IFireflyl said:
Materia-Blade said:
pokoko said:
That somewhere along the line was FF7. Massive budget, focus on style with giant swords and spikey hair, and the best graphics in videogame history. Considering how much money that game made, it's pretty easy to see why they followed that path.
|
FF7 graphics weren't even close to the best of videogame history at the time.
|
Yes they were. Final Fantasy VII was released in January of 1997. The graphics were insanely good for its time for a game that size. I don't know if it can be said, empirically, that it had the best graphics of its time... but if it didn't have the best graphics, it was close.
VXIII said:
The Fury said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Every thread like this makes me wonder; don't you people realize every single numbered FF game is supposed to be a completely different game ?! I mean it's kinda funny -even stubborn- that you bank on that every future FF will be crap.
And another thing; if you didn't like FF XII on account of its gameplay then you just like a particular type of rpg; not FF. Because FF always tried to do something different -every time limited by the technology of the then current technology.
FF is not necessarily a turn based or active time rpg. It's a fresh rpg every time. |
No, it's not. It's a fresh world, story, characters and how the magic system worked but for the first 10 (plus sequel) games all combat was done in a self contained arena with a turn based combat whether by traditional (X being more traditional) or ATB. The reason many liked FF was because of it's combat system, this is what made it popular because it was done so well. all they've done since is change that which made it Final Fantasy. Adpting to change it like an MMO or Kingdom Hearts won't change the fact we want a self contained battle with ATB. Assassin Creed is still just jump around and stab people, CoD is stil an FPS shooter, Tekken is still a 3D combat fighter, Street Fighter is still a 2D fighter (look at how their 3D versions did and let me know if they are still making them?).
|
This post is contradicting itself in my humble opinion. You expand the limits/rules and then reduce them as you see fit with no clear logic or reasoning behind it. All you are saying is " they are the same, except they are not".
With that said, I don't think anybody can argue that XV is a "traditional" FF, it is even more different and daring than usual... As it meant to.
|
I don't see how the post is contradicting itself. The poster states that the main (numbered) Final Fantasy games from Final Fantasy 1 to Final Fantasy X-2 had a self-contained arena for the battles, and that the battle system was a form of turn-based (either directly turn-based, or ATB which is a variation of turn-based). The poster goes on to say that the combat system is what most people loved about these games. The believe that the poster is saying that the world, story, characters, and magic[/summon] system was different per game, but that the games all had the same feel of Final Fantasy, and that this was due [mostly] to the battle system.
|
Final Fantasy VII had a prendered backdrop/polygonal character graphical style that was predated by Resident Evil. In addition to doing it first, Resident Evil just did it better. Resident Evil released in 1996. Unlike FFVII, the character models in Resident Evil were actually good for the time. FFVII had "Popeye" armed monstronsities on the overworld. The battle scenes only ran at 15fps and featured models that lacked texture maps and were merely gourad shaded or flat shaded.
How can a game that launched a year after Resident Evil with half the frame rate and less detailed models have "insanely good" graphics for the time? FFVII had substandard graphics and sound for the time. The MIDI audio files on FFVII, despite being on 3 CDs, had a lower sample quality than the MIDI audio of FFVI. FFVI was on a 3MB cartridge. That's 1/600th of the capacity of 3 CDs.
