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

think-man said:
pikashoe said:
I'm interested in playing it, but paying full price for 1/3 of the game seems ridiculous. This is likely going to end up costing €180, even more if people are buying the deluxe versions.

Its not 1/3 of the original, tell me where in the original did you go *Spoilers* to top plate? Rob Jessie's house? Battle a new villain named Roche? You do loads of stuff in the main story that didn't exist in the original. Meaning that once all games are released you will be getting 200-250% more game than the original ever had. 

A lot of the extra stuff belongs to the negative points of the game






Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
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.

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.

Well a couple of things.

If you go into FF7R with the mindset that the new content is there in place of something more worthwhile, you may be annoyed and distracted in situations where maybe you wouldn't, if you consider a few things from the development side.

But what I mean by constructive is where do you think they should have ended each game? That's what I never hear from people.
Even though it's impossible for us to make any definitive assumptions about how far they could realistically go exactly, at least thinking about is still important imo, because it leads to a simple but important realization. That not every location from the original would work as an appropriate end to the first game.
I'd say few locations, even.

So where is the next best location? Is it 10 minutes before or after the budget runs out? Or 10 hours?
Then when you've decided on where to end it, how does it look for Part 2? Can it also end in an appropriate way while being a full game experience?

That includes the introduction of new characters and party members.
If you go too far in Part 1, it may leave Part 2 in an awkward spot where the most appropriate scene to end it on would make the game significantly shorter than Part 1, and not have as many interesting new characters and concepts introduced.

After all, the original game was not designed to be multiple games, so the pace was not dictated by this.
But that's something they have to consider here.

So moving the end of Part 1 further back to Midgar could solve a lot of problems (including not having to design the open world until next-gen hardware). And that's where the additional content comes in. But not only because of padding. (And they padded the original story as well). There are also things they wanted to do in the original but couldn't, or didn't have time to do, but can do now. For example, I believe we see Palmer in Honey Bee Inn in the Remake in a trailer.
In the original game, data minders have found scenes with Palmer in the Honey bee Inn that were cut from the final version of the game.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOcrmwca9l8

That whole lobby was cut, in fact.
But a cynical player, or reviewer, not considering many, or any of the things I just listed, may think of it in a negative light because they have the wrong idea of why it was implemented. Or why it's needed.
There are naturally also things the developers have thought of in the 20 years since the game released, that they wish they had thought of/could have done back then.

But if the player keeps thinking about how "I could have had Sephiroth skewering a snake instead", then it's going to be distracting. And perhaps not in a reasonable way if they don't consider how it should have realistically been done instead.

Based on the many comments I've read here over the years at least, no one aside from myself seems to have ever raised any of these issues.

I don't know yet how I'll like the game. But I do at least believe making it multiple games was the correct choice to get everything important from the original in a high fidelity package. Midgar also seems like an understandable choice. Though if they did it justice remains to be seen.

But I'll keep all of these things in mind, and try to have realistic expectations when I evaluate the content.

Last edited by Hiku - on 06 April 2020

think-man said:
pikashoe said:
I'm interested in playing it, but paying full price for 1/3 of the game seems ridiculous. This is likely going to end up costing €180, even more if people are buying the deluxe versions.

Its not 1/3 of the original, tell me where in the original did you go *Spoilers* to top plate? Rob Jessie's house? Battle a new villain named Roche? You do loads of stuff in the main story that didn't exist in the original. Meaning that once all games are released you will be getting 200-250% more game than the original ever had. 

I never said anything about the original. I don't mind paying more money, but €180 seems excessive. If each game was around €35-40 that would be more reasonable. The extra content seems worth paying extra for but not that much extra.



Copied from Neogaf for FF7R fans, spoiler:

Spoiler!

the events of VII and AC have already happened in another timeline

[*] the ghost things are Whispers of Fate that try to keep the characters in line with the original game
[*]Biggs and Wedge live. Jessie still dies.
[*]After the highway chase Cloud and co. fight the Whispers of Fate and beat them, making it so they're no longer bound by the original FFVII's storyline.
[*]During the battle the party is shown the clip of an old Nanaki with his cubs running towards a destroyed Midgar, Red XIII guesses it's a vision of the future that awaits them if they fail
[*]Sephiroth shows up after beating them. Fight is basically AC-tier, Sephiroth gets a black wing mid-fight.
[*]While this happens we flashback to Zack surviving his last stand in an alternate timeline
[*] After beating Sephiroth he teleports Cloud to the "edge of creation" and asks for his help in "defying destiny... together".
[*] He refuses and fight similar to their final omnislash duel ensues
[*]the party escapes Midgar.
[*]We continue Zack's scene with him walking to Midgar with a comatose Cloud holding on to him.
[*]Remake Aeris and Alt! Zack sense each other
[*]fade to black

 



Oops double posted

Last edited by pikashoe - on 06 April 2020

Around the Network

It's kind of a sequel to Advent Children.

 

Last edited by HoangNhatAnh - on 06 April 2020

Sorry, DP.



HoangNhatAnh said:

Copied from Neogaf for FF7R fans, spoiler:

Spoiler!

the events of VII and AC have already happened in another timeline

[*] the ghost things are Whispers of Fate that try to keep the characters in line with the original game
[*]Biggs and Wedge live. Jessie still dies.
[*]After the highway chase Cloud and co. fight the Whispers of Fate and beat them, making it so they're no longer bound by the original FFVII's storyline.
[*]During the battle the party is shown the clip of an old Nanaki with his cubs running towards a destroyed Midgar, Red XIII guesses it's a vision of the future that awaits them if they fail
[*]Sephiroth shows up after beating them. Fight is basically AC-tier, Sephiroth gets a black wing mid-fight.
[*]While this happens we flashback to Zack surviving his last stand in an alternate timeline
[*] After beating Sephiroth he teleports Cloud to the "edge of creation" and asks for his help in "defying destiny... together".
[*] He refuses and fight similar to their final omnislash duel ensues
[*]the party escapes Midgar.
[*]We continue Zack's scene with him walking to Midgar with a comatose Cloud holding on to him.
[*]Remake Aeris and Alt! Zack sense each other
[*]fade to black

 

Wow, that is on a whole other level of bad. Why would they do this.



Metallox said:
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.

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. 

A company who's name ends in com, perhaps? 



Hiku said:
JWeinCom said:

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.

Well a couple of things.

If you go into FF7R with the mindset that the new content is there in place of something more worthwhile, you may be annoyed and distracted in situations where maybe you wouldn't, if you consider a few things from the development side.

But what I mean by constructive is where do you think they should have ended each game? That's what I never hear from people.
Even though it's impossible for us to make any definitive assumptions about how far they could realistically go exactly, at least thinking about is still important imo, because it leads to a simple but important realization. That not every location from the original would work as an appropriate end to the first game.
I'd say few locations, even.

So where is the next best location? Is it 10 minutes before or after the budget runs out? Or 10 hours?
Then when you've decided on where to end it, how does it look for Part 2? Can it also end in an appropriate way while being a full game experience?

That includes the introduction of new characters and party members.
If you go too far in Part 1, it may leave Part 2 in an awkward spot where the most appropriate scene to end it on would make the game significantly shorter than Part 1, and not have as many interesting new characters and concepts introduced.

After all, the original game was not designed to be multiple games, so the pace was not dictated by this.
But that's something they have to consider here.

So moving the end of Part 1 further back to Midgar could solve a lot of problems (including not having to design the open world until next-gen hardware). And that's where the additional content comes in. But not only because of padding. (And they padded the original story as well). There are also things they wanted to do in the original but couldn't, or didn't have time to do, but can do now. For example, I believe we see Palmer in Honey Bee Inn in the Remake in a trailer.
In the original game, data minders have found scenes with Palmer in the Honey bee Inn that were cut from the final version of the game.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOcrmwca9l8

That whole lobby was cut, in fact.
But a cynical player, or reviewer, not considering many, or any of the things I just listed, may think of it in a negative light because they have the wrong idea of why it was implemented. Or why it's needed.
There are naturally also things the developers have thought of in the 20 years since the game released, that they wish they had thought of/could have done back then.

But if the player keeps thinking about how "I could have had Sephiroth skewering a snake instead", then it's going to be distracting. And perhaps not in a reasonable way if they don't consider how it should have realistically been done instead.

Based on the many comments I've read here over the years at least, no one aside from myself seems to have ever raised any of these issues.

I don't know yet how I'll like the game. But I do at least believe making it multiple games seemed necessary in order to include everything important, while presenting it in as beautiful a package as possible.

A lot of this just seems besides the point.

For the sake of argument, let's argue that this is the only way they could feasibly make FFVII on modern machines.  So what?

If the end result is that there's a lot of content that reviewers find uninteresting and/or a story that doesn't feel complete, then reviewers should score accordingly.  If the end product is what the reviewer finds to be 8/10 in terms of quality, then that's what the score should be.  Maybe 8/10 is as good as you could possibly do when trying to fit the source material into this era, but if so, then it is what it is.  

Reviewers are tasked with reviewing the game, not the developer's intentions.