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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Final Fantasy VII Remake Review Thread - Current 88 Metacritic / 89 Opencritic

DonFerrari said:
Xxain said:

What? Did you make this up? 

Most common complaints so far are:

- New plot content irrelevant in grander story

- some KH Bullshit in the final hours of game.

Seems like the two 60 scores that complain about the story being buffed in content to cover for the split of the original. Just like the preconceived complains we heard over the last couple years.

People anticipated there may be problems in turning what was the first 5-10 hours of a game into a full game.  Just because they anticipated this problem doesn't mean it's not legitimate.



Around the Network

Around what I expected. I was thinking 89.
With the amount of people who always wanted it to be something else, even if it's unreasonable, some mixed reviews were unavoidable.
Others may be due to reasonable critique.

JWeinCom said:
Xxain said:

To expand on characters/lore around Midgard. 

Could it possibly be that they added this content to stretch the game into three parts?  And if the developer team was told that this was only going to be a single release, what would have happened to all of that content?

What do you think would have happened to a lot of the content from the original game we loved if they were told to make this into a singular release?
It would be cut from the game, because it's not possible to do in this kind of fidelity in one game.

"The other option was to include the entire scope of the original game in a single release. But in order to make that work as a modern game, we wouldn’t be able to go for the highest visual quality and we’d also have to cut back on areas and scenes from the original."

So this wasn't "unnecessarily splitting". It was necessary if they wanted to include everything important from the original.

The only question then was at what point they end each game. It has to be somewhere that feels appropriate for a full game experience. And not just as far as they can take it.
If they can't get to say the City of the Ancients on a one game budget, but only as far as Costa Del Sol, ending the first game there would not feel
appropriate. So the decision to focus on Midgar and move some later events into the Midgar section, while expanding on that city and its people sounds reasonable.

People who think they could fit everything from the original into one single game in this kind of fidelity are unrealistic.

If they made it into one game, people would complain about all the things cut from it.
If they made it into multiple games, people would complain about the extra "unnecessary" stuff.

I've seen a lot of complaints about this over the years, but never accompanied by a constructive or realistic suggestion along with it.

Last edited by Hiku - on 06 April 2020

People call this one a bloated version of the original. I call the original an abridged version of the real game.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

It's a great score but

Spoiler!
it will be more interesting to see the reception among fans given all the insane KH-esque shenanigans Nomura pulled in the ending that potentially change the whole story. 
Last edited by Link_Nines.XBC - on 06 April 2020

Your sword did not cut deep enough

@Link_Nines.XBC - I read about this suppose strange ending ..... why do I have the sinking feeling Aerith will live in this version. (I have not played the game or seen the KH Bullshit. Just my personal feeling)



Around the Network
Hiku said:

Around what I expected. I was thinking 89.
With the amount of people who always wanted it to be something else, even if it's unreasonable, some mixed reviews were unavoidable.

JWeinCom said:

Could it possibly be that they added this content to stretch the game into three parts?  And if the developer team was told that this was only going to be a single release, what would have happened to all of that content?

What do you think would have happened to a lot of the content from the original game we loved if they were told to make this into a singular release?
It would be cut from the game, because it's not possible to do in this kind of fidelity in one game.

"The other option was to include the entire scope of the original game in a single release. But in order to make that work as a modern game, we wouldn’t be able to go for the highest visual quality and we’d also have to cut back on areas and scenes from the original."

So this wasn't "unnecessarily splitting". It was necessary if they wanted to include everything important from the original.

The only question then was at what point they end each game. It has to be somewhere that feels appropriate for a full game experience. And not just as far as they can take it.
If they can't get to say the City of the Ancients on a one game budget, but only as far as Costa Del Sol, ending the first game there would not feel
appropriate. So the decision to focus on Midgar and move some later events into the Midgar section, while expanding on that city and its people sounds reasonable.

People who think they could fit everything from the original into one single game in this kind of fidelity are just not reasonable.

If they made it into one game, people would complain about all the things cut from it.
If they made it into multiple games, people would complain about the extra "unnecessary" stuff.

I've seen a lot of complaints about this over the years, but never accompanied by a constructive or realistic suggestion along with it.

A better company than Square Enix could have done it better. No cuts, single release, no compromises in visual quality; everything as it should've been from the start.  

But alright, I don't want to give the impression that I still whine and care about the partition of the game. 



Metallox said:

A better company than Square Enix could have done it better. No cuts, single release, no compromises in visual quality; everything as it should've been from the start.  

No, that's pretty unrealistic.

In 1997 they created a world far beyond the scale of what was even possible back then in real time, by using pre-rendered backgrounds.
Imagine what Midgar would have looked like back then without pre rendered backgrounds. It would look nothing like the one we know, and Playstation wouldn't even have been capable of loading up a proper view of it. That iconic intro FMV that zooms out of Midgar? Wouldn't even exist.
It takes them many many times longer to create the same things today in real time even in graphics that are far less impressive than the ones they're utilizing.

They created an open world/map with miniature city scales where the characters were as big as the cities.
That won't fly today. Midgar and every other city or landmark has to be in a 1:1 scale on the world map.

Good luck getting that to load properly on a PS4 while you're soaring the skies on the Highwind.
I doubt that's even going to be possible on PS5 without trickery. (Lower resolution textures and framerates for many objects, etc.)

Invisible enemies? That won't fly either.

And so on.
Just because a game was possible in 97 does not mean it's plausible today. And FF7 is an example of a game that made use of shortcuts to extend the scope of the game to epic proportions.

Last edited by Hiku - on 06 April 2020

Xxain said:
@Link_Nines.XBC - I read about this suppose strange ending ..... why do I have the sinking feeling Aerith will live in this version. (I have not played the game or seen the KH Bullshit. Just my personal feeling)

It wouldn't surprise me, Nomura seems obsessed with "shocking" plot twists.



Your sword did not cut deep enough

I expected this to be a lot higher than an 87, as its FF7 but I feel the chopped up story line didn't do it justice.
Looks like Half Life Alyx is front runner for GOTY.. Ahh just kidding, who cares about GOTY, FF7 is sure to be a great game, cannot wait to try it out for myself once it appears on PC...……… if it ever does..



Hiku said:

Around what I expected. I was thinking 89.
With the amount of people who always wanted it to be something else, even if it's unreasonable, some mixed reviews were unavoidable.
Others may be due to reasonable critique.

JWeinCom said:

Could it possibly be that they added this content to stretch the game into three parts?  And if the developer team was told that this was only going to be a single release, what would have happened to all of that content?

What do you think would have happened to a lot of the content from the original game we loved if they were told to make this into a singular release?
It would be cut from the game, because it's not possible to do in this kind of fidelity in one game.

"The other option was to include the entire scope of the original game in a single release. But in order to make that work as a modern game, we wouldn’t be able to go for the highest visual quality and we’d also have to cut back on areas and scenes from the original."

So this wasn't "unnecessarily splitting". It was necessary if they wanted to include everything important from the original.

The only question then was at what point they end each game. It has to be somewhere that feels appropriate for a full game experience. And not just as far as they can take it.
If they can't get to say the City of the Ancients on a one game budget, but only as far as Costa Del Sol, ending the first game there would not feel
appropriate. So the decision to focus on Midgar and move some later events into the Midgar section, while expanding on that city and its people sounds reasonable.

People who think they could fit everything from the original into one single game in this kind of fidelity are unrealistic.

If they made it into one game, people would complain about all the things cut from it.
If they made it into multiple games, people would complain about the extra "unnecessary" stuff.

I've seen a lot of complaints about this over the years, but never accompanied by a constructive or realistic suggestion along with it.

I really don't have the technical or budgetary expertise to say if it was or was not strictly necessary on either of those grounds to split it.  So, if it pleases you, strike the word necessary from my initial comment.

Regardless, the fact that the game is split into three parts, for whatever reason, has apparently led to a lot of filler that has diminished the experience for at least a substantial portion of critics.  Whatever the reasoning may have been, it's a flaw that detracts from their enjoyment.

As for constructive criticism, I can't really say as I haven't played the game yet.  But based on the feedback the most constructive criticism would be to actually come up with 3 games full of worthwhile content. If it was truly necessary to have the game split into three parts, it was also necessary to have three parts worth of good stuff.   In the Witcher for instance (also haven't played) people praise all the side quests for being well written and engrossing.  So, it's possible to have a lot of side content and not have it detract from the experience.  Here, again according to some critics as I haven't played the game, they apparently missed the mark.