By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Xbox 360 FF VERSUS XIII Under Consideration (Interview with Wada)!!

Rainbird on 18 May 2010
andremop said:

Jesus man, I get that the PS3 version is better! It's nothing like that my argument. I want to know why so many think that the 360 version made the PS3 version worse. Like removed towns, dungeouns... etc...

Lol, sorry. I get carried away when it comes to tech.



Around the Network
geddesmond2 on 18 May 2010
andremop said:
geddesmond2 said:
andremop said:
geddesmond2 said:
darthdevidem01 said:
geddesmond2 said:

Oh there you go you didn't prove the game wasn't sacrificed meaning you just admitted you don't know anything about the FF series. I rest my case.  Wow I'm so glad you showed me that trick now I just owned you lol. See how childish that is.

I didn't say you never played other games in the series. I said your first FF game was probably 10. Theres a big differance there. So go on what was your first FF game?

Unneeded attacks? Wheres the attacks?

My first FF was FF7. All I see in your post is someone who is still in the post meltdown stage from E3 2008. 

 

Well I asked what FF game was your first because everyone I know who started playing the series from FF7 has had nothing good to say about FF13. I was annoyed that FF 13 was announced as multiplat in 2008 just like every other FF fan at the time but I got over it quickly and said hey at least the PS3 still gets it and its gonna be awesome. 2 years later and the game wasn't awesome.

Infact everything I liked about the FF series was ripped out of game and replaced with boring. I used to sit up until 4 am playing a new FF game and I'll admit that I've shed some tears to some parts of the series but FF13 did nothing for me. I found it even a struggle to play through an hour of the game. If the game wasn't sacrificed for a 360 version then SE have really fallen off and I won't be getting FFV13 even if it is still exclusive.

But after hearing a games worth of content was cut from the game and the story offered you no sense of freedom until chapter 11. I'm gonna safley say the 360 ruined the series I truely loved all because Microsoft chose to use DVD 9 as there disk of choice and if FFV13 goes multiplat then that game is ruined aswel.

 

Proof?

Or else we can "safley" say whatever we feel like here, don't we?

The proff is in the game mate. Just look at half the FF fans in this thread who are saying the same thing. Most of us grew up playing FF. We know what to expect from the series. What FF13 brought was nothing like the series and if the lead artist of the game comes out and says nearly a full games worth of content was cut from the game including extended dungeons then thats enough proff for me even if he never said it was to cater for the 360 version.

Half the FF fans (more like half dozen PS3 users) are not proof of anything so like I said, no proofs then. Blame the artists for not making your dream game not the 360 version.

I love the way people always take what you wrote and try to twist it. I said the proffs in the game mate.All people have to do is look at previous FF games were they offered you freedom from the start. Not 15 hours into the game when you reach chapter 11 which coincidently lands on the 3rd disk of the Xbox 360 version and all they give is an area with 6 or seven other areas to explore. Wheres the towns and shops. Wheres the quests. Wheres the areas early on in the game were you could take a break from the story.

I never said all the FF fans who think the same is proff. I said to just look at the people who think the same. That shit just doesn't come out from knowhere. This is how we all feel about the game. Anyway I won't be buying FFV13 if its multiplat because I truely believe FF13 was sacrificed for the 360. If yous don't believe that then fine thats your opinion everyones entitled to there own opinions. But that is what I believe.



darthdevidem01 on 18 May 2010
Acevil said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Acevil said:
Wow, I thought I saw the worse in "sony" final fantasy fans years ago... this just tops it off. You guys amaze me.

Darth have fun with this thread! :P

Hey your a sony FF fan too!


I am in sense, but not exactly. I consider myself more general "Squaresoft" fan, which complains about FFX to FFXII! :P
Given I starting to like Square this generation somewhat.

But seriously this a new low that I am seeing, kinda depressing.

Speaking of which Darth, Platinum Final Fantasy 13?

YEs its disappointing to see some people show their true colours here, I didn't expect it from some people which I won't name here.

To be frank no I don't think I can platinum it. If I really wanted to I could but I don't see the point. I'm not a trophy whore :(



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

aragod on 18 May 2010
Rainbird said:
aragod said:
Rainbird said:
aragod said:

Just because they said so doesn't mean it's the truth. You aren't going to say to the bigger crowd of your fans that you've screwed their game just to get some more cash.

So we move into theory and guesswork then? Sorry, but I can't be bothered to discuss that.

 

The game will allways be better as exclusive.

Really? The only games I can recall that were negatively impacted by going multiplat, were games that had shoddy ports, and even then, only the ports were bad. I doubt the 360 version of Bayonetta was impacted by the PS3 port, and I don't see how giving PS3 owners the game is bad, when there was no felt impact on the 'original'.

In other words, more guesswork then.

 

I'm worried about the quality going down from the need to optimalize it for two platforms instead of one. That's undeniable fact.

I'll have to trust you on that, you're the only one who can tell me what you worry about after all.

 

What I've said can be reached by a very simple logical conclusion. While the first may be theorycrafting, the rest is fact. If you can't grasp the very basic concept, that utilitizing the full power of one platform is allways better than meddling around on two, trying to make them both the same "ammount" of bad.

Everything is guesswork unless you can back it up with bulletproof claim, which you can't in any case, unless we are talking tautology.

There is nothing to grasp. You're assuming that technological improvements will lead to better games, which is wrong. Yes, improved technology can help make better games, but it is never guaranteed. I thought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was better than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, despite MW2 being technologically superior (and that's before we consider the gimped multiplayer on PC).

Assassin's Creed 2 wasn't better than the first game because of the technology either. There weren't many technological changes from the first game to the second, the tech was in many ways the same from the first game but optimized and with some additions. What made AC2 better was the gameplay changes, and the tech changes had little effect on that.

Eh? I was talking about technology from the beginning, even retard could deduct that better tech doesn't equal better game. But I was trying to say, that when you have possibility of making a game, with certain mechanics etc etc. it's better to make it exclusive and utilize the hardware to the max, than to make it multiplatform and limit yourself.

This had nothing to do with designer standpoint or game mechanics. But if those are solid, exclusive game will be better than the same game, but made multiplatform. I hope that now we are clear, it was misunderstanding all along it seems...



MY HYPE LIST: 1) Gran Turismo 5; 2) Civilization V; 3) Starcraft II; 4) The Last Guardian; 5) Metal Gear Solid: Rising

darthdevidem01 on 18 May 2010
ethomaz said:
andremop said:
Jesus man, I get that the PS3 version is better! It's nothing like that my argument. I want to know why so many think that the 360 version made the PS3 version worse. Like removed towns, dungeouns... etc...

Because first dev screens was better than final game??? After the game go to multi the screens out was not near to old screens... screens from of PS3 old dev was a lot better.

Maybe this.

OP: Amazing sales for a great game... deserve.

 

The final game looks better than this.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Around the Network
Saintdante on 18 May 2010

Sounds like this might be Microsoft's E3 2010 final announcement.



Wyrdness on 18 May 2010

I have to say extremist Sony fans are a real sad bunch going by this thread, any problems with FFXIII is down to Square themselves, their piss poor performance in rpgs this gen on all platforms that aren't handhelds should be an indicator that they themselves f**ked things up. I'm glad Hori retains full ownership and control over DQ, as for the sad people passing judgement before they see anything saying they won't buy it if it's mp, well please go ahead but don't come crying when SE start concentrating on other platforms I'll laugh hard if you all boycott Final Fantasy forcing SE to exclude the Playstation platforms in future when they finally do decide to do a FFVII remake that you're all foaming at the mouth for.

The fan rage would be hilarious.



outlawauron on 18 May 2010

I want it to go multiplatform so the delusional people that think it'll be better than Final Fantasy XIII can be quiet and find something else to hype.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Nightwish224 on 18 May 2010

I'm ready for the internet to blow up again. LOL. Oh man, these sony fanboys will DIE. AGAIN! E3 2008 all over agaiN!!



Everyone needs to play Lost Odyssey! Any opposition to this and I will have to just say, "If it's a fight you want, you got it!"

Rainbird on 18 May 2010
aragod said:
Rainbird said:
aragod said:

What I've said can be reached by a very simple logical conclusion. While the first may be theorycrafting, the rest is fact. If you can't grasp the very basic concept, that utilitizing the full power of one platform is allways better than meddling around on two, trying to make them both the same "ammount" of bad.

Everything is guesswork unless you can back it up with bulletproof claim, which you can't in any case, unless we are talking tautology.

There is nothing to grasp. You're assuming that technological improvements will lead to better games, which is wrong. Yes, improved technology can help make better games, but it is never guaranteed. I thought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was better than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, despite MW2 being technologically superior (and that's before we consider the gimped multiplayer on PC).

Assassin's Creed 2 wasn't better than the first game because of the technology either. There weren't many technological changes from the first game to the second, the tech was in many ways the same from the first game but optimized and with some additions. What made AC2 better was the gameplay changes, and the tech changes had little effect on that.

Eh? I was talking about technology from the beginning, even retard could deduct that better tech doesn't equal better game. But I was trying to say, that when you have possibility of making a game, with certain mechanics etc etc. it's better to make it exclusive and utilize the hardware to the max, than to make it multiplatform and limit yourself.

This had nothing to do with designer standpoint or game mechanics. But if those are solid, exclusive game will be better than the same game, but made multiplatform. I hope that now we are clear, it was misunderstanding all along it seems...

No, there wasn't a misunderstanding. My point was that the technological benefits of being exclusive are extremely minor, and will do little to enhance a game. Yes, going multiplat brings some limitations one way or another, but the only real limitation to the 360 compared to the PS3 is the disc space available. Everything else can be worked around with a bit of effort.