Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Rated 27
Thanks to Planet GameCube for their report on how the newly released Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles is faring in the Japanese press. This GameCube action RPG, which came out on August 7th in Japan, but is now delayed until February 2004 State-side, scored 32/40 and a Gold Award in the often strict Famitsu Weekly, and a Famitsu reviewer commented: "The one player mode feels a bit lonely as the gameplay tends to become routine. However, the game becomes more interesting in the multiplayer mode, where players can execute combination magic and work together to beat the boss. The fun factor is doubled." There's more info via hands-on impressions at IGN Cube, who seem to like the single-player campaign somewhat better.
Off with his Head! (Score:1, Funny)
Captain Obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no doubt that Square can make a good RPG. However, it is also quite obvious that while FF:CC may be a fun game to play by yourself, a 4-player co-op will be necessary to get the full enjoyment out of the game.
I eagerly await the day when online co-op is finally an option that many console games take advantage of, instead of concentrating on MMORPG or Deathmatch games.
Re:Captain Obvious? (Score:2, Interesting)
Define "full enjoyment", as that is a rather vague term. I found Secret of Mana to be thoroughly enjoyable as a single player game, but more so as a multiplayer co-op one. It's not that the game itself was any better, it was just the social aspects enriched it. So you didn't need two other players to get the "full enjoyment" of the game --
Re:Captain Obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I find it much more entertaining to team up with 3 other people to accomplish one goal, instead of trying to bash their brains in.
Then again, I guess that's why I'm a PSO junky. =)
Multiplayer where it's at (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, Famitsy scores used to be strict, but they're giving out a lot more high scores than they used to. Are games just better now?
Re:Multiplayer where it's at (Score:1)
Re:Multiplayer where it's at (Score:1, Insightful)
Overall I believe there is plenty of evidence showing that games have gotten better over the years, at least if you look at the ratio of crappy games: good games. There are plenty of games that aren't worth spending any time (let alone money) on, but there's also a massive pile of games that should be played
Re:Multiplayer where it's at (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe if you took all three consoles, instead of just one, I'd find things to be different, but I consider having to pay $800 for the consoles to get as many good games in a generation a problem. But even if you take
Re:Multiplayer where it's at (Score:1)
"Maybe if you took all three consoles, instead of just one, I'd find things to be different, but I consider having to pay $800 for the consoles to get as many good games in a generation a problem. But even if you take the PSX and the N64, there are not as many games I want to play as there are NES games in my collection that I still pick up."
You might accuse the PSX and N64 of being the past genera
Re:Multiplayer where it's at (Score:2, Interesting)
I propose that the ratio of good games to suck games remains constant. This explains why Playstation has many, many times the number of crappy games the N64 has, despite their both being sold during roughly the same time frame. (The Playstation's total library is much larger than the N64's.) Someone should do the math and determine what the ratio
Re:Multiplayer where it's at (Score:1)
"Ninety percent of anything is crud."
--Sturgeon's Law
Not quite as accurate an assessment as Moore's Law, but not far off, and of a much less limited scope.
Multiplayer magic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd find the comment "The one player mode feels a bit lonely as the gameplay tends to become routine." to probably be pretty informative. Given the number of people who will not be able to come up with three other people to play this with... everyone I know has a console or three, but there's no way in hell four of us could consistently book time for this... even in high school four person groupings were often hard to come up with... I suspect this is going to be one of Squares rather-more-frequent-then-fanboys-admit blunders, rather then a success.
There is an empirical measure of this: Will Square do a sequel with this style? If so, I'm wrong; if not, I'm right.
Re:Multiplayer magic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, I
Re:Multiplayer magic... (Score:1)
I think it could probably succeed to people's expectations based on that market.
Re:Multiplayer magic... (Score:2)
Mmmmmm.... that's really a rather small market. Sure, there's always the four-some room (not sexually, at least, not to my knowlege) that always seems to have video game sounds coming out of it day or night, but they're the exception, not the rule.
(I lived on seven or eight floors in college, and every single one of them had a group like that, one and only one.)
Moreover, it's always sports sounds coming out
Re:Multiplayer magic... (Score:1)
And that's at least a threesome.
So True.. (Score:2)
I really hope it turns out well.. and better than Phantasy Star Online. I liked Phantasy Star Online alot, and I would hope it's at least as good..
FF (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't that the definition of a Final Fantasy game?
It's not Final Fantasy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:32/40 (Score:2, Informative)
Stupid gameplay (Score:2)
However it seems to have a few "features" that really make me wonder.
What's up with the crystal thing you have to carry that generates a zone of protection from a hostile enviroment? I don't mean the in story reason (although i'm wondering about what a bleak and depressing place the world must be if