Topic: Square Enix Party - good time to reveal the Rev?

[Ian Sane]

"I'll be very surprised if they reveal the revolutionary aspect of the system this year, but I think they might give us specs and show some footage."

Unless Nintendo really wants to shoot themselves in the foot I imagine we'll know what the revolutionary feature is sometime this year.  Third parties have to be given dev kits with enough time to make launch titles.  Third parties will have to know what the feature is.  So even if Nintendo doesn't reveal it officially this year third parties will know and there'll be leaks.  It's either that or Nintendo completely sabotages Revolution third party support to hide their precious "secret" until next year.

If Nintendo waits until next year to let third parties know what's going on then I'm going to assume that Iwata can't even dress himself because he would have to be a total drooling idiot to make that decision.

"Just looking back at the topic of discussion here, I'm not even sure I want footage of a sequel when the original totally just didn't deliver."

The graphics were really nice though and right now all I want to see is game footage so I know where the Rev sits hardware-wise in comparison to the other consoles.  Personally I would rather not see a new Crystal Chronicles and unless Famitsu gives it a 10 or something I can safely say there is no way in hell I would buy it.  I would still rather have some interest from Square Enix than none at all.

[Pale]

I'm so sick of people saying FF: CC didn't deliver.  I know, I'm supposed to let people have their opinions, but in this case, only if you played with 3 other people at the same time.  The multiplayer was a ton of fun and putting it online with PSO like party making would make for an outstanding game.

[Pittbboi]

Yes, the multiplayer was tons of fun...if you could find 3 other people with GBAs and the time to devote to going through the game with you. Most people, however, didn't. Which is why FF:CC sold like crap (not to mention its single player was pathetic).

I don't think FF:CC would be able to work the same way online on the Rev as it did on the cube. They would have to change the framework slightly. And why go through all that to produce a predecessor to a lackluster game when they could just do everyone a favor and release a standard RPG?
 

[Ian Sane]

I played FF: CC with other people and I still thought it was ass.  It's just an uninteresting hack 'n' slash with all sorts of annoying features initiated by a needless hardware restriction.  The stupid bucket forcefield stuff in particular makes the game a chore to play.  Plus all the GBA did was make it so you can't pause to select items which SUCKS because then enemies beat the sh!t out of you while your trying to switch spells.  Pausing to navigate menus is GOOD.

The whole thing seemed like Square putting in the bare minimum effort to satisfy conditions that would allow them to develop for the GBA.

Plus it bothers me that Nintendo didn't seem to mind that they got a Final Fantasy game in name only when it's quite clear that us fans wanted the real deal.  Much like Star Fox Adventures it's an example of Nintendo thinking in terms of franchise names and not in the content that those names represent.  When us fans ask for a franchise game what we really want is the gameplay and the experience.  FF: CC is a major example of Nintendo misinterpreting what their fans want.  It's like when we ask for third party support and they respond by having third parties make Nintendo games thus completely negating the whole concept of using third party support to provide variety.

[ruby_onix]

With FF:CC, Square didn't deliver what everyone expected Square to deliver, which was... a Square game.

Square delivered a great multiplayer game which very few people were able to play. Which seems like the ideal formula to create an un-Square-like "cult classic" game.

As much as I can respect FF:CC for being different, I can't forgive Square, because they proved a long time ago with Secret of Mana that they are capable of delivering both a great multiplayer game and a great single player RPG, in the same game. But, they probably just didn't think the GameCube was worth the effort.

If FF:CC 2 on the Revolution is online, then they'll be taking away much of the restriction that held the first game down to "cult classic" level, but if Square doesn't get their act together with the single player mode, and doesn't follow up with more game announcments for the Revolution (of the more traditional variety), people just aren't going to believe Square when they claim to support the Revolution. Right now, if Square announces even one traditional Final Fantasy game for the PS3, people are going to know where to find Square's "real" games.

Quote
What ever happened to Final Fantasy 3 DS?

It was a no-show (and no-mention either) at E3, sort of like FFXII. Leading some people to jump to conclusions that it's in some kind of trouble, and might have been cancelled.

Considering that we never found out what happened to Final Fantasy 3 WSC... who knows?

[Pale]

Hahah, so you all only like immersive games when the immersion doesn't make it harder to play?

Not being able to pause the game was so cool it wasn't funny...  Screaming at your friend to cover you while you equip Cure was just awesome.  I'll stop trying to convince you now..whatever.

[Spak-Spang]

I majorly disagree that the mystery behind the Nintendo Revolution is hurting Nintendo's position in the market.

Right now the only people paying attention is the hardcore gamer.  The gamers that read message boards and check gaming sites on a regular basis.  

The rest of the market may or may not know the names or anything about the other systems, and won't care until they are out.

However, that audience can get won over later.  Right now the audience that WILL buy a new system next generation knows about all 3 systems.  And this is what they know...Xbox 360 doesn't appear to be delivering and it looks like the same old, same old.  Sony seems to deliver, but at what price and when?  Nintendo I don't know what is going on with them, but they are up to something very unique.  

That uniqueness is what is fueling the interest.  But if the mystery was blown then gamers can decide now if they like it or not and get over the information...hype is shortlived when the information is out.

Nintendo has positioned itself where one sentence, one screen shot, or pretty much anything can take hype and energy out of Microsoft and Sony's offerings.  The same can't be said anymore about Sony or Microsoft.

[ShyGuy]

How come people never have these kinds of complaints about Halo? In my opinion wasn't any fun unless you had 3 other people to play with as well, which takes at least 2 Xboxes, 2 TVs.

I liked FF:CC but it had a lot of depth and sidequests you wouldn't even know about unless you read a FAQ  

[Pittbboi]

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
I majorly disagree that the mystery behind the Nintendo Revolution is hurting Nintendo's position in the market.

Right now the only people paying attention is the hardcore gamer.  The gamers that read message boards and check gaming sites on a regular basis.

Not entirely true. It's kind of hard to not know anything about the Xbox360 and the PS3 by now, even for the casual and/or non-gamer, thanks to the media. After E3, nearly every newspaper had an article covering the hype generated by the Microsoft / Sony console war. Heck, some places even saw a small segment on it on the 10 o'clock news. Nintendo's Revolution was hardly mentioned anywhere by the non-gaming media. That's what hurt it, because casual and non-gamers may not have a subscription to EGM or watch G4, may not keep up with internet message boards, but it's a little harder to avoid the news in general, and because of their showings at this international event, Microsoft and Sony made a huge splash. Nintendo's mystery may have people who do follow gaming news slightly intrigued; they have that going for them. However, they completely missed out on the media coverage an event like E3 could have given them because of the mystery.

[Spak-Spang]

Pittbboi:  Yes the casual audience knows a new system is coming out, but they don't care.  What happens when you read information or see information that doesn't affect you currently?  You either forget about it, or make a mental note to do research later.

Most Non-gamers are not the early adopters to new systems.  Gamers are the people that jump ship to a new system immediately at launch.  Non-gamers usually wait until one gets bigger than the other, price drops, or a couple of must have games come out.  Usually second generation games.

I believe we as gamers are too close to this.  We are studying the mistakes of Microsoft and Sony.  We are analyzing if Nintendo has a chance this coming generation, and what they need to do to increase that chance...but truth be told nobody else is doing this.  

Casual gamers are just waiting for the next game they want to RENT, perhaps one day buy.  Nongamers are probably going about there business not even thinking about games.

However, the hardcore gaming audience now knows exactly what the Xbox 360 and PS3 have to offer.  They are reading information and making their decisions now.  But, Nintendo has positioned itself as a wildcard.  The true gamer can't decide until they know what Nintendo is doing, and that is a good place to be for the moment.  If Nintendo spilled everything then other companies can still their ideas, and they would be having their ideas compete with the competition...and that just doesn't seem wise to me.

[Pittbboi]

Yes, most people will just file the info they’ve learned about the consoles away to be researched later, but that won’t stop them from talking about what they think they do know. Word of mouth is a powerful tool, and both Microsoft and Sony have taken advantage of that with this E3 media coverage. Remember when the PS2 was first unveiled? Every Tom, Dick and Joe had something to say about it, and even if they didn’t know the first factual detail about the “Emotion Engine” it didn’t stop them from forming an opinion early on. It was a topic even non-gamers could get into, because of the amount of hype and hearsay involved. Most of what was spread turned out to be not true, but that didn’t change the fact that Sony had people talking about their console.

Microsoft and Sony have provided that fodder, and so you’ll find (or at least I have), that even the casual/non-gamer for the most part knows they’re being released, and might have formed even the slightest opinion. Nintendo’s mystery works for this, people definitely talk about what Nintendo might be cooking up. But the fact that Nintendo didn’t release much more info than emulation of its past games and that the Revolution will only be about 2-3 times more powerful than the Gamecube (giving the impression that it’ll be under-powered), coupled with its past of hyping hardware that usually turns out to be gimmicks is only working against Nintendo’s “secret” in the eyes of most.

Microsoft and Sony got their hype wheels spinning early (at least on Sony’s part). Nintendo keeps putting itself in the position to have to play catch-up.

[couchmonkey]

I thought Crystal Chronicles was okay, but the Gameboy mechanic did annoy me.  I'd pick it up on the cheap if I had the chance.

I'm still not convinced Nintendo will reveal the revolutionary part of Revolution this year.  I guess the question is, when did they unveil the N64 controller?  I _think_ it was a few months into 96, and I think they wished they had kept it secret even longer.  With enough NDAs and threats on publishers' lives, I think Nintendo can and probably will keep the Rev secret up until next E3 (depending on the final launch date they aim for...I'm assuming it will be second half).

Which isn't to say that Nintendo should keep the secret until then.  I think Nintendo should reveal practically everything this year, I'm just not sure it will.

[31 Flavas]

Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix

Square delivered a great multiplayer game which very few people were able to play. Which seems like the ideal formula to create an un-Square-like "cult classic" game.

With at a minimum of 28 million GBAs in the North America (the same number of PS2 available according to Nintendo), its pathetic you can't find 3 other GBAs so you can play. You certainly don't see people wanting to do 16 player Halo having trouble now do you?

[KnowsNothing]

It wasn't just three other GBA's- you either had to convince them to buy the cables, or buy them yourself; that is, after you convinced them to actually play it.  Even then there's no telling if they would want to keep playing after a half hour.  The GBA base is large and varied, so it's tough to find 3 other people with the hardware and the interest.  When it comes to Halo, 90% of Xbox owners bought it for Halo anyway, so it's not goign to be too hard to find people who want to play it.

But whatever, I thought he game was pretty fun in multiplayer, but there were obviously some glaring flaws.  I'm really excited to see what comes of this new FFCC.  If done right, it would be an awesome game.

[ThePerm]

My Biggest Problems with FF:Crystal Chronicles.
1. Shitty single player. I had no desire to play single player whatsoever
2. Shitty friends who played the single player game and then wouldn't play multiplayer..this isn't refering to you Kamek..its refering to Kank lol
3. There was no exploration aspect.
4. I didn't have an sp...so i had a shitty dark screen.
5. If your friend is mroe leveled up then you than the monsters adjust their difficulty..and you get beaten up because your friend is so well powered.

mt biggest pros
1. As a gang it was pretty fun to beat the levels together..it was nice to play a cooperative game..which brought me back to some gauntlet/river city ransom days
2. I liked the whole screen thing actually. It offered alot more control.
3. i liked the music, graphics, bosses....

how it can be improved.
1 online play: this is confirmed..now we'll be able to see the game with a better perspective..perhaps the overhead veiw will only be an option..id rather play it in third person and have a zelda level of control...
2. No need for friends...while me and Kamek had some great times playing it wasnt always easy to get the group together. Our friend Kank beat the single player and then refused to play multi. Plus id like to team up with Kamek and form a clan..some sort of balanced PK aspect might make it better...id love to have gang warfare....ff:cc style..
3. More like zelda...this game was a hack and slash zelda-eque game...but with no need for an overhead view i can break off from the party for a while and relax...and then join back with them later.

[The Omen]

Quote
With at a minimum of 28 million GBAs in the North America (the same number of PS2 available according to Nintendo), its pathetic you can't find 3 other GBAs so you can play. You certainly don't see people wanting to do 16 player Halo having trouble now do you?

Well, lets see.  What about gamers who are over 25 years old?  How many of their friends have a GBA?  Not nearly as many as the teen crowd.  And as for your Halo point...how many copies of Halo sold?  How many for FF:CC?  Kind of makes it a tad easier, don't you think? It's just a larger pool of potential fans who will want to play.   And that's besides the fact that each player needs a GBA....it was just stupid decision, and cost Nintendo and Square about 500,000 customers.

[31 Flavas]

Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen

Well, lets see.  What about gamers who are over 25 years old?  How many of their friends have a GBA?  Not nearly as many as the teen crowd.  And as for your Halo point...how many copies of Halo sold?  How many for FF:CC?  Kind of makes it a tad easier, don't you think? It's just a larger pool of potential fans who will want to play.   And that's besides the fact that each player needs a GBA....it was just stupid decision, and cost Nintendo and Square about 500,000 customers.

So borrow somes GBA geez. You're telling me you don't know, at least, 3 other people with a GBA that you could borrow from? Moreover, the GBA-GCN cable is $2-$5 dollars used at a gamestore unless you have to have Nintendo's own. You'll pay $25-30 (times three) for 3 extra system controlers, but won't spend $6 on gba cables? Besides, agurment is GBAs are hard to come by, right, but just based on numbers there are at least three times as many GBA as Xbox. So it should be much harder to find 3 extra xbox, 3 extra copies of Halo, and what, ... *12* extra controllers, then just 3 GBA alone.

[Myxtika1 Azn]

Yeah, but you're talking about playing on one system on the same television.   You would therefore not need the extra xboxes and extra copies of Halo.

[Caterkiller]

Playing 16 player would require more than one tv.  

[Myxtika1 Azn]

True, but he's talking about playing 4 players on CC, which would need to be on one tv and one Gamecube.  Four players can be easily done on one Xbox.

[jasonditz]

The fatal flaw is that a lot of us RPG fans don't have all that many friends, and the ones we have aren't neccesarily into RPGs.

I never bought FF:CC specifically because of that. Yes, I probably could've come up with a couple of extra GBAs if I needed to, but I don't know three other people who would be into a multiplayer RPG, I'd be lucky if I could wrangle one. I bought Four Swords, but it ultimately became "Two Swords, one of whom usually gets sick of it after a half hour or so".

A decent online version (especially for the DS) would have me buying it at launch. As it was my support for Square's newfound Nintendo love has been relegated to FFTA

[Pale]

Is anyone else completely bummed that Square Enix would have a 'Party' and then not announce anything new?

What the...