F0X said:
outlawauron said:
Conegamer said:
darkknightkryta said:
lilbroex said:
Turkish said:
I'd rather want them to make a game for the next gen PS4/nextbox consoles tho :/ |
He refuses to work for Sony, so you can kiss that fantasy goodbye. Though it funny how people can show so much love and favoritism for something that doesn't even exist yet. Nintendo hate is something else.
|
I agree with him. I mean it won't be nearly as bad as wii to ps3, but when you have RPGs with these huge stories and lore, graphics play an important part. I mean; wouldn't you want the best possible graphics when watching frequent and long cutscenes? Or traveling around the world and towns?
|
If that happened, then the best JRPG of the past decade, Xenoblade, would be nothing like it is now. It'd be shorter, smaller, and generall less-fun, simply so it could look a little better. I'd rather have my 100-hour story with 450 sidequests, open areas and stunning scenery, than a 20-hour corridor crawler which looks good like FFXIII...
So the least important thing in huge RPG's is most certainly the graphics. It's why FFVII is still loved, whilst FFXIII is not.
|
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.
Developers make all sorts of compromises regarding the game dependant on budget, time, and the console they're working with. Naturally, developers should want to push every boundary, while some do, others can't. You have small developers who regularly put out great games on PS3 like Gust and NIS. They don't push the graphically boundary (never have honestly), but no compromises have been made to content or gameplay because it's on the big, bad PS3.
You shouldn't make assumptions based on no information really. I could say "X would be so much better on Y console, because of speculation". We don't know how it would have turned out, but we certainly do know that it's not 100 hour game. It's the same standard length as every other JRPG. Sure, it has a ton of content that you can do, but it's not all necessary to complete the game. The same could be said of FF13 (which you give a nice exagerration as well). It takes about 30-35 hours to beat the main story, but the late game content and other extras can give you well over 100 hours of gameplay.
And you're absolutely crazy if you think one of Square's main goals with FF7 was to push graphics. It was as it was showcased as the first grand 3D RPG to the world. Square has always been about outdoing themselves in all areas, and that includes graphics (certainly did not start with FF13).
|
Whoa there buddy. Don't forget that FFXIII had lots more time, resources, and manpower behind it (yet it's still significantly shorter than Xenoblade even if one were to speed through both). Gust and NIS do a great job on the PS3, but their games bear little similarity to Xenoblade. Disgaea really isn't even in the same genre.
Even so, I do think that Xenoblade could have existed in full form on the PS3. Development may have taken a bit more time and money, and it probably wouldn't push the system's power in any way, but it could have worked out fine. Still, Monolith would've had to find a publisher that is willing to let their vision remain uncompromised, so I'm afraid that "could have happened" doesn't necessarily mean "would have happened". Nor is there any guarentee that it would be more or less successful.
So I must happily agree that this whole conversation about whether or not the game would've been better and/or more succesful on another console is completely idiotic. I say everyone should stop whining when a console they don't like (or don't have) gets a first-party exclusive.
|
