Chris-HowlettWe have already heard that Final Fantasy VII: Remake would likely be a multi-part series. But until now, fans and writers alike have only been able to speculate about what that would mean. The added side comments from Square-Enix stating that there would be some changes to accommodate the near 20 year gap between now and the release of the original has also caused a varied response.
Well now, thanks to a recent article in Game Informer focusing primarily on Final Fantasy XV , we now have a little bit of extra news, thanks to the piliaging efforts of NeoGAF user, Philippo , which perhaps won't come as a complete surprise.
Using the model of Final Fantasy XIII' s full-length trilogy, the team is planning on preparing 3 separate full length titles to contribute to the retelling. More specifically, they are aiming at each story to be a full scale 30+ hour RPG.
Whether those hours refer to story length from simply running straight through main missions or if that includes all side missions is still a mystery. Come to think of it, whether or not this game even includes side missions is still a mystery!
The other piece we've learned is that Kitase, Nomura, and Nojima have heard concerns about the supposed "changes" that they've propsed. They elected to clarify that they aren't changing everything, but that since they all worked on the original title, they feel they have the right to change whatever they want "while still making fans happy".
Lastly, although they weren't willing to give an estimate on a release date, they stated that they fully plan on each iteration of the remakes to have MUCH shorter development cycles than XV.
Well… that last part is certainly good news… although if you want to nitpick, that could still mean something close to 8 years.
What do you think? Is that basically more or less what you expected in regards to the 3 full-length games? I suppose it could work well like the .hack games of old. And perhaps it will make it more likely to leave less story on the cutting room floor.
On the other hand, are you nervous about the "changes"? Or do you have full faith in the three all-star developers who brought us the original in the first place?
Related Game(s): Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy VII: Remake
I think he just jumped to conclusions, guys. A little higher, he commented thinking this was about FFXV. Probably would have been better to read it. lol
Either way, he's being overly butthurt.
Yeah. 99.9% of articles are about how FFXV sucks.
Yes. That's all that gets posted, day in and day out. And I spend all my time giving 3s to games that aren't what I like, or aren't turn-based, or don't have 2D graphics or some such shit. And really, all action/RPGs and all action games suck, which is why The Witcher 3 won GotY in 2015.
………
Idiot.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/6/2016 8:59:04 PM
And then there's the fact Ben never wrote this one.
30 hours is definatelly not enough for RPG. I just spent 80h in Dying Light + The Following and it's not RPG.
I don't want to hate here but I have low hopes about this FF7 Remake. I just can't understand why they cannot take 5 years and do it properly as FF7 is meant to be? Beyond me.
I'm holding out hope that they will keep enough of the classic to make fans happy, while bringing enough new things to the table to keep it fresh and appealing to new fans.
I will remain cautiously optimistic until I see concrete evidence that could make me feel otherwise.
And 30 hours is just fine for me. The idea of a 50+ hour video game scares me nowadays, I'd never finish it.
30 hours seems kinda a small, especially for such a big time game.I'll most definitely wait for the complete edition if it manages to grab my attention by the time it releases.
3 GotY's right in a row!
Huzzah!
Three bargain bin purchases for me!
Im glad to know it's just three parts and the length doesn't trouble me I'm sure thats story only considering their expanding on alot. What concerns me is how long will it be between each game
Quality over quantity is what I always say!
Remember Journey and Order 1886?
Last edited by Temjin001 on 4/6/2016 12:51:36 PM
A lot depends on how long the actual playing time of the games is. If you just take a straight line through the story of an RPG, including JRPGs, you can often complete the games in 30 or so hours. If you stop to smell the roses, explore and do side-quests and mini games, the playing time could be much longer. If this 30 hours they talked about includes those side quests and minigames I think folks would be right to be disappointed. but it's a bit early to take up torches and pitchforks.
This remake doesn't really help me much in any case, I have never completed FFVII, and doubt I ever will, even in remake form. Aerith's death was a turning point in gaming for me. It taught me how games can reach into your heart like a good book or movie could. It also taught me that the dramatic device of killing a protagonist in a game is not always the greatest idea, even if it is extremely dramatic. When you kill someone's favorite character in a game, some of those gamers will feel that they really have no reason to finish the game. I know some will try to convince me otherwise, but what's done is done.
…there's a reason I haven't purchased or played Soul Calibur 5, and it's related to the killing off of several iconic characters. I don't like it when my favorite character(s) get removed from something. For example, if I'm reading and enjoying a novel and the character I like most or identify with most is killed off, I'll eventually stop reading, because my enjoyment ends with the character's departure.
That said, I hope that they don't ret-con Aerith somehow so that things happen differently. That kind of change would break the game for a lot of people.
I bought Soul Calibur 5 for $5 and didnt get past 2 matches before deleting it from the harddrive.Is not the same specially in my case when every single character you use and like is replaced.Hopefully SC6 brings everyone back, even the Star Wars characters in 4 were more welcomed then any of the new cast in 5.
Indeed, I still don't understand the positive reaction beyond it being a new (at the time) Soul Calibur. Quite apart from anything else the removal of Sophitia, Talim, Cassandra, Taki, Xinghua and Seong Mi-na. With the Exception of Ivy, I think that is in effect the removal of *all* of the longest standing female fighters from the Soul Calibur. And yet, they found time to include Dampierre a character that added nothing to Soul Calibur on the PSP.
I think it was a classic case of the Developers feeling the need to 'reboot' for the sake of it, forgetting that if you leave your audience behind they may not try to catch up to you unless you make it worth their while. Soul Calibur was never known for it's Story, or complex puzzle or non-fighting mechannics. It's a fighting game that's main strentghs were the fighting, the characters and the character modification/custom creation element that extended the game beyond the cast.
When you kill off most of the female cast of characters, and just destroy one of them (consider what became of Sophitia), you are turning off a lot of gamers who like those characters.simply replacing them with near clones doesn't help, and no matter how many people say the game is all about the fighting and characters don't matter, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of players of Soul Calibur played for fun, not competition, and liked the damn characters.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 4/6/2016 2:55:47 PM
Even if they kept the combat very similar to the original they HAVE to change some things.
FF7 with the materia system was one of the easiest FF games to break.
In fact at any level in the game there were very boring easy strategies which took all the planning out of the game. Even if you were under leveled. If you didn't know these strategies, you could just grind for 10 hours and muscle through the hard spots.
I don't necessarily agree it should be an action RPG like it looks like it is going to be, but still change to the original combat system was needed.
If it plays good, and expands on the story I will be happy. I think 30 hours is a good length for a game providing that is 30 quality hours.
I'm sorry but it is very easy to fill up a game with boring filler quests, like Dragon Age:inquisition and Xenoblade chronicles.
If you pad out a game with generic fetch and kill quests well I don't care if I'm getting a 90 hour game I know that the devs got lazy.
Lets all hope for 30 quality hours with lots of variety in the gameplay and environments.
Don't forget that the point of side-quests is to fill out the backstory and lore of the game and story being told. There is only so much you can do for side quests before they become part of the main story, or a distraction from the main story. So the quests are normally simple and involve a fair bit of exposition. I'm not sure that you can really change this all that much without icreasing the dev time for the game, and charging more as a consequence.
Besides all those fetch, talk, search and destroy or escort quests are pretty much the norm in RPGs, expecting this to be radically different will be an exercise in disappointment.
Square is gonna completely change this game, this story, and ruin it. Just wait and see. 30 hours for an rpg? Oh that's right! It's an action rpg! So….. So….. SquareEnix sucks.
If the combat it's similar to the FXV demo I'm totally out of this.
sounds very disappointing. doesnt look like ill be buying any ff game any time soon. tanks gawd for gamefly.
FFVII required strategy to get through the tough optional stuff, but required little to none to progress through the main story.
It's time we stopped acting like old JRPGs are the chess to modern JRPGs checkers. Old JRPGs were already checkers.
New JRPGs are just Hungry Hungry Hippos or something.
If you want to play chess, go play Civ, Starcraft or Company of Heroes.
250$ PLUS tax, so we looking at easy 300$ plus, canada games at 79.99$ aussie just as expensive so ya 300-400$ for all 3 if the price em like that. Ill just stick to the original thank you.
I agree there was stat balancing issues with FFVII, but the difficulty of them depends on your play style. If I play Civilization on Chieftain setting, it's pretty mickey mouse, too. Similarly, with FFVII, if I plow through the story, it's also pretty difficult. My first playthrough I got stumped on lots of bosses. When I started doing other things my second time through, then it became easier.
I don't think most people's complaints have anything to do with the difficulty level so much as the complexity of the gameplay. If you playthrough FFVII again now, you quickly realize how much more there is to that game than there was in say, FFXIII.
FFXIII stayed difficult only because it limited how strong you got. FFVII made changes to your stats based on the materia you equip, etc. but it could have been FAR more stark. (Instead of -1 strength and +1 magic stat for a strong magic materia equip out of like 200+, it could diminish your total by 5% or something for each one. Then it'd make you really turn people into classes instead of having 9 jack-of-all-trades)
IMO, that's a design flaw we pick up on now, but maybe they didn't care about then. But if they kept that spirit of design, it would be a much different game today, I believe.
250$ PLUS tax, so we looking at easy 300$ plus, canada games at 79.99$ aussie just as expensive so ya 300-400$ for all 3 if the price em like that. Ill just stick to the original thank you.
FFVII required strategy to get through the tough optional stuff, but required little to none to progress through the main story.
It's time we stopped acting like old JRPGs are the chess to modern JRPGs checkers. Old JRPGs were already checkers.
New JRPGs are just Hungry Hungry Hippos or something.
If you want to play chess, go play Civ, Starcraft or Company of Heroes.
I agree there was stat balancing issues with FFVII, but the difficulty of them depends on your play style. If I play Civilization on Chieftain setting, it's pretty mickey mouse, too. Similarly, with FFVII, if I plow through the story, it's also pretty difficult. My first playthrough I got stumped on lots of bosses. When I started doing other things my second time through, then it became easier.
I don't think most people's complaints have anything to do with the difficulty level so much as the complexity of the gameplay. If you playthrough FFVII again now, you quickly realize how much more there is to that game than there was in say, FFXIII.
FFXIII stayed difficult only because it limited how strong you got. FFVII made changes to your stats based on the materia you equip, etc. but it could have been FAR more stark. (Instead of -1 strength and +1 magic stat for a strong magic materia equip out of like 200+, it could diminish your total by 5% or something for each one. Then it'd make you really turn people into classes instead of having 9 jack-of-all-trades)
IMO, that's a design flaw we pick up on now, but maybe they didn't care about then. But if they kept that spirit of design, it would be a much different game today, I believe.
This seems like such a weird complaint to register on this particular article. Why not save it for one that actually says something negative about Final Fantasy?
Even then, it's not like Ben's take on the new direction of Final Fantasy is controversial or unique. Lots of people don't like what they see, including me, and in case you didn't know, SayWord, I happen to hold only the finest opinions of videogames. 9/10 Bios agree.
Seriously, though, that was a really weird rant to post in an article that literally had nothing bad to say about FF. There's a difference between reporting the news, which is what happened here, and editorializing it, in which the author provides their own opinions rather than simply repeating what other people say. If you didn't like what you read in this article, I think your problem is with Final Fantasy 7's remake, not PSXE.
30 hours x 3 = 90 hours but if pricing is in the 60-80$ per "episode/game"…not worth it
Ben, I never said FF7 was an action RPG…I was saying the strategy required to complete it wasn't as top tier as you guys seem to remember it.
I played it at launch about 2 times through and I played it when FF7 got released on PS3…and I couldn't play through it again because I got bored.
It doesn't require an insane amount of strategy OR twitch know how. Its not mash O and win though, but still it was quite easy.
I don't know anyone out of my friends who burned through the story, everyone did side stuff and wondered off just like people do in open worlds games today.
Plus you were forced to do certain things that slowed story progression down like catching a chocobo to ride past the midgar zolem…unless you just grinded and killed it 😛
My main point was you can take the "brain" out of FF7 by just grinding, and you can truly make it a mash O to win game IF you want to.
My second point was even if you didn't do that it wasn't a very hard game, if people can and DO beat the game doing lv1 materia runs then you know the game wasn't very difficult.
Also I remember how "hard" it was to get omnislash, and knights of round. Even without those things you can replace them with other limit breaks, or summons.
Emerald and Ruby weapons both have a cheap gimmick to beat(one man ruby strat), although they did require strategy and planning, but still you can make those fights very easy with proper planning.
Which YES is an RPG quality. I never said FF7 wasn't an RPG I said the base game didn't require a whole lot of planning and strategy to get through.
My whole point was that FF7s combat needed work not a rework but it needed tweaks. I don't even think it should be an Action RPG to be honest, just that it needed change.
Ben, I never said FF7 was an action RPG…I was saying the strategy required to complete it wasn't as top tier as you guys seem to remember it.
I played it at launch about 2 times through and I played it when FF7 got released on PS3…and I couldn't play through it again because I got bored.
It doesn't require an insane amount of strategy OR twitch know how. Its not mash O and win though, but still it was quite easy.
I don't know anyone out of my friends who burned through the story, everyone did side stuff and wondered off just like people do in open worlds games today.
Plus you were forced to do certain things that slowed story progression down like catching a chocobo to ride past the midgar zolem…unless you just grinded and killed it 😛
My main point was you can take the "brain" out of FF7 by just grinding, and you can truly make it a mash O to win game IF you want to.
My second point was even if you didn't do that it wasn't a very hard game, if people can and DO beat the game doing lv1 materia runs then you know the game wasn't very difficult.
Also I remember how "hard" it was to get omnislash, and knights of round. Even without those things you can replace them with other limit breaks, or summons.
Emerald and Ruby weapons both have a cheap gimmick to beat(one man ruby strat), although they did require strategy and planning, but still you can make those fights very easy with proper planning.
Which YES is an RPG quality. I never said FF7 wasn't an RPG I said the base game didn't require a whole lot of planning and strategy to get through.
My whole point was that FF7s combat needed work not a rework but it needed tweaks. I don't even think it should be an Action RPG to be honest, just that it needed change.
Not all changes are necessarily 'good', and fans should have every right to voice their concerns of any 'changes' that they do not prefer.
What do you want? People to just shut up and not voice their opinions?
30 hours x 3 = 90 hours but if pricing is in the 60-80$ per "episode/game"…not worth it
Yeah. 99.9% of articles are about how FFXV sucks.
Yes. That's all that gets posted, day in and day out. And I spend all my time giving 3s to games that aren't what I like, or aren't turn-based, or don't have 2D graphics or some such shit. And really, all action/RPGs and all action games suck, which is why The Witcher 3 won GotY in 2015.
………
Idiot.
Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 4/6/2016 8:59:04 PM
And then there's the fact Ben never wrote this one.
I'm holding out hope that they will keep enough of the classic to make fans happy, while bringing enough new things to the table to keep it fresh and appealing to new fans.
I will remain cautiously optimistic until I see concrete evidence that could make me feel otherwise.
And 30 hours is just fine for me. The idea of a 50+ hour video game scares me nowadays, I'd never finish it.
Either way, he's being overly butthurt.
This seems like such a weird complaint to register on this particular article. Why not save it for one that actually says something negative about Final Fantasy?
Even then, it's not like Ben's take on the new direction of Final Fantasy is controversial or unique. Lots of people don't like what they see, including me, and in case you didn't know, SayWord, I happen to hold only the finest opinions of videogames. 9/10 Bios agree.
Seriously, though, that was a really weird rant to post in an article that literally had nothing bad to say about FF. There's a difference between reporting the news, which is what happened here, and editorializing it, in which the author provides their own opinions rather than simply repeating what other people say. If you didn't like what you read in this article, I think your problem is with Final Fantasy 7's remake, not PSXE.
3 GotY's right in a row!
Three bargain bin purchases for me!
30 hours is definatelly not enough for RPG. I just spent 80h in Dying Light + The Following and it's not RPG.
I don't want to hate here but I have low hopes about this FF7 Remake. I just can't understand why they cannot take 5 years and do it properly as FF7 is meant to be? Beyond me.