Post by: CaptainN on March 16, 2003, 07:53:54 PM
The people who run it stated once they have insider information with the gaming industry's US operations, and will deliver news as they are able as not to break any confidentiality clauses.
Take that as you will, but here's the link to the story:
www.geocities.com/thevideogamereport
Post by: Scyth3r on March 16, 2003, 08:02:14 PM
FF IX was alright.
But FF VII!!! OMG!!! I probably wouldn't play it again, but I would buy it just for keeps sake.
Post by: DrForester on March 16, 2003, 08:24:26 PM
I think this is bull, especially given it wasn't even a year ago that square canned the remakes. Why woudl they can them only to start over again less than a year later. Also, they say that they aren't exclusive. That means they'd be going to the PS2 as well. It's safe to bet these are going to be ports with no graphical enhancements (Except for maybe improved FMV scenes). Why would square put the money into PS2 version of the remakes, when these remakes can be bought right now and played on the PS2.
Post by: Mingesium on March 16, 2003, 08:34:37 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 16, 2003, 10:29:55 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on March 17, 2003, 12:09:53 AM
IMO remakes of FF7 to 9 would be an easy fit on the Cube, since they'd likely be multi-platform, and the PS2 is supposedly only hard to port to/from when you're trying to squeeze a good deal of power out of the system (which ports/remakes don't usually do). And it's not like Sony would be as agressive to secure the exclusivity of "old PSX games" as they would something newer like FFXII.
Post by: Hybrid Hunter on March 17, 2003, 12:15:53 AM
I'd buy every one of them! Well, if this is true, that would be cool!
Post by: Nephilim on March 17, 2003, 01:03:59 AM
u could buy ff7, ff7, ff9 on PSX, just 1year ago in stores
my friend bought ff8 for 12bucks (aus dollars) just 8months ago.
they wouldnt port a game after not even 1 year off it going off the market.
anyway the snes remakes on PSX were crap, all they were was emulated rom with 5 new fmv's on each game
I dont want PSX graphics on my gamecube, esp if there gonna make me pay full price, since u can get the psx versions for 10bucks each 2nd hand
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 17, 2003, 01:07:11 AM
Post by: DrForester on March 17, 2003, 05:27:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Forester: I don't remember Square saying anything- it was Enix who said they wouldn't be supporting the Gamecube much at all. I'm pretty sure Square never said anything about FFCC being the only FF game on the Cube.
It was shortly after the Square-Enix merger. THey said their development plans woudl be along the lins of 70% for the PS2, 20% for the GBA, and 10% for PC projects.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 17, 2003, 05:37:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Scyth3r
Well FF VIII sucked balls.
FF IX was alright.
But FF VII!!! OMG!!! I probably wouldn't play it again, but I would buy it just for keeps sake.
Hey, I loved FF8.
Post by: ThePerm on March 17, 2003, 06:02:32 AM
Post by: theaveng on March 17, 2003, 06:59:53 AM
QuoteIsn't that a contradiction? You can't have a track record" if you're new. Hmmm.
Originally posted by: CaptainN
The site is pretty new. Still, I think the story is legit given VGR's track record
"Zelda is being ported to PS2." - says my new gaming website. True, I'm new to the website scene, but I've been wrong zero times so far! I have a great track record!
/end sarcasm
I find it difficult to believe Square would upgrade the graphics for FF7-9 and then target a console that only has 1/5th the userbase of PS2. But then again, if Square's access to the Gameboy is contingent upon Nintendo's demand for GameCube games, this graphics upgrade for FF7-9 would be a cheap way for Square to meet that obligation.
"The SNES remakes on PSX were crap."
Square never said FF Chronicles/Anthology/Origins were remakes. They were simply ports, and I'm personally glad Square did that else I could not play FF1-6 or Chrono Trigger. All of them are available on an emulator, but not all of them work for me.
If the graphics are upgraded, I'd probably buy all of them again. Hopefully FF7/8 will be improved (neither of which I liked) and FF9 which I love should look a LOT better in hi-res.
Post by: Koopa Troopa on March 17, 2003, 07:56:23 AM
Sorry, but this does not seem like a credible site to me.
Post by: Perfect Cell on March 17, 2003, 08:10:04 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 17, 2003, 08:22:24 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on March 17, 2003, 08:38:40 AM
Post by: DrForester on March 17, 2003, 08:46:14 AM
And you have to remember, FFCC is not made by square. It is made by square employees who were rented to staff Game Design Studios, which is funded by Nintendo.
Post by: Marcus Arillius on March 17, 2003, 08:51:40 AM
Post by: CaptainN on March 17, 2003, 09:17:40 AM
I called it new cuz i think it's pretty recent. the place changed its look the past week -- it used to just list the news that it gathered. all i know is this place nailed the GBA SP WAY before it happened -- i sh!t you not. they had the flip thing too quite a time before nintendo even mentioned it ...
do i think this FF news is true? not entirely. it doesn't necessarily sound ridiculous though. sure, square themselves can't bring FF games to Gamecube given the contract stuff (but after the merger, i'm not so sure how that whole exclusivity clause works anymore). would it be out of bounds for them to bring an OLD FF game to Gamecube? Just with updated graphics? I don't think that's so far-fetched ... esp. since the-magicbox suggested Square is working on a few more Gamecube titles (at least 2-3 more) ...
The Sonic news isn't crazy either, Matt at IGN talked about this some time ago. In their Insider Gamecube list, Sonic is listed as exclusive for Gamecube, and I believe Matt said there were no errors when someone in the post asked if there was anything wrong with that ....
VGR was hinting at it a few weeks prior, and now just put this up confirming what they had originally speculated on ...
Beats me. VGR is just another source for news, IMO (just like cube-europe.com) -- I like checking it out because they seem to be more about the industry as a whole rather than direct gaming news (i.e. reviews, previews, etc.) ... Yeah, the site's pretty top-down, but heck, i think it gets the job done ...
Post by: The Omen on March 17, 2003, 10:22:45 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 17, 2003, 10:30:25 AM
Obviously you didn't read the press release- Game Developer Studio is made up of a whopping 1 employee. Rather think of GDS as a figurehead to get money from Fund Q. ALL of GDS's games are developer at Square by Square and released under the GDS title.
Post by: DrForester on March 17, 2003, 11:20:14 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 17, 2003, 11:22:44 AM
Post by: DrForester on March 17, 2003, 11:30:02 AM
Post by: CaptainN on March 17, 2003, 11:55:08 AM
Listen, there is no difference between the two -- GDS = Squaresoft. I don't understand why we're making such a HUGE deal out of this. The same guys who are making the othr FF games are on the Gamecube projects; it's not really as if GDS is an entirely separate entity from Squaresoft.
The basic story is Square was getting mounting pressure by its own employees who wanted to work on Nintendo games. Yes, the Q Fund set this up, but it was internal discontent that led to Square getting back on the Big N. Money alone did not drive this entire "coup."
And on that note, who cares if it's GDS or Square -- they have access to the SAME franchises, and contractually, I'd prefer Square games coming from GDS, as that empowers the Big N to oversee the project and ensure we don't get a cheap piece of steak from Squaresoft. Miyamoto is keeping his keen eyes over Fund Q games (likely the same thing driving the recent MGS project...) ... and I'd have it no other way.
Post by: DrForester on March 17, 2003, 12:20:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: CaptainN
The basic story is Square was getting mounting pressure by its own employees who wanted to work on Nintendo games. Yes, the Q Fund set this up, but it was internal discontent that led to Square getting back on the Big N. Money alone did not drive this entire "coup."
Well there is a prety big difference. Square makes and pays to make Square games. Nintendo is paying for FFCC. ALso, where did you hear about this internal discontent at Square, i've never heard about that before.
The GBA development rights is what drived this project, that's what Square wanted.
Post by: FFantasyFX on March 17, 2003, 05:36:51 PM
, but I'm not holding my breath ), I'll vouch for the discontent at Square being a factor in reopening relations with Nintendo. Let's see, Square lost the Xenogears team to Namco, a good portion of the Secret of Mana team to Brownie Brown, a couple more staff members to Skip, and who knows who else has abandoned ship for greener pastures. I certainly can't think of another developer who has had so many high-profile losses in the recent past (although Square has recouped somewhat by absorbing Quest). The director of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles wanted to make a game utilizing the GC/GBA connection, Square simply thought they could kill two birds with one stone by making a vital employee happy and getting access to the GBA market.
Post by: RahXephon on March 17, 2003, 06:56:49 PM
Post by: theaveng on March 18, 2003, 05:28:41 AM
QuoteI don't believe this rumor at all. Programmers don't care if they are programming a PS2 or a GC. The above statement was probably made up by a Nintendo fanboy (not necessarily you). The Square employees care about the GAME, not the system.
Originally posted by: CaptainN
The basic story is Square was getting mounting pressure by its own employees who wanted to work on Nintendo games.
Post by: WesDawg on March 18, 2003, 06:44:52 AM
"Programmers don't care if they are programming a PS2 or a GC"
That's flat out wrong. Every studio I've ever heard talk has said they hate developing for the PS2. It's a hard system to make games for, especially games that look as good as GC or XBox ones. It doesn't seems to force designers to worry about things other than design.
Post by: mouse_clicker on March 18, 2003, 07:03:17 AM
That's because the PS2 is a bitch to program for, even harder than the Saturn, according to Sega themselves. Of course programmers are going to hate programming for that thing. On the other hand, though, you have the XBox and Gamecube which are really easy to program for.
Anyway, I don't want to get into the GDS debate anymore except that I want everyone to realize that GDS does NOT make any games- all of Square's Gamecube game(s) are developer AT Square and BY Square then released under the GDS name so Squre can get money from Fund Q. In other words, Square makes all of GDS's games.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on March 18, 2003, 07:25:40 AM
I do not recall this story popping up anywhere else. So I am more likely to believe that it is not true. It would have been all over the major sites, PlanetGamecube being one if Square-Enix put out a press release/announcement stating that they would not support the GCN after FF:CC.
