I see what you're saying Twesterm, but the reason I say any percentage estimate, in my opinion that is, is subjective at best is because its very rare to know every task and milestone ahead of time.  So right this second, their task tracking software (whatever it might be) could say 13% complete, but 6 months from now, they could have added 25-50% more tasks, meaning the percentages would be different subjective to the number of tasks and time alloted for each one.

Now, its quite possible that after making so many games, they might have the task list down pat and then the percentages would be less subjective, but I have no way of knowing that, and I don't think anyone else save maybe the managers in charge would.

Anyway, I'd still take these with a grain of salt, assuming they aren't just rumors or a joke.  If they are serious about them, it is still relative to the present, and not necessarily indicative of what it will look like in 2008.

 Actually, any good company will have every single detailed planned out before actual production begins and will have all those laid out with every dependancy decided.  Of course things will be added or taken away throughout development, but even time for that is taken into consideration.  And yeah, everything can't be planned for, but that's just how things go.  And adding 25-50% more tasks to a project is something we would call a redesign, and yeah, that would cause major delays and generally means something was fundamentally wrong with the game.  A good producer (and I'll assume they do have a good producer) will be fairly good at putting this all together and is generally fairly accurate.

Considering most sources claim that game development for the PS3 takes 3 years for a good game (or more) and this has obviously been in development for over a year, you had better hope that the PS3 has that 10 year life cycle heh. Seriously though, I would be very surprised to see this before Q2 or Q3 2009 now.

Hrmm, another interesting point though: Could Square be lying about these numbers as an excuse to delay the game further while they wait for the Playstation 3 to have an acceptable userbase for their game? They have certainly expressed distaste for the PS3's sales figures and even stated that they would make no more new games for the system. Just a possibility.

actually FF7 for the n64 was much much better graphically then the ff7 they had for the ps1. so they scrapped it and went to sony to make it for teh ps1. so what im saying is they can do it to ffxiii as well and i dont mean not only to the 360 but to the wii. and why do people always say the wii cant handle this stuff graphically? just cause it has a weaker processor doesnt mean anything. ive seen much better graphics on a 2ghz pc game then alot of ps3 games out already. it doesnt take much to make a georgous game. just takes a bit more time to get the textures made right. now you will say the same thing everyone says "oh its graphics is run by processor speed" BS. i keep telling people to try this and no one listens to me. play ps3 and xbox360 on a NORMAL TV next to a wii and you will see ITS THE SAME GRAPHICALLY. where teh ps3 and xbox360 shine is in HD. and HD is not profitable right now

I would love to see proof for that, especially since there isn't any at all.

-edit-
And just a hint, saying I heard someone say they saw it said on a forum post where they heard it from a credible source isn't proof.

I've seen the video of the prototype N64 FF game. It wasn't FF7, it was using FF6 character. And it looked alot better than the character models used in FF7. Check youtube for it, you might see it there.

I believe FF7 could have easily fit on an N64 cartridge if you took out all the FMV.

 You more than likely saw something some random person had made.  There's an insane number of programs that could easily do that and people can easily do that with roms.

FF7 on the N64 was being designed to be a different type of game in the sense it would of been 3-D. The only things we ever saw from it were  some characters and a Golem. Each one f those had a much cleaner look then the characters in the PS1 version. The battle scenes in FF7 were cluttered with Jaggies and low rez textures but the PS1 version of FF7 more than made up for the differences with prerendered hand drawn backgrounds(that actually fed the atmosphere) and CGI video which was not doable on the N64. We never really saw enough of the N64 version to determine if it would of looked much better. However my gut tells me(colbert style) that the towns would of had less detail in them but 3-D with fixed camera angles and the overworld map would have definitely looked better especially the ocean(don't forget Wave race was a revolutionary game for water efects). As for teh game itself there is some video of the FF(tech demo) and there is a Die hard Game Informer article with Pictures before the game made the transition to the PS1. From what I have seen I would think that FF7 on the N64 would have been very clean looking with better effects but probablywould of looked a bit bland in some places compared to the PS1 version in scenes that were not the over world map, fights, or 3-d models. However the cut scenes on the N64 would not be the same and some of the settings wouldn't have had the same mood as teh 2-d backgrounds set.

That said I ahve always considered FF7 to be over rated it isn't a bad game but after having played FF3(6 japanese) I have to say I was let down . Then again I consider FF3(6 japanese) to be the best FF to date so that really isn't a criticism.

that video was shown in the CES and it was shown to Die hard game informer. It was real. Though after teh switch to the PS1 Square said it was just a tech demo