a single layer blu-ray disc, but def not all 50 gigs.

              2) mass effect looks excellent, but between the numerous glitches and uneven texture work, i dont see the two being on the same level.

              3) bioware admitted that they left out several things in mass effect due to size constraints and time restrictions.

              4) all dialog in oblivion is not spoken, voices are recycled and the soundtrack isnt as expansive as the multiple soundt
        • 90 freaking minutes?? I barely have time to finish a level on Zack & Wiki these days. I haven't made a RPG purchase in over two years for the sole fact that I can't invest 40-80 hours into a game anymore.
    • by scourfish (573542)
      Square's obsessions lately go far deeper than cutscenes. It seems that Square, being the RPG sweatshop that it is, has lately been interested in making every male characters in their games more emo and homoerotic than the previous and every female character less clothed. Sadly, this means that "fanfiction writer" has become a viable market demographic.
    • Cutscenes were used to treat the player for undertaking the long arduous quest of whatever is important in the game. Giving them a break and some eye candy as a way of saying 'job well done, look at the pretty thing we made for you! Go ahead, sit back, watch'... This is one of the reasons why I still like the 'cutscenes' from FF6 (FF3 for the states). Especially at the halfway mark in the game when the world gets royally screwed.

      Now it seems like cutscenes are being used to drive the story instead of
    • by Wicko (977078)
      While I agree about cutscenes using the engine are a little more immersive, I'd still prefer to have Square's cutscenes, just because I find them very rewarding. A lot of care has been put into them, and probably cost considerably more time and effort to make them. But I think you underestimate Square's ability to make pre-rendered cutscenes, in-game engines are still pretty far off in terms of detail, if Advent Children or even Spirits Within is any indication.
      • Plus, from what I've seen of FFXIII so far, the game engine's graphics are good enough that the difference between it, and the prerendered cutscenes is not anywhere near as jarring as in previous games. It's actually sometimes almost hard to tell. It's just easier for them to animate more complicated scenes if it's prerendered, and they don't have two worry about how many polygons or textures they can have.
  • by neostorm (462848)
    Wasn't there a huge meeting at Square recently where they decided they would no longer develop anything that wasn't for the mainstream? Keeping FF13 PS3 only seems to fly in the face of that, considering it's the least popular of the current three consoles. I bet it will be ported eventually.
    • One of the reasons it's less popular is that all the RPG gamers are still playing games on their PS2's! There were PS2 RPGs released this year. All those PS2 RPG gamers are going to go PS3 (back compat versions) when they get around to releasing RPG's for it, because they can keep playing the HUGE PS2/PS1 RPG libraries.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by KDR_11k (778916)
        Too bad the back compat versions are no longer sold. Well, at least you can just keep your PS2 around...

        Is it just me or does the 360 seem to get the most RPGs out of the three current consoles? I don't have one but I see more stories announcing RPGs for that thing than for the PS3 and Wii combined.
        • by Draconix (653959)
          It does, but that's not saying much. The PS2 still gets a lot more.
        • Well, at least you can just keep your PS2 around
          Until it breaks. When did Sony stop making the PS1?
  • Is anyone else wondering why FFXIII is borrowing its title from a Kamen Rider series?

    I doubt anything they (or anyone for that matter) can make can even approach Kamen Rider Agito's level of awesomeness.

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...