Blinded by new-school [Archive] - Eyes on Final Fantasy Forums

Sefie1999AD

07-15-2004, 11:23 AM

i h8 ff1!!!! its teh carppiest ff eva!! teh grafix r so ugly, i mean their 2d and nuthin compaired 2 teh gr8 3d grafix!!!11 lol and their is no stryline and no charcater can spaek!!!! omfg theyve got no devlepoment!!! all teh charctaers r soooo big wusses!! look @ warmaech his olny got 1 thousnd hp in teh nes versoin omg what a wuss! penaence has 12 milloin hp and lol even ffVIII's ifreet has more hp then warmaech and ifrett's the 1st boss in ffVIII 4 lulus saek!!! so ff1 has teh wusseist supa bosses eva and teh fnal boss has only 4000 hp even in teh psx vesrion!! tahts sooo laem braskas fnael aion has 180,000 hp totaly sooo his got 45 tiems more hp then teh fnael boss of ff1!! ur charcters r wusses too i maen u cant do 999,999,999,999 damge unliek in teh newer ffs!!! lol animas oblvion, knghts off teh round, gardn of eden and cat nip + triggre hippy do alot mroe damgea then all ff1 charcters 2getha! xDDDDDD teh best ive neva been able 2 do is 500 dmage wit a lvl 50 mster balck belt. y cant lvl 99 b teh max levl!!?? and i h8 teh most how spiel anmiations r so short they taek 5 or 10 secodns at most lol ff8 is alot bettre bcuz i luv thoes 2 minite long gf summon seqeunces lol!!!! yea ff1 is defintaly teh worst ff eva!!!!!!!!111

The above is sarcasm, so don't take it too seriously. xD

Seriously speaking, though, do you think many "new-school" FF players have seen too much flashy 3D-graphics and extremely powerful eye candy spells that they can't appreciate what the FFs originally were? That's why they might not like games such as FF1 since there's no 3D, no cheesy love stories, whiny hero characters or other things like that (okay, this is generalising the newer FF games, but you probably got the point). I've heard of a few people who have tried the newer FFs but quit playing it immediately because the graphics "sucked" and they couldn't stand the game. I've seen this happening with at least FF1 and FF4. A few people were also hesitating to play FF5 because its graphics were 2D.

Those who have played the older FFs (1-6) and mostly liked them, do you think many FF gamers have indeed been blinded by the 3D-graphics used in the newer FFs? If you know someone who really dislikes all the older FFs but loves the newer FFs (or if you're like that yourself), can you tell me more about why s/he dislikes the older games? Discuss.

TasteyPies

07-15-2004, 11:49 AM

My experiances with FF was..

1,8,9,7,5,10,2,3,6,4 in that order. after 10...2,3,4 and 6 were just lame. Mostly because they all looked the same. So yeah I started with an oldie but then went to alot of flashy ones...I realy enjoy the low-tech graphics and love playing the oldies....butt i liek teh sexxors 3d beter!!!!!!111

07-15-2004, 04:06 PM

Contrary to what we'd like to believe, very few FF newbies are graphically obsessed morons. Most people here seem to enjoy playing the older FFs as much as the most recent releases. Of course, there's always going to be a special place in their heart for FFX, but the same is true of all of us. FFVII's popularity is due in part to it being many player's introduction to the series, if not the RPG genre. The same applies to FFX.

Despite the current trend of style over substance, people still know a good game when they see it, and the older FFs continue to attract new players. The poor graphical quality of certain titles might deter some, but the true gamers will see past that and play on regardless. Indeed, certain people around here seem to prefer FFI-VI, despite having joined the series in more recent years.

To be perfectly honest, I can't blame people for not wanting to play FFI-VI, if flashy graphics are all they're looking for. It's their loss, though, as they'll be missing out on some of the greatest titles in gaming history.

aeris2001x2

07-15-2004, 04:38 PM

its odd in ffVI case, since it actually has beter graphics then ffVII, just 2D.

anyway true gamers will decide for a proper reason if they dislike the old school. Tasteypies believes they r mostly the same which is fair enough. i hate the morons who dont have proper reasons, who want graphics. and in this country uk, most will ignore the oldies and play ffX-2 instead! :eek:

personally i started with ffVII and its my fav but i was not silly enough to care about graphics, which is why ffVI is my second fav. after that ffIV,ffV,ffVIII,ffIX,ffX all more or less draw cause they are all brillant.

and when i say i dislike ffII i mean it 4 proper reasons.

i dont think its good to seperate old school from new anyway. not just because ffVI was when the seris truely started to change(ffVII is a rehash of ffVI) but because it sort of creates divisions in the ff fan world and tries to make ppl pick a side. imho there is just 11 proper final fantasy games.

07-15-2004, 05:42 PM

its odd in ffVI case, since it actually has beter graphics then ffVII, just 2D.

That's true. Not that it would affect my enjoyment of FFVII, of course. :D

Rase

07-15-2004, 09:18 PM

Stared with FFIV, then went VII, VI, VIII, IX, X, and I. But I love the oldies more then the new ones (don't ask why, I don't know). But I hate people who like style over substances. A good balence is what's needed. If they remade I-VI in 3D, do you think more people would play them?

Trumpet Thief

07-15-2004, 09:27 PM

I started with FFIV as my first FF. But for first RPG, it was Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. I agree with you on many points, for many of the old school Final Fantasies i.e. FFIV, FFVI, FFI are really great games.

I have met quite a lot of people that think that if you like the new FF's, then you obviously hate the old FF's. I think that is far from the truth as after playing FFIV, I played FFVI, then V on Anthologies. After that, I took a little break from playing RPG's, and bought FFIX. I thought that game was perfect first time through, and I still love at as a game, but as an FF, I didn't think it was that good. Still, FFIX was great game.

Aftter that, I bought FFVII, then VIII. I loved them both. I think that many people can like the new school Final Fantasies and the Old school Final Fantasies. And it's not bad for newbies to not try older Final Fantasies. Really, it is their decision. although they might be missing out on adventures they would have loved.

dman

07-15-2004, 11:32 PM

Every time we have a "best FF" thread here, FFVI steals the show. However, on many mainstream gaming sites (ie. www.gamesite.com) and not your typical www.finalfantasysite.com/www.rpsite.com, it's FFVII with 70% of votes, followed by VIII with 25% and X with 5%. The older FF's don't get a single vote at all! Then there's people who say they "<3" "t3h 53ph!r07h" or whatever and then say, "oh I played FFVI and it's gfx sux. It's all about some ppl called Biggs and Wedge who kill people with some sorcereress lady." Personally I believe that's blasphemy.

While I don't think FFVII is bad (hell, its a great game), there are so many newbs who don't know what they're talking about when the Biggs/Wedge/Terra event only lasts for about...5 minutes. I have no problem with people having proper reasoning as to why they don't like a particular game. I'm not saying that I like all games with old graphics, but the graphics will have to be very bad for them to outweigh the good aspects, such as the story, characters, etc.

Moral of the story is: don't judge a book by its cover, or a game by its screenshots

Trumpet Thief

07-15-2004, 11:54 PM

I agree. If gamers could accept all the games, or at least try them, they would see what great games they are. For graphics aren't walys everything.

Mo-Nercy

07-16-2004, 02:31 AM

TheAbominatrix

07-16-2004, 02:42 AM

I started with either IV or VI, I cant remember which.

I've noticed this trend, but usually it's just with younger gamers, who grew up with Playstation as their first system, and are somewhat 'spoiled' by nice graphics. Of course, that's a broad generalization.

I agree with what most everyone has said, but I'd like to add that I've noticed that some of the 'old school' players are immeadiatly put off by the newer games. Many of them spend a lot of time complaining about every little aspect of the new games (I was guilty of this until I realized how dumb I was and stopped) rather than just playing and enjoying them for what they are (though I still like more of the other games than the newer).

Big D

07-16-2004, 02:47 AM

In the interests of fairness, I should note that there are plenty of "old school" gamers who bash the new ones without knowing anything about them at all.

I enjoy both the old and new games, however some of the new ones stay in my mind more. FFVII, for instance, was my first FF, and remains my favourite. The characters are, in some instances, more believeable in the newer games. In FFIV, for instance, Cecil gets used and abused, turned into an instrument of murder, then fights back against his own people, losing a siege in the process, then finds out his beloved has been abducted, then gets shipwrecked and left thinking that all of his friends are either dead (Rydia, Edward, Yang) or have betrayed him (Kain). And all that's only a few hours into the plot... yet he never falters or suffers any kind of trauma, he just keeps soldierin' on. In the later FFs, human suffering and personal conflict is far more prevalent, more believeable. Cloud Strife, for instance. Even the oft-criticised Tidus of FFX has a more realistic response to his changed circumstances. As the games' characters have become to look more human, they've also started to behave more human.
In general, anyway. There are strengths and weaknesses in both the new and old games, in this regard.

Improved visuals are by no means a bad thing, either. It's just like with a novel - a crude, basic Mr Men-style description of the scenery lets you know what's there, but a well-written story can bring the scenery to life in a way that a sketchy outline can't. The same can apply to visual representations. In FFX, Sin's destructive attack on Kilika would've had little emotional resonance if it'd just been shown as a two-dimensional representation, with a dozen-odd wide-eyed sprites standing in the identical "shocked" pose as the screen turns blue and they disappear.

If The Lord of the Rings movies had used jerky stop-motion monsters and cheap painted backdrops, the effect would've been less immersive, less 'real', less faithful to the books. Visual quality doesn't make or break a good story, but it certainly doesn't hurt, either...."oh I played FFVI and it's gfx sux. It's all about some ppl called Biggs and Wedge who kill people with some sorcereress lady." Personally I believe that's blasphemy.Most criticisms of FFX and X-2 are very similar - a superficial rendering of the first few minutes of the game, with no appreciation for the depth and complexity of the plot. It seems that some people just need to have conflict, criticism and confrontational but petty hatreds in their lives, so they make this decisions that they'll adamantly object to any old or new FF games, depending on what they prefer. I prefer my vewpoint, and that shared by most of the people here - the view that there are good and bad things about any games, regardless of age, and different things appeal to different people for different reasons. Being "old" doesn't make a game good or bad by default, neither does being "new'.

TheAbominatrix

07-16-2004, 02:54 AM

D, as usual, you said it better than I ever could. I agree with you fully.

Martyr

07-16-2004, 03:33 AM

I'm an old school gamer because I loathe modern graphics. I do not feel that I have the same reasons as most people.
Ya see, in the older FFs, and, indeed, in older games in general, there is a very mystical aura about the game. I feel like I'm actually drawn into the world of the game, like I'm there. When I get a game over, or when somthing from the outside pulls me away, it's actually very startling. Like I'm being wrenched out of one dimension and returning to another.
But that only happens with low graphic games. Nes and limited Snes, mostly.

When I'm playing 3D stuff, it takes a lot of concentration. It's more like a sport. I'm in my world, focusing on a game. on a story, in a computer chip and I'm controlling my actions through a remote control and a television. It's all a game today. I never feel that other world in the modern games.

I think the closest I got was the first time I played Starcraft. That was an awesome game for a while. But the majesty of that game faded over time.

So... Bizarre as it sounds, my reasoning is that there is a serious lack of majesty in the modern games. They're games. That's all. They often bear the Final Fantasy title, and that's fine. But the Final Fantasy that took me to another world, a world that does not seem to exist on a Playstation, is no longer in production.

The Playstation simply mimics the real world. It doesn't make the games realistic. To me, it only makes them more fake. The failure to be real simply points out that the game is not real. Nor is it its own. The game is not a new or special world. It's role is as a game in ours.

Thus, making an RPG in 3D is completely bogus. It's better to read a book. If you want newer, graphically enhanced games, play Mario Kart. Or a FPS. That's where better graphics make enhancements in gameplay.

Edit: And anybody who doesn't try things on the basis of them thinking they won't like it is a bull headed fool. I hate those people, and I try not to associate with them. If anybody refuses to play old school games because they're blinded by the new stuff, then screw 'em. Maybe they're missing out, but, chances are, they don't have the capacity to appreciate it anymore because the power of the new consoles have set in too well. And so they aren't missing out on anything.
We're all different, we all have different opinions. If somebody feels liek telling me that VIII is the schizznit, that's great. If they tell me that 1 sucks in comparison, then they're dillusional. Not because they should enjoy 1 more, but because there's no longer any way to compare the games on equal levels with the old schooler and the new schooler.
For example, what's better: playing chess or working with clay?
Nobody can decide. Your answer can only be based on what the individual prefers.

1/6/3 or 5/2/7/etc...

SomethingBig

07-16-2004, 03:37 AM

In FFX, Sin's destructive attack on Kilika would've had little emotional resonance if it'd just been shown as a two-dimensional representation, with a dozen-odd wide-eyed sprites standing in the identical "shocked" pose as the screen turns blue and they disappear.

That would make me laugh my heart out. On a serious note, I agree with everything Big D said.

My very first FF was FFVII, then moved on to 8, and then 9. I played VI and loved it almost as much as 7, if not just as much. Then played IV and liked that one quite a lot. Went on to 5, same story as IV. I tried FFI, but didn't really like it for unknown reasons. I don't think I've tried 2 yet. As for 3, I didn't really like it.

-N-

07-16-2004, 03:56 AM

Storm

07-16-2004, 05:06 AM

Those who have played the older FFs (1-6) and mostly liked them, do you think many FF gamers have indeed been blinded by the 3D-graphics used in the newer FFs?

I know many people who refuse to play the older games because of the graphics. Many times I have been playing Final Fantasy IV and my friends have commented,"The graphics in that game are terrible. How can you play it?" The thing is, when I play FFIV today I remember it just like I did the first time I played it back in 1992. Some of the graphics today still impress me, such as the interior of the Tower of Zot, Tower of Babil, and Giant of Babil.

I tried to get one of my friends into the series through Final Fantasy VI, and that failed miserably. Later on I tried again with Final Fantasy X, and it was a success.

I still think FFIV deserves its own forum. That game is like the equivalent of the "Fellowship of the Ring". It's too bad that DPC and Takara are the only one's that agree.

In FFIV, for instance, Cecil gets used and abused, turned into an instrument of murder, then fights back against his own people, losing a siege in the process, then finds out his beloved has been abducted, then gets shipwrecked and left thinking that all of his friends are either dead (Rydia, Edward, Yang) or have betrayed him (Kain). And all that's only a few hours into the plot... yet he never falters or suffers any kind of trauma, he just keeps soldierin' on.

This may be due to the fact that Cecil had Lunarian blood in him. At the time, the Lunarians were far superior to the humans, hence more resilience to traumatizing events.

Sephex

07-16-2004, 05:50 AM

While I do think there are many people who can't get into the old FFs because of outdated graphics, I don't think it is a huge rampant problem. It isn't a problem limited to the FF games though. There are tons of people that refuse to play classics because they don't have the bells and whistles like today's games. That attitude and ignorance does annoy me, but I don't let it hamper my own experience with older games.

Big D

07-16-2004, 06:42 AM

Takara

07-16-2004, 10:06 AM

Gods, I hate people who judge a book/movie/game without even reading/seeing/playing it.

"Final Fantasy I sucks because its graphics are 8-Bit!"

or again

"Final Fantasy X-2 sucks because Yuna is a slut!"

:rolleyes2

Personally, I have played both old-school FFs and new-school FFs and I've learned to appreciate most of them (well, except VIII, but this thread is not the place to discuss about why I think it is the worst in the series). They all have their good points and their bad points.

Yeah, sure, the older FFs graphics may look inferior compared to the graphics in, say X-2 and the upcoming XII, but those graphics were considered top-notch in their time. Technology back then was not as developped as it is now, so of course those older games didn't have flashy FMVs and 3D.

Judging a video game only by its graphics only is dumb, in my opinion. What about the characters development? The plot? The music? The playability? Or any other aspects I have not listed but could contribute to how cool or crappy a game can be?

If you don't play more than the first 5 minutes of, say, FFV, just how can you make a good opinion of the game? Or for that matter, how can you say that Spider-Man 2 is a bad movie if you've only seen the theatrical previews, just to use another example? I find it sad when people base their opinion on their first impression.

But again, I can see why most of the newest generation of gamers prefer the newer FFs. As it was written above, most of these kids grew up with their Playstations while the older ones grew up with older consoles like the SNES, the NES, or even the Atari (don't ask me what model it was, I just know we had one in the house when I was still wearing pink dresses and diapers).

As for myself, the first FF I was introduced to was FFIV during the summer of 1994 thanks to my best friend Korine, shortly followed by FFVI a few months later. I played those two games over and over for most of my pre-teen and teenage years, hence why I have a strong opinion of both games. Then, it was FFVII when in came out in 1997, and the others eventually followed. I have beat all of the FFs at least once, saved for FFIII which I just downloaded the ROM for, and those that were released on the PS2 and Crystal Chronicles on the GC (because I'm poor... :riiight: ) Those who were introduced to the series at the same age with, say, FFVIII may be a bit spoiled because they have something we "old geezers" didn't have at their age.

So, yeah, my point for this rant is to never judge a book by its cover, as the old saying goes, and that some people just just get smacked for being so close-minded. At least, not everyone who started with the new-school games think the old-school ones are crap.

Just my two Canuck cents. :twocents:

P.S.

Originally Posted by Storm:

I still think FFIV deserves its own forum. That game is like the equivalent of the "Fellowship of the Ring". It's too bad that DPC and Takara are the only one's that agree.

Yeah! *brings out the pitchforks and the torches* RIOT! :D

Martyr

07-16-2004, 01:19 PM

The Playstation simply mimics the real world. It doesn't make the games realistic. To me, it only makes them more fake. The failure to be real simply points out that the game is not real. Nor is it its own. The game is not a new or special world. It's role is as a game in ours.
Isn't that what the old games are about, too? Imitating reality as best they could at the time? The degree of mimicry has has improved with newer technology, but the principle is the same - to create a visual representation of a fantasy world to immerse the player in. Compare with the development of literature. As language - and the skill of authors - developed, they got better at turning thoughts, emotions and images into words. The events remain the same, the things the characters do and say - but how the immersive illusion is created has become more complex, more involved or involving. Compare the ancient epics, for instance, to their modern-day equivalents. There's absolutely no denying the greatness of what the old masters wrote, but they seldom have the abilty to make a setting come to life in the way some of today's writers can.

You raise a good point, but I'm telling you that the modern graphics on't work right with me.
And the mimicry comment was focused on the graphics race that seems to be going on. Of course the older games were made with as good of graphics as possible, but there's way too much effort in graphics today. It takes me out of the game.
Seriously, there's way too much realism in the games today. Too much emotion, too much backround, too much color... It's not like a game anymore. It doesn't have the same quality as the older games. And I'm not saying that it has less or more quality, I'm saying that the quality is comp[letely unrelated. And I dislike the new kind of quality. It doesn't work on me. Again, I'll read a book if I want depth and full fledged stories. But the games should be games.
And also again, there ain't nothing wrong with appreciating the newer stuff. We're just different people. I'll only get annoyed if the graphics deter you from playing a game like FFVI. I won't if you don't want to playin FF1, because it isn't the same game at all for some people that it is for me.
Not to mention, it seems that you people get immersed in these high tech games easier than you get immersed in the older ones. I don't know how. There's nothing left for you to create in newer games.

UltimateSpamGrover

07-16-2004, 03:17 PM

I started FFVII , then my brother got FFVI, then I disliked it for its graphics, but then I started to like it, and moved backward to FFV
and I liked the 2D FF's from there, and Sephiroth1999AD. you are abviously spoiled, if there wasnt a FF1, there wouldnt be a FFX or X-2!

order I played:

FFVII
FFVI
FFV
FFVIII
FFIX
FFX
FFI
FFII
FFXI
FFIV (but do not own a copy)
FF3 is not out yet but i wanna purchase it someday!

EDIT: If you dislike games for their graphics then you are going to absolutely HATE Lufia

07-16-2004, 04:48 PM

Everything that Big D said is absolutely true. The real issue here is about giving games a chance. I played FFX-2 to completion and didn't like it, which is fair enough. People like aeris2001x2 played FFII and didn't like it much either, that's fine too. The point is that they played it before forming their opinions.

The problem comes when players dismiss a game on first impressions, such as 'It's too gimmicky' or 'The graphics are rubbish' applied to X-2 and II respectively. Until people give games a chance, they have no right to criticise it. That's why newer players should try and judge the older games on something besides graphics, as Sephiroth1999AD said.

Seryn Kai

07-17-2004, 07:50 AM

I'm probably an FF newbie by the standards of most people here. I've only been playing for 7 years, and I know many have been playing it much longer, but maybe I don't really count. Anyway, I've never cared about graphics. Ever. I'll always give an FF a chance, regardless of the graphical "standard" it's at. I play games for storyline and gameplay, not for something as hollow as a game's asthetic appearence.

I have to take objection to what Big D says about 2D being emotionless. What you're saying is anything 2D or animated can't convey feelings. Some of the most moving scenes I've seen in an RPG have been in 2D games. True, if the people of Kilika had identical shocked expressions then THAT would be emotionless, but you're forgetting that the greatness of 2D is that you can have whatever the artist can draw. It's easy to draw sprites that are large enough to see more expression on the faces if you needed to (Sword of Mana, Breath of Fire III) and also you can have varied ones, or at least 4 varients at the very least, and that's before you take into account the 2D cutscenes seen in games like Shining Soul II or Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire. Theres no difference between 2D and 3D as far as I am concerned.

Why people think that 3D realism is intrinsically better to 2D, I don't know. Why is it then that these graphics nuts arn't in constant awe at their everyday surroundings. Why is it that they are only in constant amazement at the psudo realism seen in video games. That's what I'd like to know. I am personally of the opinion that most newbie gamers, actually, most gamers, are graphically obsessed morons. Just open up any games magazine and see what I mean. Almost all of the reviews either condemn the game over "bad" graphics, say it's the best thing ever because of "good" graphics, or just say the graphics are "avarage" and suggest you play something with more colours in it. Something else I've wanted to ask for a long time. Why is it that 2D games are condemned for "bad" visuals on home consoles and people act as though they're staring straight at the sun when they're forced to play them, but suddenly go into awe when they play the same game on GBA and say "great" the visuals are?

My heart fills with rage whenever I hear the vain comments of shallow people who constantly judge games only by their appearences, and the worst part is, I know that these are going to inevitably be the people who allow flashy colours and the white elephant that is virtual realism to swallow substance whole in the end. Look closely at the games world today and you can see the signs that the end is now in sight. When the time comes when total realism has been attained and graphics take ultimate presedence over storyline and gameplay, the games industry will surely die. If they have become unaccustomed to producing quality, and the gamers buying aren't interested in anthing other than what will be impossible "improvements", what else can happen?

One piece for advice to gamers, but particularly to RPG fans, born from hours, days of my own contemplation:- Enjoy it while it lasts. And whatever you do, hoard up on those games you like the sound of, old or new school, while you can. When the end comes, you'll be glad you did. You'll need a supply of quality games that you can enjoy time and time again when the production of new classics ceases.

DJZen

07-17-2004, 07:53 AM

I don't think new schoolers are spoiled by graphics as much as they are completely unused to the differences in gameplay between I-VI and VII-X. I prefer the older FF games because it was more about runnin' up into the dungeon and swords and sorcerying your way through every last mutha you met. Goblin? Meet mr. sword! Bomb? Ice that foo'! Warmech? Time for a little NUKE action! Newer FF games are more cinematic, what with their FMVs and 2 minute long summon sequences. The gameplay somewhat reflects this. A limit break is an incredibly powerful attack with a very impressive animation. Remember Sabin's most powerful attack? Not very impressive to look at, is it? How about the FFIV version of Bahamut? Well, he shows up, makes a quick blast, then leaves. Again, not very impressive. FFI had about 5 different attack animation sets. Flare was a quick explosion that you might miss if you're busy blinking. I think the big difference is that things are just more dramatic now. It's cool and all, but I like my dungeon crawls.

Seryn Kai

07-17-2004, 08:50 AM

Personally, I'm not impressed my modern summon sequences. It's just boring sitting through a 2 minute attack. When I played FFX, I swiched the aeon sequences to short. And how is watching Cloud Omnislash an enemy in 2D any more or less impressive than in 3D. I have a sense for what people would call over the top, but this can be just as easily done in 2D as in 3D. As I said, developers are only limited by what the artist can draw. What impresses me isn't Bahamut's massive energy ball, it's how much energy must be gathered in there, how much power Bahamut must have, in order to make something that big which can cause such a big damage figure to appear above the opponent. One of the things I like about Old School is how it plays on your imagination. New School diminishes that somehow. I'm not really "impressed" by any attack or animation sequence on its own. It's their significence to the game scenario which does. I could spend ages quoting examples, but I don't feel I really need to in order to make my point.

Takara

07-17-2004, 09:30 AM

That's some good points you both raised there, Seryn Kai and DJzen.

I have not played the later games, but from what you said, it looks more like playing FFX is more like watching a movie than actually playing the game because of all the FMVs.

And I agree 2D leaves more room for the imagination. "Do you think Frionel has blue eyes or green eyes?" "Blue!" "No, they're green!" "You're both wrong, they're polka-dotted, dammit!" :D See what I mean? You can shape the appearance of characters, landscapes, magic spells, etc in your mind much better if they're not as detailed.

Ultima Shadow

07-17-2004, 04:10 PM

look @ warmaech his olny got 1 thousnd hp in teh nes versoin omg what a wuss! penaence has 12 milloin hp and lol even ffVIII's ifreet has more hp then warmaech and ifrett's the 1st boss in ffVIII 4 lulus saek!!! so ff1 has teh wusseist supa bosses eva and teh fnal boss has only 4000 hp even in teh psx vesrion!! tahts sooo laem braskas fnael aion has 180,000 hp totaly sooo his got 45 tiems more hp then teh fnael boss of ff1!! ur charcters r wusses too i maen u cant do 999,999,999,999 damge unliek in teh newer ffs!!! lol animas oblvion, knghts off teh round, gardn of eden and cat nip + triggre hippy do alot mroe damgea then all ff1 charcters 2getha! xDDDDDD teh best ive neva been able 2 do is 500 dmage wit a lvl 50 mster balck belt. y cant lvl 99 b teh max levl!!?? and i h8 teh most how spiel anmiations r so short they taek 5 or 10 secodns at most lol ff8 is alot bettre bcuz i luv thoes 2 minite long gf summon seqeunces lol!!!! yea ff1 is defintaly teh worst ff eva!!!!!!!!111

I guess you have never seen "Paper Mario" then. The dammage scale whould make you scream! Really, crapy final boss HP etc doesn't matter as long as the HP/Dammage scale is low as well. It's just a matter of HP/Dammage scale.

black orb

07-17-2004, 05:14 PM

Seriously speaking, though, do you think many "new-school" FF players have seen too much flashy 3D-graphics and extremely powerful eye candy spells that they can't appreciate what the FFs originally were?
>>>Yeah, but those are just the stupid ones.. I dont care about them very much..
As for me I like both old and new FF games, I`ve played all the FF games besides FFTA and FF11, I dont loathe the new flashy graphics and my fav FF game is FF1.
OMG! Im such a FF whore.. :eek:

DMKA

07-18-2004, 08:32 AM

I agree with what most everyone has said, but I'd like to add that I've noticed that some of the 'old school' players are immeadiatly put off by the newer games. Many of them spend a lot of time complaining about every little aspect of the new games (I was guilty of this until I realized how dumb I was and stopped) rather than just playing and enjoying them for what they are (though I still like more of the other games than the newer).
Praise Yevon...someone FINALLY pointed that out instead of being the one sided "OMG new games suck the old ones were better and the new ones are all about graphics just because they have better graphics because technology has evolved since I was 10 years old!" cliche.

But yes, I've seen some 'new schoolers' who don't really understand how to appreciate the old 8-bit FFs...but then, think about it when it comes to younger gamers (which I believe are the newschoolers guilty of such judgement)...can you blame them? I mean really, sure I agree whole-heartly that they could stand to open their mind a little bit more to the older games, but its just not the same for someone whos always had something far more efficent than that...its kinda like if someone suddenly sat you down and replaced all your CDs with audio cassettes and your compact color tvs with black and white radiation boxes where you had to turn a knob with buttons labeled around it...wouldn't you prefer the stuff you have now over that? Ok maybe thats not quite the same but I can see how someone whos always had instrumentally composed music and realistic SFX have to suddenly listen to midis and beeping would have a difficult time...I actually am guilty of this myself, and its why I haven't completed any FFs below 6 yet, but I'm not downing the games, its just not nearly as easy for me to sit and look at and listen to say, FFIV as it is for me to sit and play FFX. Does that make me think the game is any less of a game? Of course not...its just less efficent because thats the technology they had at the time.

I played FFs in this order: 7,6,Tactics,8,9,1,2,3,4,MQ,5,10,10-2. I don't appreciate the old ones any less, but like I said, its easier for me to play whats nicer on my eyes and my ears. I like good graphics and sound, yes, but i won't base my judgement of a game off such things alone. Hell, other than the fact that it makes things easier on my eyes and ears, graphics mean nothing to me really. I play games for fun, not for how they look.

But anyway, I think these 'oldschoolers' who just prejudge new games after 5 mintes of play (like a ton of people have done with FFX-2) are far worse, because they been around longer, seen more games, and a wider variety, so they should know better than to do that. Plus, they arn't ignorant like the younger players, they're just being prejudice because of...stupidity I guess.

But anyway Final Fantasy VII is still my favorite till this day, even though it looks like crap compared to the newer ones...hell, it looks like crap compared to FFVIII, but I still prefer it. I've been playing it lately, and its still just as fun as it was 7 years ago.

Seryn Kai

07-18-2004, 09:12 AM

I just want to say that, personally, visuals never put me off games, 2D or 3D. And condemning games cause they're 3D is just as vain as condemning game for being 3D. However, I have to object to what devilmaykickass's example of one being forced to substitute CD's and TV's for cassettes and older models of TV because that is a matter of efficiency. Cassettes are more awkard to use and so are some of the older models of TV. In regards to 2D/3D games, its all asthetics. The efficiency of the games is identical. And why IS 3D intrinsically better to 2D? No one has answered me apart from Takara who, like me, pointed out that there are actual storytelling advantages to 2D. As far as I'm concerned, 3D isn't better, it just detracts imagination a little while you're playing the games sometimes. As for the music, it was fine in the early days. There's nothing wrong with MIDI's, there's just slightly less scope for composition, although in the right place, MIDI's can work just as well as stuff composed by a group of live musicians.

As for the example of FFX to FFIV, I started playing the early FF's after years of playing the PS games and other PS RPG's when FF Anthology (4&5) and FF6 came out in the UK and I had no problem making the transition to 2D to 3D. None at all, I'm just not shallow enough to have preferences to either. I just acknowledge the advantages of 2D as appossed to 3D which can't play on your imagination in the same way.

Azure Chrysanthemum

07-18-2004, 09:13 AM

I've never understood how gamers who are after eye candy can play Final Fantasy at all. My father, for example, is very much into racing games, the more realistic the better. I gave him Grand Turismo 3 for his birthday, and he loves it (and thus uses the PS2 a good amount of the time so I can't play as much). Much of his enjoyment of the game is the realism of the graphics. He can't stand RPGs, which he calls "Fighting Menus".

As much as I argue with him about it, he DOES have a very valid point. Basically, you ARE fighting a menu with some sort of flashy graphic added to it to augment the effect. The reason I play RPGs is for the storyline, because let's face it, storyline is what MAKES an RPG. I still maintain that Xenogears is the greatest game I've ever played because the storyline was so GOOD.

I admit that I've become somewhat spoiled with the newer graphics myself. I started playing Final Fantasy probably over ten years ago with Final Fantasy IV. I had never gotten to play but I did see FFI, I bought VI later, which was the first FF I owned (and still probably my favorite). After having played newer games though, I find myself slightly irritated with the old graphics. That doesn't mean, of course, that I don't hoarde all my old favorites in their playstation rerelease glory, it just means there's always a minor irritant while playing that wasn't there before.

Also, I would like to point out that ALL non-cinematic 3D graphics in FFVII are complete and utter crap. The reason that FFVII was so visually astounding was the background, which was all 2D but looked spectacular (I still feel that the FFVII backgrounds are among the best graphics I've ever seen).

While I haven't had a chance to play FFVIII or FFIX much, I won't turn my nose up at them because they're newer, and by the same token I won't attack an older game because of their lessened graphics. I will say that I don't really like FFI or FFII because neither of them really did anything to grasp my attention in any meaningful way, storywise. Of course part of it for FFII could be that the system is so abysmally horrible that I couldn't really get that far.

DMKA

07-18-2004, 09:24 AM

I just want to say that, personally, visuals never put me off games, 2D or 3D.
Same here...I don't want anyone to misunderstand...visuals don't stop me from playing a game...I still play it, but the old 8 bit games just arn't as easy on my eyes and ears, thats all...I don't rate the game or let that detemine wether I play it or not.

However, I have to object to what devilmaykickass's example of one being forced to substitute CD's and TV's for cassettes and older models of TV because that is a matter of efficiency. Cassettes are more awkard to use and so are some of the older models of TV. In regards to 2D/3D games, its all asthetics. The efficiency of the games is identical.
Thats a matter of opinion...by efficentcy I mean how much can be done now. For example, now I can hear actual voices singing and see peoples facial expressions, and see their mouths move as they speak, along with other things. With the older games, they just couldn't do that...I mean, maybe thats why alot of people who weren't into games back then weren't into them...you'll notice alot more people and many different kinds of people get into games now then they did back in the 16/8 bit days, because theres just so much more ways they can appeal to various people and likings with all they can do now.

07-18-2004, 12:07 PM

Thats a matter of opinion...by efficentcy I mean how much can be done now. For example, now I can hear actual voices singing and see peoples facial expressions, and see their mouths move as they speak, along with other things. With the older games, they just couldn't do that...

That didn't stop you enjoying them though, did it? There is absolutely no doubt that the most important thing in any title is gameplay. Graphics and sounds shouldn't affect the fun factor, they're only there to add flair to a game, not to be a major selling point. Without a good game to back it up, what's the point in all the flashy graphics and voice acting?

Let me put it this way. If FFVI had been released in the last few days, with today's technology, it would be absolutely awesome. Stunning visuals and sounds, a gripping story, all building upon the foundation of superb gameplay. However, release FFX-2 on the SNES, and it wouldn't do nearly so well. The all-important factor, the gameplay, is lacking somewhat. Certainly, the battle system was pretty good, but the structure and storyline were severely lacking. It would have sold well, yes, but nowhere near as well as FFVI did at the time.

Right now, graphics are important because they sell well. Many times I've seen players buy a title based on the screenshots on the back of the box, or a famous brand name. In these titles, the gameplay is a secondary concern. Thankfully, FF is not one of those games, and Square-Enix continue to produce games of a high quality.

Still, it's rather worrying that playing FFI, with its simple visuals and non-existent story, still evokes a greater sense of joy than FFX. Perhaps the opposite is true for some of the newer gamers, but if you ask me, they're missing the point.

DMKA

07-18-2004, 04:49 PM

That didn't stop you enjoying them though, did it? There is absolutely no doubt that the most important thing in any title is gameplay. Graphics and sounds shouldn't affect the fun factor, they're only there to add flair to a game, not to be a major selling point. Without a good game to back it up, what's the point in all the flashy graphics and voice acting?
Yes, thats my point. Stunning graphics and sound arn't required for me to enjoy a game, and inferior graphics and sound don't mean I won't enjoy them.

Still, it's rather worrying that playing FFI, with its simple visuals and non-existent story, still evokes a greater sense of joy than FFX. Perhaps the opposite is true for some of the newer gamers, but if you ask me, they're missing the point.
Why does there have to be a 'point'? Its all about enjoyment...if you like it, you like it...if you don't, you don't. If someone likes one and not the other, why condemd(sp?) them for it? Who says theres a 'point' or certain rules to videogames? People like what they like and theres not golden rule to that or anything. Its all about what you enjoy, and if you enjoy the newer games and not the older ones, so what? its your preference...go with whatever floats your boat. Besides this is entertainment we're talking about, and entertainment is all about wether you enjoy it or not.

Del Murder

07-18-2004, 06:28 PM

Everyone has their own tastes. If people only like the new/old games because they are new/old then that's their deal, though they are missing out on some good stuff. I could see how if you are used to one style then going to the older/newer style would be difficult. Graphics are good but they hardly make the game. People who think they do are graphics fans, not Final Fantasy fans, and there is a special place in the world for them too.

07-18-2004, 09:12 PM

Why does there have to be a 'point'? Its all about enjoyment...if you like it, you like it...if you don't, you don't. If someone likes one and not the other, why condemd(sp?) them for it? Who says theres a 'point' or certain rules to videogames? People like what they like and theres not golden rule to that or anything. Its all about what you enjoy, and if you enjoy the newer games and not the older ones, so what? its your preference...go with whatever floats your boat. Besides this is entertainment we're talking about, and entertainment is all about wether you enjoy it or not.

That's true. What I was trying to say was that a lot of newer gamers refuse to play the older FFs due to the graphics. By doing so, they're stopping themselves from potentially enjoying the game (since that is, as you say, what entertainment is all about). If they gave it a chance and actually played it for a decent period of time, they might find themselves liking it in spite of the visuals. This seems to have been the case with numerous people here at EoFF, at least.

To sum it all up in a single hackneyed phrase, 'Don't knock it 'til you've tried it'. We should all try and stick to that, whatever our preferences.

DMKA

07-18-2004, 11:26 PM

That's true. What I was trying to say was that a lot of newer gamers refuse to play the older FFs due to the graphics. By doing so, they're stopping themselves from potentially enjoying the game (since that is, as you say, what entertainment is all about). If they gave it a chance and actually played it for a decent period of time, they might find themselves liking it in spite of the visuals. This seems to have been the case with numerous people here at EoFF, at least.

To sum it all up in a single hackneyed phrase, 'Don't knock it 'til you've tried it'. We should all try and stick to that, whatever our preferences.
I agree 100%.

Sefie1999AD

07-20-2004, 11:10 AM

Good to see a lot of discussion here, and good points made by a lot of people, both for old-school and new-school.

I agree with what most everyone has said, but I'd like to add that I've noticed that some of the 'old school' players are immeadiatly put off by the newer games. Many of them spend a lot of time complaining about every little aspect of the new games (I was guilty of this until I realized how dumb I was and stopped) rather than just playing and enjoying them for what they are (though I still like more of the other games than the newer).

That is true, I was planning to make a similar thread about "Blinded by old-school" but I went off to a holiday trip so I haven't made it yet. But it's quite sad when some people see the opening FMV for FFX-2 and quit playing the game right after that, declaring it as pure blasphemy to the series, being a cheap slutty game with no redeeming qualities.

Big D: Great post there. Especially about visuals helping the story-telling. I must admit, some scenes in FF1 Origins make a bit more sense than the ones in NES. Especially the one when Nerrick the Dwarf blows up the TNT and you'll see a canal (and a water passage) forming up.

I started FFVII , then my brother got FFVI, then I disliked it for its graphics, but then I started to like it, and moved backward to FFV
and I liked the 2D FF's from there, and Sephiroth1999AD. you are abviously spoiled, if there wasnt a FF1, there wouldnt be a FFX or X-2!

The writing at the beginning of the thread was obviously sarcasm. Didn't you notice that? And for the record, I've played all the FFs from FF1 to FFX-2 so I know both the good and bad sides of older and newer FFs. Speaking of which...

Personally, I have played both old-school FFs and new-school FFs and I've learned to appreciate most of them (well, except VIII, but this thread is not the place to discuss about why I think it is the worst in the series). They all have their good points and their bad points.

I agree with Takara, I like most old-school and new-school FFs, although both styles have a game which I don't like (FFII and FFX). And judging a book by its covers is a big mistake, IMHO. It's easy to miss out a lot of fun things by just staring at the box art, screenshots and trailers and not playing the game, or by playing the game for 15 minutes and then declaring it as garbage.

DJZen

07-21-2004, 02:09 AM

Basically, you ARE fighting a menu with some sort of flashy graphic added to it to augment the effect. The reason I play RPGs is for the storyline, because let's face it, storyline is what MAKES an RPG.

That depends on what you consider an RPG. Basically, console RPGs started out trying to emulate actual RPGs by using menus to approximate the combat systems. The reason for this was because in real RPGs you were limited only by the rules and by your imagination. For example, if something was in your way you could attempt to climb over it, and you would succeed or fail based on your stats and the roll of the die. Other RPGs do this better by having an overworld menu so you have more freedom in interacting with your world (Earthbound and Dragon Warrior come to mind). Final Fantasy does this usually by having points where you can press the action button to perform some sort of action. The one thing that REALLY differentiates console RPGs from real RPGs is that console RPGs are a lot more linear. You do things in the order that the developers wanted you to do them. Sometimes you have a little bit of freedom with that (mini games, subquests, etc.), but real RPGs allow you to go anywhere and do anything. Real RPGs also don't have a plot per se, they're more of a set of tasks you have to perform to complete a goal, much like in FFI.

Seryn Kai

07-22-2004, 01:11 PM

As I've said before, 2D is only limited by what the artist can draw. If they need facial expressions, use either face pictures or anime sequences, seen in games like Lunar Legends and Shining Soul II on GBA.

As for 3D's "efficiently", it can only do one thing that 2D can't, and that's the rotating camera angle, which has very limited uses. That's one advantage, one! It's hardly worth all the fuss that developers give it. Sure, some things need a 3D model for areas, such as Breath of Fire III, where you could move the camera to see behind area's blocking your view, which was helpful in finding concealed items or NPC's. However, the large majority of games don't need this. In my opinion, FFX would have been better without the rotating camera. It wasn't like you could actually control it anyway, and it made navigation a real pain, I remember trying to climb Mt Gagazet and finding myself back where I started cause the camera made me think I was going upwards when I was going down.

As for voices, I don't recall any law saying you could only use them in 3D material, otherwise the anime wouldn't exist. A few GBA games are now implementing voices. It's a matter of memory space, not a games 2D or 3D engine. Another thing, why are voices such a big deal nowadays anyway. Sure, they have their uses, such as the laughing scene in FFX, and then afterwards when Tidus makes fun of Mika. These things couldn't be done with text, they wouldn't work. However most things will. As with 2D sprites benefiting storytelling via their use of the imagination, so can text. For example, when I play FF7, I can hear Sephiroth's voice fine in my head, it's just plain disturbing, but dramatic at the same time. I can't help but fell that when I finally see Advent Children, I'm going to be disappointed with Sephy's voice, cause he won't sound as dramatic as he does in my head.

As I've said before, what is meant to be so much better about 3D in the first place? Why is it meant to be so impressive to start with? Could someone please explain this to me, cause I really don't understand.

DMKA

07-22-2004, 08:04 PM

Because theres more people than just you in the world and not everyone likes stuff the way you like it mmmkay? Get over it please.

I like 3D. It adds life to everything. 2D is limited to a one side view per frame...like if I'm staring at a 2D character from behind, I just see their back, whereas if I'm staring at a 3D person from behind its more like real life and I see behind as well as their sides and such like my eyes would actually let me in real life. 3D has MANY advantages, not just rotating camera angles.

And besides, videogames have always got better and more realistic looking as time has gone by and technology has evolved...I mean, look at SNES compared to NES...theres improvements right there...is that a problem? WHATS THE POINT IN MAKING THEM LESS PIXELATED HUH? IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ADVANTAGE OVER THE HIGHER PIXELATION AND THE LESS COLORS AND LESS LIFELIKE!?!?!? Why don't I hear any bitching about that?

Like I said, technology evolved and it will continue to evolve...get over it.

DJZen

07-24-2004, 08:14 AM

when I play FF7, I can hear Sephiroth's voice fine in my head, it's just plain disturbing, but dramatic at the same time.

When I read his lines, he sounds like James from Pokemon in my head.

That's a side note to add humor to this all too serious thread though. Honestly I'd like to see another 2D FF but only if they went all out with the graphics. This means every last character would be fully animated with insane resolutions and color depth. Fluid animation, beautiful spell graphics, higher detail than seen in any other 2D game to date, and more sprites on screen than can be handled on any previous console. I want THIS to happen, or it wouldn't be worth making it in 2D. What I'm getting at, in case I was being too vague (as usual) is that changing technology has nothing to do with stylistic changes. 2D is stylistically different from 3D. There's things you can't do in 3D and there's things you can't do in 2D. However, this is not the only change the FF games have undergone. The series is a lot more cinematic and introspective than it used to be. This started in FFVI (although I could see how someone could feel that it started in FFIV) and it's only gotten them more and more popular. I personally feel that FFXI might be a little more old school than FFIX, but I suppose I should play it first before I make a statement like that.

Outsider

07-24-2004, 09:50 AM

I don't believe that the graphics are the problem.

I guess that the main problem is that every FF after 7 feels like it's the same. The changed very little besides the graphics since them, and even FF7 is not all that different from FF6 (gameplay, system, etc...)

Maybe that's why the only FF I like since 6 is Tactics. It was different from everything else.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I do not really care.

aeris2001x2

07-24-2004, 04:03 PM

"When I read his lines, he sounds like James from Pokemon in my head."

which one DJzen? cause he has had two voice actors. the second one was crap, but the first one, yes, could definitly be sephiroth's voice. much better then sephiroth's voice in kingdom hearts *shudder* :eek:

DJZen

07-25-2004, 01:18 AM

What are you talking about? His voice was fine in KH. All he said was "HA!" and "Show me your power!" and "Descend heartless angel!" anyway. It's not like he had to read shakespeare or anything.

-N-

07-25-2004, 03:42 AM

What are you talking about? His voice was fine in KH. All he said was "HA!" and "Show me your power!" and "Descend heartless angel!" anyway. It's not like he had to read shakespeare or anything. :D

Edgar

07-25-2004, 11:58 AM

Went this way

FFVII (but only a short while), 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, Tactics, 7, 4, 8, 9, 1.

Frankly speaking FF1 is much much better than FF8. Low basic storyline is better than...*censored to prevent flaming*

aeris2001x2

07-27-2004, 10:45 AM

What are you talking about? His voice was fine in KH. All he said was "HA!" and "Show me your power!" and "Descend heartless angel!" anyway. It's not like he had to read shakespeare or anything.

because i,m bias against a guy from Nsync
:eek: voicing my fav villan of all time. nothing more

Seryn Kai

07-27-2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by DevilMayKickAss:
I like 3D. It adds life to everything. 2D is limited to a one side view per frame...like if I'm staring at a 2D character from behind, I just see their back, whereas if I'm staring at a 3D person from behind its more like real life and I see behind as well as their sides and such like my eyes would actually let me in real life. 3D has MANY advantages, not just rotating camera angles.

That example is of a rotating camera. Name one other advantage. And why is 3D more "lifelike"? It's still just as artificial as 2D. And I wasn't saying that everyone in the world should be the same. That would be boring. All I'm saying is that all of the fuss over "superior" graphics is vanity at its most extreme, and I hate vanity with all my heart. Why does the games asthetic appearance even matter?! What.Does.It.Add? Honestly?

And why do some people think Sephiroth sounds like James? James sounds totally barking, both voice actors. I'd possibly associate James' voice with Palmer, but why Sephiroth?