Author Topic: Is FF12 coming to GameCube? (discussion/debate) (Read 19026 times)

GoldShadow · « **Reply #25 on:** February 09, 2003, 07:43:59 AM »

How was FFX so terrible? I never got a chance to play it, but I've heard great things about it. The character-switching dynamic sounds great. I just wish they would stop clinging to the random battles that everybody (except hardcore RPG fans) hates.

"GC discs are already double-layered. Layer 1 is copy protection. Layer 2 is 1.5 gigabytes of data.

And yes, a dual-layer PS2 disc (such as Xenosaga) can hold 8.5 gigabytes.

So a double-layer PS2 disc is equal to *9* GC discs. GC has better compression thanks to DivX, but even so FF12 will still require 3-4 discs. IMHO."

Er... 8.5/1.5 = 5+2/3 != 9

I doubt FFXII will come to GCN, but I sure wish it would.

Hemmorrhoid · « **Reply #26 on:** February 09, 2003, 08:26:05 AM »

FFX imo sucked because it had too many random battles and way too much cutscene/fmv. Ok the FMV was pretty awesome, but the cutscenes with the characters annoying issues pissed me off badly. And Blitzball SUCKED, that was so boring.

DrForester · « **Reply #27 on:** February 10, 2003, 08:19:20 AM »

Quote
FFX and Kingdom Hearts made Square eighty million dollars?

Well $50 games
Kingdom hearts has done about 3 mill worldwide, FFX about 5 or more. Plus their other games, like Saga Unlimited In Japan. And revenue from other projects and such

That's $400,000,000 right there. And I'm sure FFX and Kingdom Hearts did not cost 320 million to make, distribute, and promote

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 10, 2003, 12:16:13 PM »

For all real reasons PS2 uses a Mpeg2 variant for FMV compression. With the divx tools put out by factor5 several months ago, video compression is much less of a worry. Also, the PS2 and Gamecube have very different ways to store media, so it is not entirely fair to compare both of them. Just because one medium has that much physical size, does not mean it is managed 100% efficient.

theaveng · « **Reply #29 on:** February 10, 2003, 12:28:14 PM »

The purpose of role-playing games is to battle. It's always been that way since the 1970's/80's Dungeons and Dragons craze. It you subtracted the random battles from Final Fantasy, you'd no longer have a RPG. You'd just have wandering around and a game that ends in 10 hours. YUCK.

If you do not like battles, play an adventure game like Zelda where you can just run around the monsters without fighting. Play Adventure games, not RPGs.

Final Fantasy is an RPG, and therefore will always involve lots of battling.

nolimit19 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 10, 2003, 12:28:23 PM »

i am almost positive that an extra disc does not cost 1 dollar a piece. i think they are about 12 cents a piece. thats what is so great about discs, they are really cheap. so square wouldnt lose some 3 million dollars. plus even if the game did come to the cube, it wouldnt be exclusive. i am almost positive that square already stated that all their games would also appear on the pc. even if 12 is on the cube, which i doubt, i am sure it will be avalible for the pc.

"Sky" · « **Reply #31 on:** February 10, 2003, 12:53:19 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldShadow
How was FFX so terrible? I never got a chance to play it, but I've heard great things about it. The character-switching dynamic sounds great. I just wish they would stop clinging to the random battles that everybody (except hardcore RPG fans) hates.

Good concept... that was already executed many times in the past... and somehow Square does the worst job of it... no penalties for switching... and they turned the game into too much of a rock-scissors-papers situation...
Just to show you what I mean...
Enemy is weak against certain element- Use Lulu
Enemy is swift and therefore has high evasion- Use Tidus
Enemy is flying- Use Wakka
Strong enemy- Use Yuna
Enemy weak against piercing- Use Auron or Kimhari
Treasure chest in Battle- Use Rikku

There are exceptions, especially during boss battles (which for the majority so far from what I played are well designed), but I think Square tried to do something "special" with the character switching and in the end turned it into a "switch this character in for this enemy, repeat when needed" situation.

Marcus Arillius · « **Reply #32 on:** February 10, 2003, 12:56:32 PM »

First of all, let me state that I have not read any of the other posts so I don't know whats been said. I'm basing my reply solely on the title of the thread. I just saw 2 pages and 30 replies and am too lazy to read them all. So here goes.

I think FF12 is coming to Gamecube. There would be no reason for it not too, even if the rumored interview is fake. Just think, why would Square license Nintendo to have some of the new FF games, and even old ones for GBA, and not allow them to have ALL new FF games? Profit wise it would be a mistake.

Most likely, FF12 will be appearing on both PS2 and gamecube. More importantly, Sony will have first stab at it for a good time period. Why? Well, you don't get to own a huge portion of SquareSoft's shares, save them from ruination, and not get anything out of the deal.....*cough* heh hem..."Sony".... *cough*. Excuse me, I'm a little flemmy. Its important that Sony gets to sell FF12 on the PS2 first before it goes to the cube because of the ever increasing multi-console owner. Those who own both a PS2 and a Cube are most likely avid "gamers" ( or are spoiled by their parents) and will be very aware of FF12's release, meaning they'll want it as soon as it comes out. If it comes out for PS2 first, they'll buy it for PS2 first, leaving the cube out in the cold. Don't get me wrong. When the cube gets FF12 it will definitely sell extremely well, but not as good as it could. Sony won't care in the least that FF12 will be on Gamecube, as long as they get it first, for several weeks, more likely months, in advance. By the time Cube gets it, anyone who would have bought FF12 will have already gotten it for the PS2, therefore, sales for the PS2 will be affected minimally, probaly not at all. I knew econonmics would help me one day.

Uglydot · « **Reply #33 on:** February 10, 2003, 01:18:59 PM »

I love the rpg genre so much, but I am so sick of random battles that I can barely play them anymore. Games like Earthbound, Chrono Trigger, and Grandia II didn't have them for the most part, why do we still have them?

mac<censored> · « **Reply #34 on:** February 10, 2003, 01:24:09 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: theaveng
The purpose of role-playing games is to battle. It's always been that way since the 1970's/80's Dungeons and Dragons craze. It you subtracted the random battles from Final Fantasy, you'd no longer have a RPG.

That's just bullshit -- maybe you really enjoy battles, but many people don't, and an RPG without any battles at all would still very much be an RPG.

I played a lot of D&D in college, and one thing I noticed is that it was only the worst campaigns that involved lots of fighting (usually run by an incompetent DM, who couldn't come up with a good story). Far more interesting were the ones where you spent most of your time really role-playing, actually interacting with other characters, not just throwing a few dice and getting a score.

[note that if battling where what people enjoyed about RPGs, you'd see a lot more `american-style' RPGs around, but in fact the story-heavy `japanese-style' seems far more popular]

Kobun Heat · « **Reply #35 on:** February 10, 2003, 06:30:07 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: DrForester
Well $50 games
Kingdom hearts has done about 3 mill worldwide, FFX about 5 or more. Plus their other games, like Saga Unlimited In Japan. And revenue from other projects and such

That's $400,000,000 right there. And I'm sure FFX and Kingdom Hearts did not cost 320 million to make, distribute, and promote

Nnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Publishers profit a few dollars off of every game - not $50.

This is also ignoring that other money pit, FFXI.

nolimit19 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 10, 2003, 06:45:30 PM »

"And I'm sure FFX and Kingdom Hearts did not cost 320 million to make, distribute, and promote"

i am sure it didnt cost 320 million, but i wouldnt be suprised if i cost a 3rd of that. what did square give disney to use its characters?

money of some sort i assume. plus there were tons of commercials for kingdom hearts. and if i am not mistaken, kingdom hearts didnt sell 3 million copies. i know it didnt sell 1 million in japan, and i dont think it did it north america too. i think u over estimate how much money they actually make, but there popularity is undeniable. there games have huge budgets though and it comes at a price. thats why nintendo hasnt gone realistic, because the dev time for those games is high and costs are higher as well. thats why nintendo is still the most profitable videogame company.

PaLaDiN · « **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2003, 03:18:17 AM »

Will you guys please stop discussing CD size?

If Square wants to bring FFXII to GC, they'll do it. It has nothing to do with CD size. If a little thing like "Oh no! It has to be multiple CDs!" bothers them...

Then perhaps we're better off not having FFXII at all.

But I digress...

To answer the topic question, I think not. I won't go ahead and say "not a chance in Hell!" because stranger things have happened... but I do think it's pretty unlikely.

I don't really care either... if you really want Final Fantasy, maybe you chose the wrong system... unless FF:CC delivers, which I think it will.

WesDawg · « **Reply #38 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:40:42 AM »

I'm not getting back into the muliple disc argument any time soon but this pisses me off:

"FF: CC is nothing more than a payoff game to get GBA development rights"

Nintendo has never that I know of used GBA to leverage GC games. In fact Konami gives the GC complete crap for games and Big'N still lets 'em make those amazing Castlevania's for GBA. Same for Rare who don't make anything for GC anymore. I think Square was interested in the connectivity and in making a game that you could play on your Cube and on your GBA at the same time.

Secondly, I like Random battles. I like working hard to develop a charactor into someone great. I like putting lots of time into making a great team. It's tedious during the process, but when you're done you have a sence of accomplishment and bonding with your group. In the old DW games you had a huge sence of accomplishment just cause you made it to the next town without your whole team dying finally, and when you thought back about how you only had that one White Mage left and you ran clear across the game map running from every enemy that attacked to finally stumble into town with 10 hit-points left, you can't help but be proud. Vive le La Random Battles!

theaveng · « **Reply #39 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:44:57 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: nolimit19
i am almost positive that an extra disc does not cost 1 dollar a piece. i think they are about 12 cents a piece.

Don't think. Prove. We have provided proof that DVDs cost ~$1.00 per disc/ ~$1.40 per disc/slipsheet/case: http://www.gnscd.com/dvd.htm Where is your proof that DVDs cost only 12 cents each? Got proof?
.
.
.
CHRONO TRIGGER: Although this game didn't have random battles, it did have monsters standing in your way. You were forced to fight them. Also, you had to level up, so again you had to wander around and randomly fight monsters... or else the Bosses would kill you. So, this method is not much different from the Final Fantasy design.

Hemmorrhoid · « **Reply #40 on:** February 11, 2003, 06:00:09 AM »

All I want is FF:CC, and that looks way better than any other FF, and its real action YIPIEE

I hope its as long as any FF.

theaveng · « **Reply #41 on:** February 11, 2003, 06:04:20 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: macshit
Quote
Originally posted by: theaveng
The purpose of role-playing games is to battle. It's always been that way since the 1970's/80's Dungeons and Dragons craze. It you subtracted the random battles from Final Fantasy, you'd no longer have a Role-Playing Game.

That's just bullshit -- maybe you really enjoy battles, but many people don't, and an RPG without any battles at all would still very much be an RPG.

Uh huh. An RPG without battles. Riiiiight. If there are no battles, why would you need stats like "Defense" "Health" "Hit Points" and so on? I agree story is important, but without the battles you wouldn't even a game! You'd have a D&D drama play. Or in the case of Final Fantasy, a movie.

You guys are forgetting Final Fantasy is a GAME, and the joy of playing the game is forming a team of characters, leveling them up, and kicking random monster ass. The story is merely icing on the cake... a very nice addition but not absolutely necessary. Look at Final Fantasy 1 on the Original Nintendo... the story was almost non-existent... but still a fun, fun game. Same applies to modern games like Final Fantasy 10/11/12/CC.

If Square followed your advice to create "an RPG without any battles", Final Fantasy would no longer be a game. It would be a joke.

Marcus Arillius · « **Reply #42 on:** February 11, 2003, 07:08:10 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: theaveng

Square's record with the Final Fantasy series is similar to Paramount's record with the Star Trek movie franchise:
FF1 =good
FF2 =sucked
FF3 =good
FF4 =good
FF5 =sucked
FF6 =good
FF7 =good
FF8 =sucked
FF9 =good
FF10 =debatable (50% say sucked; 50% say great)
FF11 =good (from Japanese reports)

Square has a hit-or-miss record with every third game royally sucking.

no no no. vewy vewy wong. If you are speaking of the U.S releases then I think FF2 was the best game in the whole series. Its the one that got me hooked. Now, 4 (psx) and 2 (snes) are the same game in U.S. releases so you can't say one was good and one sucked.

DrForester · « **Reply #43 on:** February 11, 2003, 07:42:38 AM »

umm Square MADE money of FFXI, they hit the break even point in December, so that's not an issue.

Square cares nothing about the GC, they just care for the GBA. They want to make money on GBA, so they agree to let nintendo publish a FF title.

Square cares about the bottom line, and they aren't going to put FFXII on GC when they can sell 5 times more on the PS2. As for FFXII being multi-console, that goes compeltly against square's (And enix's) track record, so I don't know why anyone brings it up, when outside ports of old games, Square enver does ports.

Hemmorrhoid · « **Reply #44 on:** February 11, 2003, 08:21:23 AM »

I dont really care how much square likes the GCN aslong as their GCN exclusives are of high quality. I think its pretty clear that Square are not developing out of love for the GCN but more for the GBA rights. But I also believe that the team that develops FF:CC will see what a great machine the GCN is and fall in love with it, see how great the game sells, and ultimately devote themselves to the GCN(hopefully, seeing another FF exclusive of that kind would be great).

Ian Sane · « **Reply #45 on:** February 11, 2003, 09:37:01 AM »

"The purpose of role-playing games is to battle. It's always been that way since the 1970's/80's Dungeons and Dragons craze. It you subtracted the random battles from Final Fantasy, you'd no longer have a RPG. You'd just have wandering around and a game that ends in 10 hours. YUCK."

Some of guys are assuming that random battles and battles period are the same thing. They're not. When people complain about random battles they mean battles when you walk around and suddenly you enter a battle out of nowhere. That is irritating as hell and a lot of people justifiable hate it. However there are battles that aren't random. The Mario RPG and Chrono games are proof of this. Battles still exist but you can SEE the enemies ahead of time and can therefore avoid them if you are low on health and don't want to battle. Battles should stay in RPGs. Random battles (and the key word is RANDOM) should not.

Someone said they weren't going to buy FF:CC because it's not a "real" Final Fantasy game. That's just stupid. Would you not buy it if it was the exact same game without "Final Fantasy" in the title? If FF:CC is a good game buy it. If it's not don't. Anyone who cares because it's not a "real" FF game shouldn't be allowed to play videogames. It's the exact same thing as not buying a game because you don't like the title.

As for FFXII I'm going to make a bold claim and say that it's NOT coming to Gamecube. There just isn't any reason for Square to release it on Gamecube when not only does the PS2 have a larger userbase but most Final Fantasy fans already own a PS2 and therefore moving the series to another platform will only piss off the fanbase. Square would be better off doing what they're doing now: establishing a Final Fantasy spinoff series on a different platform. If the "real" Final Fantasy series ever switched platforms it would be early in a console generation's life (like when FFVII switched).

Hemmorrhoid · « **Reply #46 on:** February 11, 2003, 09:48:51 AM »

I think its really great that FF:CC is coming to GCN. Maybe Square will establish the GCN as the FF actionRPG console whereas PS2 caters the turnbased FF part. After all, there were atleast 3 GCN exclusives to be made to allow Square to work on the GBA.

Random battles can be a pain, but people saying FF shouldnt have battles at all really should learn what games are about.

ruby_onix · « **Reply #47 on:** February 11, 2003, 01:35:07 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Marcus Arillius

no no no. vewy vewy wong. If you are speaking of the U.S releases then I think FF2 was the best game in the whole series. Its the one that got me hooked. Now, 4 (psx) and 2 (snes) are the same game in U.S. releases so you can't say one was good and one sucked.

He's most likely referring to the FF2 and 3 that you haven't seen. The originals. Not the FF4 and 6 that were renamed 2 and 3 by Square USA back in the SNES days.

The original FF2 will hit the PSX in a few weeks. You can judge it for yourself shortly.

Marcus Arillius · « **Reply #48 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:11:06 PM »

I'll probaly like it just as much as the other ones. What can I say, I'm a fanboy.
Also, square making more money on the PS2 is precisely why FF12 will be on the PS2.....FIRST then it will go to the GC. There would be no reason at all for it not to come to the GC, just because of their "track record" of not multi-platforming. This is the first time square is developing for two competing game companies ever. There are no groundrules to base their actions on now. Everything is completely up to chance. The SMARTEST and most practical thing for Square to do profit wise, is to bring EVERY title they create to EVERY company they're developing for, for EVERY console or handheld the companies have. It may sound like wishful thinking on my part to have ff12 on the cube, but I don't care. I'm buying it for whichever console has it first, or whichever one has it at all. So I guess I'll be playing on the PS2

DrForester · « **Reply #49 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:51:31 PM »

Ok, what POSSIBLE hint has square given to sugest that after nearly 20 years of NEVER porting anything, outside old games to newer platforms, that Square is suddenly going to port FFXII to GC?

Wait...I know...

NONE

News:

Author Topic: Is FF12 coming to GameCube? (discussion/debate) (Read 19026 times)