Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

More Final Fantasy Bits 180

Posted by CmdrTaco from the raising-the-golden-chocobo dept.
tenchiken writes: "First the bad news, Square has announced that they are selling off Square Studios. This is the group that was responsible for the FF Movie and also a forthcoming short for The Matrix. Better News. Final Fantasy X, the first FF for the new PS2, is shipping tommorow (in stores Wed). You can find reviews at GameSpot,Gamers, IGN, etc. The reviews are all positive, and I will be waiting in line on Wed morning to pick up my copy. Square's new online game for the PS2 FF11 is also coming along nicely. Playonline Has a 'webcam' up feeding 24x7 images. The pictures look great. The above pages are Japanese." CowboyNeal and I both have our copies of FFX on reserve and are planning on some time off to watch LotR and play FFX this week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Final Fantasy Bits More

More Final Fantasy Bits

Comments Filter:
  • how to decide? wait in line, get FF X, or wait in line, go to LOTR? both probably. i guess i should just go ahead and take the day off from work while i'm at it.

    -sam
  • Yet another reason not to get an Yecks-Box...

    The first, of course, being Metal Gear Solid 2.
  • I seriously stopped playing FF8 because the summoning animations took so long -- Alexander took what, 2 minutes? And you had to use them over and over to ensure affinity so you could summon them up fast during the boss battles. It got so bad I would actually give the commands, get up, get a beer, pour it into a mug, and return before I had to do anything. FF7 was bad, but 8 was unbearable for me.


    So needless to say I'm really concerned to hear that FFX has a ton of summoning. Has anyone played the import and can speak to this?


    -- q

    • Re:Does anyone know what summoning's like in FFX? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tenchiken ( 22661 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:11PM (#2716209)
      There are less summons then before, but they follow the FFIX summoning scheme where by you get a long sequence the first time you use a summon, and then mostly abrieviated summons.

      HOWEVER...

      Sommons are now regular battle characters in this game. Summon Ifrit and he sticks around for a while. Some summons (2 of them I think) are multi character summons, and they also stick around. From what I have heard, the main use for summons is "to take one for the team" in FFX (ie, mega powerfull villian, you throw a summon up there to block, and then your characters rotate in).

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Agreed... summoning in FF8 sucked. Fortunately they
      fixed that problem in FF9, creating a short version of the summons.


      Summoning in FF10 is much different, though, in that when you summon a monster, you actually control it (rather than your party) with commands until it is unsummoned or its HP becomes low. As far as the animations when it is summoned initially... hopefully they didn't do anything elaborate, or at least did something like in FF9. I haven't personally played 10 yet.

    • Re:Does anyone know what summoning's like in FFX? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You kidding? Try casting Knights of the Round in FF VII, and sit back for like two and a half minutes as the carnage ensues. Then, for added pain, have him cast it double, and every character mime it.

      Sephiroth probably became more bored of the monotomy than actual pain from the attack. =P
    • Alexander took what, 2 minutes?

      Oh, then you never got to the coolest animation in FF8; there was this summon called Eden that took at LEAST 8 minutes to hit. It was damn cool the first time around, and progressivly more pernicious every time after that.

      FF7 had some long f'ing summons. Remember Knights of the Round? Not only did you have to go through the trouble of breeding a gold chocobo (which, I might add, was actually enjoyable with the whole racing minigame... FF7 is definitly the best of the last three), but then you had to sit through a five minute animation! But, if your levels were high enough, it would inflict up to the max (9999 HP) damage per hit (and there were 13 or so hits). The only bad part is how much MP it drained... so just carry a bunch of elixers, cast double or some such on your summoner, and have everyone else support him. KoTR was also the only way to take down those Ruby and Emerald WEAPONs (granted, you still needed to be at level 99). But anyway...

      FF9 did away with the long summons and only played them for the first time you cast, and then randomly after like that. It's a smart idea, but then again, there was nothing much memorable about the FF9 summons anyway (or the game, for that matter). But I don't really like this system either, because maybe I'd want to watch the animations a few more times before bidding them adeu. I'd be in favor of a system where you can skip through it by pressing a button. Besides, an advantage of long summons during difficult boss fights is that you have all that extra time to articulate your attack and better plan your strategy. So really, it's a mixed blessing.

      Ah fuck it, it's eye candy, and eye candy is good. I'll trade a few hundred MP and minutes of my life to be dazzled by pretty colours.

  • What's up with that? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by kaladorn ( 514293 )
    I'm assuming FF (the movie) will make stupid amounts of money (counting video and spin off products). Why sell off the unit that helped make that a reality, given that a sequel would probably make a pile of cash too? What's the logic there? Helloooooooo brain..... It would be disappointing to think that a wonderful character like Dr. Ross, so capably brought to life in the movie, may not make it back to the big screen. Frankly, the FF characters were more interesting than a lot of the drek Hollywood plants in front of us the rest of the time.....
    • Because it didn't make stupid amounts of money. Remeber Waterworld? The most expensive movie ever made, actually made money after an international release and rental and video. That didn't happen with the Sprits Within. The movie cost Square like $140 Million, and made like 40. I do believe that Square said they'd make another movie if somebody else paid for it (they financed The Spirits within themselves) Of course by the decision to sell the studio I'm assuming nobody offered. I'd love to see a sequel, its just not going to happen(sigh only 8 days til I get my copy).

    • Helloooooooo brain..... FF the movie was a huge bomb, and lost 115 million dollars [upcomingmovies.com]. Dropping the whole shebang only makes financial sense.

  • Geek Week! (Score:4, Funny)

    by tsmit ( 222375 ) <tsmit50&yahoo,com> on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:08PM (#2716191) Homepage

    Man, this just seems like the ultimate geek week. First FFX, then LotR.


    {conspiracy}
    I wonder why they want us away from the computers?
    {/conspiracy}

    • Conspiracy? (Score:4, Funny)

      by don_carnage ( 145494 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:16PM (#2716249) Homepage

      I wonder why they want us away from the computers?

      So they can sneak in and install Magic Latern, of course!

    • When I'm sitting in front of my monitor, with the notebook sitting on the MIDI keyboard for irc, while watching a DivX of LotR and playing FFX via a TV card on my PS2, and waiting for email about the latest kernel release, how will I be away from my computer? ;-)

      (Oh yeah, and just kidding about the DivX thing. Honest! ;-))

  • So this may be a dumb question, but I can't find much information about it anywhere. Did FF7/FF8 tank for the PC so much that they aren't going to do IX or X? I would prefer not to buy a PS2 just so I can play Final Fantasy games. Are there plans to port them that anyone knows of? Thanks muchly. :)
    • FF7/8 both had disappointing performance on the PC. In addition, it was very much a console game, rather then a computer game (interface requierments etc), so I foudn 7 hard to control and use. 7 was also extremly slow on even the most modern of machines.

      AFAIK, there is no plans for FFX to be ported to PC. In addition, it was rumoured that FFXI (online) was going to be multiplatform, but that appears to have been dropped (perhaps due to the fact that Sony now owns a large chunk of Square).
      • "7 was also extremly slow on even the most modern of machines."

        I don't know what you cconsidered "the most modern of machines" in the time FF7 was popular, but my PII-333 w/ Voodoo1 ran just fine!

      • I haven't read anything to suggest that Square is going back on their plans to bring FF11 to PC. You're going to see a lot of online console games come to PC, since companies want as many potential customers as possible without "defecting" to the enemy. In addition to FF11 there is Phantasy Star Online v2 coming to PC, and another online Sega game that I think is Japan-only.
    • Square announced plans for FF9 PC but I guess they never came through. Final Fantasy 8 PC was an embarrassment--I bought it and Septerra Core at the same time and I almost had more fun with SC (less lockups and I could actually move on the world map). And then there was patch after patch for AMD and Cyrix processors, Riva cards, and that Disc2 lockup that affected everybody. If they can't manage to capably port a Playstation 1 game to the PC then I have serious reservations about a Playstation 2 attempt (although the architectural similarities between the Playstation 2 and a PC may be more facilitating than its predecessor). Square has never had a great PC track record, and it looks to me like they've given up.

      And then there's the economy. Computers bad, consoles good.

      I used to be a die-hard PC-only gamer, but buying a Playstation 2 was the best investment I ever made--I'd take $300 odds that Working Designs never releases Lunar:SSSC PC anytime.

  • Just my luck... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tRoll with Butter ( 542444 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:14PM (#2716233)
    Not being a fan of the games, I didn't expect much of "The Spirits Within", boy was I wrong. The animation was nothing short of breathtaking and I was actually surprised by the unpredictability of the plot. In short, the movie far outshined my expectations and I eagerly awaited a sequel.

    Now I have to explain to everyone I told about this movie (who were also equally impressed by it) that there won't be a sequel. This is really a shame - we can wipe Circuit City [circuitcity.com] out of I-Openers [linux-hacker.net], but we couldn't make movies such as Final Fantasy profitable for the studio.
    • I liked the movie as well. I think it was a lot better than that Harry Potter crap. It was nice seeing a CG film that wasn't targetted to 5 year olds...
    • I totally agree. I thought the movie was really good, and everyone who compares it to the games saying "It's nothing like the games!" is a loonie. First, none of the games had ANYTHING to do with each other, except for airships and a guy named Sid (who is never the same character). FF:TSW had a guy named Sid and had spaceships, which are airships I guess. Also just like the games, the movie was a tech demo first, and a good movie second. Especially the most recent games, they've been flash before function, showing off those pretty renderers and what the PS2 can do.

      Like too many other things, people went in with overblown expectations that they built up themselves, then they got disappointed when it wasn't better than their inflated image of what it should be. Try not to do that, you'll enjoy movies (and life in general) more.

      In short, pike off! >:)

  • Video games vs. Movies. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Matt2000 ( 29624 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:14PM (#2716235) Homepage

    I don't know why video game companies think they can go off and make a movie becuase they produced some cut scenes for their last title, in the same way I don't know why Hollywood thinks they can produce video games. These two things, despite sharing characteristics such as motion and sound are completely different.

    Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies. [usatoday.com]

    The Final Fantasy movie was pretty bad. It had great hair and lighting effects, true, but who gives a rats ass when the story lopes along and the characters are 2 dimensional and sterile. Hollywood is already very good at delivering this type of garbage, I wouldn't recommend trying to compete.
    • Yes, but there is a second element to this. Brand Recognition. While FF:TSW might have sucked severly for profitability reasons, it did raise the awareness of the brand out there.

      Not that it really matters. FF10 is already the most popular PS2 game in Japan, and will probably do the same here. Nowadays, the FF games are more interactive movie then old school RPG. This is the reason why Square has been kicking people's arses.

      (And every now and then they do something "old school" to keep the geeks happy).
      • Absolutely!

        Think TombRaider. We all knew what Lara Croft was like, and what she wore. They stated they were going to put a "real" woman in, then they said "Angelina Jolie", then every nerd and his brother wanted to see Mrs. Jolie in skimpy uniforms, hoping a quick "peek" (and they got it with the shower scene).

        That movie won high profits on name recognition, alone (don't even get me started at how much they desecrated the great conspiracy theory of the Illuminati....)
    • Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies.

      This bogus statistic was widely circulated, and subsequently very quitely debunked. What was actually true was that *worldwide* video game grosses were larger than *U.S.* movie ticket sales, which is much less surprising and much less signifigant.

      What's more, when combined with some other numbers, the video game biz looks like a better candidate for the "low yield" club than the movie business. From Wired News: [wired.com]

      The [computer and video game] industry created more than 219,000 jobs and paid $7.2 billion in wages in 2000, according to the study. Retail sales of computer and video game hardware and software totaled about $7.8 billion.

      So, according to this article, the combined pc/video game business watched very nearly it's entire revenue stream go right back out the door in salaries alone, last year, at least. No wonder PC games are under seige and the more profitable console games are front and center.

      The movie business has had some famous flops, but in general, there are more opportunities in the movie business to use sheer marketing firepower to ensure that a crummy product still makes big money.

      I'm not saying that I think video game companies can make good movies - heck, 90% of the time, they can't even make good video games - but I can understand the desire to move into a market that has more predictable revenues and great tie-in opportunities.
    • The Final Fantasy movie had some problems but I wouldn't call it bad. Although I wouldn't call it good either. It had a weak story and score that combined with lack of attention to the supporting characters overshadowed the excellent visual direction and solid voice acting.

      I agree that this showed poor judgement on the part of Square but not for the same reasons. The real issue is that management "bet the farm" on a title with a niche audience. They would have had more success if they had worried more about creating a movie with broad appeal instead of a 90 minute cut-scene.

    • Re:Video games vs. Movies. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by oGMo ( 379 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @04:16PM (#2716542)
      I don't know why video game companies think they can go off and make a movie becuase they produced some cut scenes for their last title, in the same way I don't know why Hollywood thinks they can produce video games.

      If you've ever played a Final Fantasy game (and liked it: plenty of people don't, it's purely a matter of taste), I'm sure you've thought "wouldn't it be cool to see a movie?" From FF4 and on, the epic storylines and character developments just beg for something like a movie. They scream "think of what a movie with all this stuff would be like!"

      Unfortunately for Square, they seemed to work on the movie like they did their games: going for technological masterpiece as well as brilliant storytelling. The problem seems to be that since there aren't any real technological bounds but time on a movie (unlike a console, where you're pushing the limits of hardware, but you still have limits), limitless time went into this area. Now, I liked the story, and the characters, and the plot, and the setting, and the themes. I tend to like anime, though, and am very forgiving of problems when there is at least some merit to a film.

      Personally I thought the graphics were great, but I would have been very satisfied if they'd done a live-action film of greater length, and brought out their storyline more. One of the real problems with doing a Final Fantasy movie is that while you've got 80 hours of game to develop characters, setting, and plot, even a 3-hour movie doesn't do justice. It's not that Square is bad at these things, they're just not too experienced yet at writing short stories.

      Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies.

      This is really what I wanted to address. Not everything is done solely for money, and it's a sad state of affairs that these things should be determined on how much money it will bring in. Square has shown repeatedly in the past that it is willing to take a risk: just look at Vagrant Story or Legend of Mana. They don't like to lose, of course; sadly the teams that don't produce high-yield titles don't usually do well. But at least they're willing to take the risk.

      The Final Fantasy movie was pretty bad. It had great hair and lighting effects, true, but who gives a rats ass when the story lopes along and the characters are 2 dimensional and sterile. Hollywood is already very good at delivering this type of garbage, I wouldn't recommend trying to compete.

      I disagree. I think the movie was actually pretty good all things considered. I've seen (and enjoyed) much worse anime and other movies, both TV and big-screen. The movie was too short to go into fleshing out the characters, but it is quite easy to imagine how things would be if this were, say, a trilogy or better. Instead of starting in a nearly-dead world, we could have seen a pre-apocalyptic world, and then have it ravaged. Instead of merely telling about the first six spirits, we could have seen Aki finding them, watch her sadness as the little girl died, etc.

      The story wasn't bad, the movie was just a bit too short. Instead of dismissing it as not being perfect the first time, we need to acknowledge its potential. Who would have thought that there could be a decent movie when watching the first cheesy silent movie? Or a truly emotional animated story after seeing the first corny cartoon? Just give it time. Someone has to be the pioneer. In this case, it's Square.

      • This is really what I wanted to address. Not everything is done solely for money, and it's a sad state of affairs that these things should be determined on how much money it will bring in. Square has shown repeatedly in the past that it is willing to take a risk: just look at Vagrant Story or Legend of Mana. They don't like to lose, of course; sadly the teams that don't produce high-yield titles don't usually do well. But at least they're willing to take the risk.
        Nice point about the risk-taking thing. In fact, SquareSoft originally developed Final Fantasy I as their last-ever title before they'd go bankrupt back in the 1980's (back when they're known as just "Square") and decided to pull out all the stops on this one last title. Its original Japanese title translates to "Ultimate Fantasy", but they actually named it "Final Fantasy" as a seemingly light-hearted take on the company's own impending fate.

        Who knows that the title will become a surprise hit, that it will spin off ten sequels that don't do justice to its name anymore, that Square's bankruptcy will never come?
  • you guys keep postin old news, but i guess since this a geeks news site with general information 3D specific information kinda lags behind. Square announced it's sale of Square Soft about 2 months ago (coulda been longer.) It does suck... Does not mean that it might not be used for something else in the future however, like Sony's Full Length CGI movie of Astroboy. http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/article.php?id=142 3 I'm glad to see an old favorite anime go into a full length movie, I'm sure this'll do better than FFSWI because it's more geared toward children.

  • This is very good (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I hope this happens to more cgi movies, since studios are forgetting that movies TELL A STORY! The story in FF just plain sucked. Remember how great Star Wars was, even though Chewbacca looked like a Chuck E Cheese reject? And remember how good Jar Jar looked, and yet Phantom Menace paled in comparison to Star Wars. It's all about the story. Actors, effects, style - they're nothing without a solid storyline.
  • Could someone post the IGN review. I have an account, but now they want me to pay money to read the content (I'm not willing to do so for that site at this point).
  • CmdrTaco's life consists of playing video games, watching movies (mostly Anime), and criss-crossing the country going to all the conventions/shows. Does he even have a real job anymore?

  • FFXII Picture... (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by tenchiken ( 22661 )
    Someone posted a new FFXII (FF12) Picture here. FFXII is being developed by a "dream team". Sakaguchi and Yasumi Matsuno, Hiroyuki Ito are all working on the game and Yasunori Mitsuda will be taking over music direction (a move I applaud after the excellent Chrono Cross soundtrack). The picture is here:
    FFXII First Pic [ff8source.com].
    • You dumbass. That is SO obviously a fake it's not funny. People have been certain of it since it first appeared over a week ago.

      The most blatant clue: look at her legs. Notice how one of them is TRANSPARENT? A bad photoshop error.

      Plus, the background is just a doctored photograph, those flowers are very crudely rendered, and the "logo" is a pitiful hack job.

      These days it's easy for someone with enough knowledge of a 3D program to create a somewhat realistic character render. This is 2001, not 1998.

      A really lame attempt at a hoax.

  • I don't blame them for selling Square Studios (Score:4, Informative)

    by iconian ( 222724 ) <layertwothree.gmail@com> on Monday December 17, 2001 @03:39PM (#2716355) Journal
    THE SPIRITS WITHIN
    As of 8/9/01

    Gross-to-Date: $31,711,932
    Production Budget: $115 million

    Source:
    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/data/finalfantasy.h tm

  • I knew it!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by icoloma ( 322750 )
    You guys ARE NOT monitoring slashdot 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!!

    I want my money back!!!
  • with the movie Final Fantasy. I saw the documentary where they reveal that a lot of the animation was done through motion capture. This explains why a lot of the quick movements of the characters was extremely realistic but whenever the characters were standing still, they always start floating like the animators were not content to just have characters that just stood still.

    Aki's hair was still interesting to watch though...
  • After I saw FFXI running on a development XBox, I had high hopes. But then Sony had to buy up stock in Square :(

    Oh well, I guess I'll have to make do with a PS2 version of FFX and FFXI, unless Sony decides to try and prove they have a better system and allow the game to come out on the XBox(as it was about 40-50% complete already).

    I won't be in line for it, but I'll probably pick it up after the holidays.

    Wasn't this iteration of FF supposed to require the hard drive addon? Or was that FFXI? Anyone know?
  • It goes without saying that the release of both Lord of the Rings *and* Final Fantasy 10 during most college final weeks is a plot to undermine the youth of america. Oh well, I was destined to fail the finals anyways.

  • I, for one. . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foo fighter ( 151863 ) on Monday December 17, 2001 @04:00PM (#2716464) Homepage
    . . .look forward to new features from Square Studios from whatever studio buys them. And I'm sure they will be bought.

    I view "The Spirits Within" more as another stepping-stone than the culmination of CG. I start to drool when I think of what an innovative, risk-taking studio like Miramax could do with the tools provided by Square Studios.

    Now that a lot of the development is done and the tools have been created, directors can finally tell their stories exactly as they imagined them.

    This is exciting.
    • I am sort of divided on this personally... Part of me wishes that the movie would have done better, but the other part doesn't feel that it really deserved to.
      I love computer animation movies, especially anything put out by Pixar, including their wonderful short flicks. I thuroughly enjoyed a few games in the past done by Square - including FFVI, FFVII, Chrono Chross, and Secret of Mana. Even the Final Fantasy Legend series on GameBoy kept me occupied for a while. I was really looking forward to the Final Fantasy Movie.
      So I watched it, and then after that I thought about how I would rate it next to my favorite movies, and quickly realized my dissapointment with it. My main gripes were:
      - The setting. The FF series has ALWAYS had some sort of magic use and other fantasy elements in it, even in the more technological games (FFVI, VII, and VIII). In the movie, you get pretty much straight Sci Fi where nobody has unique abilities except for Aki, the main character. Everybody else has weapons, but big deal. Not much uniqueness to work out of that, so they have to rely on personality.
      - The characters. Most of the characters weren't that unique at all. The squad was full of action flick stereotypes, including the somewhat sultry woman with some toughness to her, the wisecracking smartass, and the token black guy, and the token love interest with a connection to the protagonist.
      - The script. The story wasn't bad, but it wasn't exceptional either. It didn't compare to any of the games that is for sure. I know that would be hard considering time constraints, but if they worked off more than a slightly above average yet still generic save the world script, it would have made an incredible difference. There was nothing in the storyline that really pulled the viewer into watching the movie multiple times. I felt that I got all that I could get out out of the movie in one viewing, and never gave any thought to seeing it again. This is a BIG killer for a movie, because if somebody who was a fan of the movie before it was out isn't going to watch it more than once, there isn't much chance that Joe Public will want to either.
      - The location. The CG was well done and beautiful, but I really feel they could have done more if a more exotic world was chosen/made up. There were some areas that were exotic and even surreal, but nothing that completely floored me in the same way some of the games have. Everything looked good, but it didn't knock my socks off. This could possibly be because it was still Earth, so they were stuck using their imagination with that constraint. If they had created a whole world instead of just putting it in our own future, far more interesting stuff could have been shown I think.
      - The soundtrack. This is more of a personal gripe, but for me it really didn't stand out for me. In the past with anything done by Square, it was a guaruntee that I would remember at least a song or two long after ceasing to play it. I can't remember one single track from the movie, and for a Square product that isn't a good sign.
      The bottom line for me was this: Sure, the rendering was great and pretty much set the bar for what I will expect in the future. The movie deffinately looked beautiful. That just wasn't enough. The movie was skin deep and not much more than that. It may have been an alright popcorn flick, but it really wasn't much more than that even with the well done visuals. And there inlies its failing, in my opinion.
  • CowboyNeal and I both have our copies of FFX on reserve and are planning on some time
    off to watch LotR and play FFX this week.

    Looks like somebody's got a little too much vacation time on their hands... Or else no better reason to use it! Wish I was so lucky. Anybody else taken off time recently for video games or movies??

    • Re:Vacation (Score:2, Funny)

      by CowboyNeal ( 4 )
      heh, that's exactly right. If I don't use, I'll lose it, so there's no time like the present. Luckily it happens to coincide with one of my favorite RPG series, as well as some movie everyone's been clamoring about.
  • I'm going to end up buying a PS2 to play FFX, and after the 50 hours or so, it'll sit until FF XI comes along... or so I thought. Now, I gotta reconsider. Should I just give up on FF?

    Why do I want to play Final Fantasy as a MMORPG? I can already do that in any number of ways, and a number of them are already eating up my time and money. Why throw FF into that fray?

    In MMORPGS, the other people are just like me. Yeah, sure a few might have some interesting stories. Sure you encounter some great RPGers, but mostly they're just as unimaginative as I am.

    I buy FF because I want my fantasies scripted for me with characters I'd never dream up myself. I want a storyline that I can play a part of, but isn't necessarily about me (such as the Ultima series). I still go back now and then to play Lufia on the SNES since that was such a great story.

    The movie was ok. When you think of FF characters in the past, how could they do such a poor job on the dialog and characters? I went to see it just to support their efforts, but I'm not sure if I'd buy it. If they sell the studio, then I won't waste my money.
  • Final Fantasy 10? I'm happy an emulator came out that is fast enough to run FF8 on my Power Mac! I'll be damned if im going to buy a ps2 just to play ff10! ok ok...im going to go and invade one of my ps2 owning friends life for a few days and play the game through there. I just hope the promises that it is as "revolutionary" as ff7 are true and it is really a great game. ff7 is still my all-time favorite final fantasy.
    • FF7 was terrible, but not as horrible as 8 or as bland as 9. Six still is the best in terms of story/character development, with the most unique play system being in FF3j or FF5.

      How FF7 can be your favorite FF game is mind-boggling.

      Just because Tifa had tits didn't make it worth playing.

      Or how about the story?: "I'm Cloud! Wait, no, I'm a clone! No I'm not! I'm Cloud? I'm a clone!"... continued for the whole 25-35 hours it took to beat that game completely...

      I must admit, however, that FF7 is best in terms of the ENDING, however. It was the only good, serious ending to any FF game [For example, FF4's ending was a cheery, lame 'everyone lived happily ever after' type...].

  • Why did people not like Final Fantasy the movie? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by eris_crow ( 234864 ) <eris_crow&eldain,com> on Monday December 17, 2001 @04:16PM (#2716544) Homepage
    I very thoroughly enjoyed it, and bought the DVD (my first DVD, at that). The animation was superb, and the story was decent too. Certainly better that the majority of SF movies. Sure the characters were cut from card stock, but again, they were at least as good as the characters in the majority of movies SF, animated, or otherwise.

    Did people not like the movie because of the theological/spiritual concepts involved? That's what a couple of people have told me.

    Maybe people just aren't ready for animation that approaches (but not yet reaches) photographic quality. Seeing such life-like images but knowing that were not actual people may have made a lot of people uncomfortable. I know that I've at least seen a few invectives against "digital actors".

    For the record I have never played any FF games, but I am an animation fan, and I am also a pagan, so the whole "Gaia" concept was quite familiar and comfortable for me.
    • The reason is bombed was people were expecting a final fantasy themed movie.

      What they got was a preachy/theological movie that really wasn't all that exciting. I mean they were really grasping for straws when they gave the chick "another" 8th spirit. Just soo lame. It could have been a cool "Aliens" type movie, but it ended up being lame.

      They should have used the original title that they intended to use..."Gaia"
      • They didn't give Aki "another" eighth spirit. It was there all along, from the very beginning of the movie, which is why she was having the dreams in the first place. The phantom spirit within her had already been transformed and was trying to communicate with her through her dreams so that she would know what the phantoms were. The only reason the "spirit within" her was never discovered until the end is because the scanners were never turned on her. She was always the one operating the scanners, and she always had them turned away from herself. At the end of the movie, she was down in the crater when Dr. Sid scanned the area, and so the phantom spirit inside her was finally detected.

        And I guess the movie could be considered "preachy" but then that's a very relative idea. If you're not a Christian, then the "Omen" movies are preachy. Heck, even "Spawn" is preachy. It does, after all, presuppose that Christian myth is true.

        And as for "Aliens", it was a decent movie, but really it's just a decent shoot-em-up movie. It's not lame, but it's also not exactly what I'd call intellectually challenging.

        Oh well. I guess it really was a case of a movie being marketed to an audience that expected and wanted something completely different.

        • Hmmm, you need to watch the movie again but you obviously didn't get it the first time. Aki is the first "spirit". The eight spirit was the one created by Gaia and the alien ghosts interacting. It wasn't until they found and incorporated this eight spirit that they could win.



          This is the whole problem with the movie. FF has always had weird incomprehensible but involving plots. They unfold and surround you so you, in general, don't realize how stupid they are by the time its all over. The movie didn't do that. It didn't have time like a 40 hour game does.

    • As people said, it was not very FF-ish.
      It wasn't even really a decent sci-fi movie.
      They failed to explain a lot of things except
      the whole crazy philosophy of it all.

      Really, I feel this game was _most_ similar to FF7 with the whole nonsense about how people's spirits are really part of the planet, and that they must return to the planet's main spirit for the planet to survive and grow. The concept was, IMO, executed
      rather poorly in the movie.
    • and the story was decent too. Certainly better that the majority of SF movies.


      You're pretty much alone in that opinion. It wasn't SF, it was cornball fantasy dressed up as SF.


      Maybe people just aren't ready for animation that approaches (but not yet reaches) photographic quality.


      I disagree. Me and most of my friends liked the work on FF, even though the characters were wooden (or rather, plastic). But it wasn't enough to carry the movie. IMHO shrek was the best CGI movie I've seen yet (Yes I have seen mosters Inc.)

    • For me the game was too cold.

      In the game you have all these really wacky characters that get together and save the world. In the movie you have a bunch of scientists and stuff.

      I love the scenery in the game: the quaint villages, the jungles, and the towns. But the movie was mostly indoors in a big city.

      It's almost as if they tried to make the movie appeal to a more adult audience but missed the target.

      The vilian in the movie was not evil enough but merely misguided.

      But mostly I wanted to see more colors. More old fashioned clothing mixed with futuristic clothing. More kids running around causing havoc. More jokes.

  • before the movie was even released SS annouced they has DRASTICALLY underestimated the work involved and WOULD NOT be making another movie. While the animation was awesome the movie was just ok im my opinion.

  • Hello all.

    As someone who has played through and beaten multiples times (for different endings, and to get items and secrets I missed the first time around, or to play with different characters) all of the Final Fantasy games starting with the original NES one up to FFVII on the PS (at which point I stopped), I have a few words. My comments will probably be unpopular and modded down, but be that as it may, what I have to say needs to be said.

    In short, these games are not intellectually stimulating or satisfying, and most-certainly not for intelligent people. Regular enemies are too easy to defeat and when you do unfortunately sometimes suffer heavy damages, it is all too easy to heal. Beating any boss usually only involves casting your most powerful attack and heal spells over and over again, and using a magic-replenishing item when you've run out. Every now and then you get a boss or enemy that maybe only a certain kind of magic works well on, or you can only attack a certain part of the enemy, but you can discover this information very quickly and easily and then go back to the usual spell-casting and healing routine until it dies.

    The stories are also pretty weak, compared to something like Lord of the Rings! I feel I need not even defend my position on this issue!

    After buying and beating tons of these games, I finally came to the realization that they are a complete waste of time and money. Well, unless you actual are dumb enough to find these games challenging. (Well, Final Fantasy 1 on the NES was pretty challenging if you didn't spend lots of time with mindless level-upping but instead only fought enemies you met naturally in achieving your objectives. But newer Final Fantasy's balance things much better so that your levels progress at a decent rate in the natural course of play.]

    Read real fantasy fiction if you want a great story, like Lord of the Rings! If you want combat with real tactics, I can at least say that StarCraft against an intelligent human involves a great deal of intelligence and tactical thinking to win, not just mindless level-building, spell-casting, and healing. (The regular campaigns are pretty weak and easy, however, and the story is also really lame. So again, read books if you want a real story.

    • No, the FF games do NOT have a plot that rivals Lord of the Rings.

      But Final Fantasy 4 is still the greatest game ever made, and I'm sticking to that assertion!!!!
    • that's why they're called video games and not "intellectual stimulation for the masses"
    • Well, let's have some perspective. Back when I was 12, FF4 (2 US) seemed pretty damn deep. "Woa, Kain was good, then he was bad, then he was good, then he was bad, and now he's finally good? Woooooa!" The crappy translation didn't really dawn on me until many years later when I went to replay it.

      Yes, there are some people out there who think that FF has amazing and mature stories. And that's probably because they haven't been exposed to many good books.

      Video games seem to be at an awkward point, where the medium is capable of telling powerful stories, but those who are capable of writing those stories are probably writing books or films. So instead you have things like MGS2, which is a great game with an embarrassing story.

      There's a huge problem with the games coming out of Japan being extremely wanky, pretentious, and trite. Games like Final Fantasy Tactics and Xenogears will try any intelligent human's tolerance for silly religious symbolism. I've been playing a lot of Golden Sun on the Gameboy Advance. Some people complain the story is too plain, but so far I'm loving it because it hasn't tried to explain the nature of humanity or anything silly like that.

      But! There is hope. Games like Vagrant Story (oddly enough by the developers of Final Fantasy Tactics) and Ico are learning the art of subtlety in their stories.

      Do you want to know why I'm really looking forward to FFX in a few days? Certainly not because it's intellectually stimulating or because it's mature. I'm looking forward to it because I'm pretty sure it'll be fun. The changes to the summon system, and the ability to swap characters during battle should make things interesting. FF9 had pretty good character development, so hopefully the big 10 will be the same.

      Anyways, I don't know why I bothered responding to an elitist on slashdot. :P
    • Why in the hell did you stop on VII?

      VIII kicked ass. I still haven't seen better character development on a game.

  • Summoning=Pokemon (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vulgarDPS ( 525551 )
    Everything I have read so far has led me to believe that this will just be another god damn summonfest like FF8, that was the best thing about FF9 was it wasn't summon oriented like FF8. Once you got the right gaurdian forces there was no point in really playing the game anymore, it was just "IFRIN I CHOOSE YOU!", I think I'll sit FFX out and play some more final fantasy tactics and chrono trigger. The greats never die :)
  • I wonder anyone would read this by now, well, who care. :)

    FF movie costs ~10M, only boxed ~5M - defintely not a glory history. The production firm shall take consequence of failure...

    IMHO the failure of this movie is that it strays away from the major theme of FF too much. FF game series is sucessfully in bringing people to a whole new world of fantasy.

    FF movie is too realistic - it's like "Alien" movies series with 3D render. No I didn't mean I see aliens in real life. :) but think about it, this movie can well be feature by 'real' actors/resses, I don't see FF movie has taken any advantage of the fantasy atmosphere created by orignal FF games.

    Well, my point so obvious to all FF fans. To layman like my girlfriend, she simply wonder why they don't use real people in the movie. 'nugh say. :)
  • At the toy'r'us they had it on the ps/2. I noticed that everyone had gathered around it and were ignoring the Xbox and nintendo. They had FF demo playing. The cinematics were unbelivable, best I've seen on a PS/2. The gameplay looked pretty sweet as well. Of course it was on one of those flat screen displays which didn't hurt the sharpness.....
  • Maybe they've finally made it interesting since the last time I tried final fantasy, but the ridiculous completion times get me. 30 hours is my absolute max, and even then the game has to be consistently good and extremely well paced to displace so much time (didn't one FF take like 80 hours?). I'd rather spend that immense amount of time completing other games (I like this thing called variety). Plus the turn based combat got old ages ago, they've tweaked with it in each game but they've never tried anything new (like, say, the one turn based combat system I like, no, love - Panzer Dragoon Saga's). I'll probably buy it anyway, I'm a whore like that, but for the two reasons above I really doubt it's going to grab me, though I hold out hope.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Close