IllegalPaladin said: Words Of Wisdom said: IllegalPaladin said: I own the not so great PC version of FFVII so a remake would probably be the only way I'm going to play through it again. What's wrong with the PC version?  I hear it's not as great in graphics and sound (and maybe other things) compared to the PS1 version.  That aside and actually playing it, it runs at a low resolution and everything is blurry which gives me a headache after a while of playing and for a long RPG like this, that's not a good thing.

The graphics are fine and it plays at essentially a TV resolution.

I have the PC version too.  I, of course, ran it out to my TV and hooked up my gamepad.

Of course, now I can patch FF7 to be in a higher resolution, give the characters actual hands instead of lego blocks, and do other fun things like editing saves and playing as Sephiroth.   ^_^

Maybe I'll give it a try again if that's the case, but I'd rather see a remake akin to the PS3 FFVII tech demo.

IllegalPaladin said: Maybe I'll give it a try again if that's the case, but I'd rather see a remake akin to the PS3 FFVII tech demo.

The problem with a remake is you want to give something new freshness while still retaining those aspects fans liked about the original.

Sequels are the same way.  People will always complain that something wasn't fixed or that something was fixed that shouldn't have been...etc.

A FF7 remake would be kind of neat if it could offer me something interesting that I haven't played through 5 times before.

Eh not me, it's been years since I played FFVII and I don't remember a lot except that it takes quite a while to finally get out of Midgar and be on your own... and the Gold Saucer has the most annoying music EVER.

IllegalPaladin said: Eh not me, it's been years since I played FFVII and I don't remember a lot except that it takes quite a while to finally get out of Midgar and be on your own... and the Gold Saucer has the most annoying music EVER.

The Midgar segment is way too long.  I remember first playing it expecting something akin to FF6 and seeing all the interesting pictures on that goofy triangle box it came in and wondering... when do I get to the good part?

Only after getting out of Midgar did it finally start feeling like Final Fantasy again.

What's the difference between a direct sequel and a story in the same universe with the same characters? If you're using the original characters, I don't see how you could avoid building on the established canon.

A story set in the same world with all-new characters would be better, but I still don't particularly want to see it. Just how often is this world faced with destruction? Even if they're not messing with the characters, they'll inevitably screw up the world, a la Crisis Core and all its nonsense about the Wutai war and the Loveless story.

I'm also a little more open to prequels. Crisis Core, for instance, didn't have to be bad, even though it was. If they'd focused on Zack's character instead of bringing in a bunch of ridiculous and poorly-thought-out new villains and convoluted evil plots, they might have had something worthwhile -- unnecessary, but at least something that didn't diminish the original game.

Mainly I wish they'd just quit already (and maybe they finally have). Some things should be left sacred.

Borkachev said: What's the difference between a direct sequel and a story in the same universe with the same characters? If you're using the original characters, I don't see how you could avoid building on the established canon. A story set in the same world with all-new characters would be better, but I still don't particularly want to see it. Just how often is this world faced with destruction? Even if they're not messing with the characters, they'll inevitably screw up the world, a la Crisis Core and all its nonsense about the Wutai war and the Loveless story. I'm also a little more open to prequels. Crisis Core, for instance, didn't have to be bad, even though it was. If they'd focused on Zack's character instead of bringing in a bunch of ridiculous and poorly-thought-out new villains and convoluted evil plots, they might have had something worthwhile -- unnecessary, but at least something that didn't diminish the original game. Mainly I wish they'd just quit already (and maybe they finally have). Some things should be left sacred.

One continues some aspect of the original story and one doesn't.  Did you ever play Super Mario RPG?  Smithy came to the world and started causing all kinds of trouble with his creations.  The result of which was everyone banding together to stop him. 

Now imagine a sequel that didn't involve Smithy or his creations at all.  You may partner up with Geno and Mallow again and you may see Johnny once more, but this sequel could have nothing to do with Smithy's original attack on the world. 

Let's flip that over and say the sequel was about one of Smithy's creations activating which causes the player to learn about Smithy and where he came from bringing new insight to the original story.

It's the difference between those 2 that I'm talking about.

@Bolded part: Why?

 

Words Of Wisdom said: Ajax said: but a different story in the same universe is not what I would call a sequel.. that's just using the same setting.. You're right. A "series" is the proper definition for what I'm thinking. A sequel would by nature need to continue an aspect of the original storyline.

 I disagree.  That's still a sequel.  I mean if you are using the same characters... but it's a different story and different enemies it's still a sequel.

I mean... look at movies.  Die Hard, John Mcclain isn't fighting the same person over and over again.  Rocky isn't fighting the same guy everytime. (aside from the first movie.)

Planet of the Apes has sequels... and they don't even have the same characters in the half the times.

 

Because even a simple remake can screw shit up. Look at the remakes of Star Wars.

When they were remastered.... pretty cool. But annoying, they changed stuff like having greedo shoot first.

Then they replaced cool Darth vader with Anakin later on. The hell?

Though I disagree with Bork completely. I think Sequels have a better chance to be good... because Prequels lack a lot of suspense. I mean you basically know who will live and who will die from the onset. Either that or you don't kill off a character that wasn't there the whole time and it feels weird it wasn't there.

Kasz216 said: Words Of Wisdom said: Ajax said: but a different story in the same universe is not what I would call a sequel.. that's just using the same setting.. You're right. A "series" is the proper definition for what I'm thinking. A sequel would by nature need to continue an aspect of the original storyline.  I disagree.  That's still a sequel.  I mean if you are using the same characters... but it's a different story and different enemies it's still a sequel. I mean... look at movies.  Die Hard, John Mcclain isn't fighting the same person over and over again.  Rocky isn't fighting the same guy everytime. (aside from the first movie.) Planet of the Apes has sequels... and they don't even have the same characters in the half the times.

You can disagree if you like.  I was going to disagree to and post a definition of the word "sequel" as I understood it.  First link I ran across was Wikipedia which informed me that there is actually a difference between "sequel" and "series."  

Barring that, I'd pretty much agree with everything you just said.