How much did Final Fantasy VII revolutionise the series?

[Avarice-ness]

*standing up and cheering*

It's like the words came out of my head into wonderous thread posts of truth! PRAISE BE TO KANNO ON THIS GLORIOUS DAY!

[daggertrepe]

You should play it again and finish it. It's far deeper than you think it is. It's just not as preachy as VII . Once again I find something we will probably never agree upon I'm afraid. You speak of VII story as "deep and profound" yet you fail to see that I as well as many other people, don't feel this way. Due to technology, VII could tell more elaborate and complex stories. That does not necessarily mean they were good.

I love VII's world and it's central theme of Life (which is the only thing I feel is actually "deep" about this game) but I feel it's cast of characters are shallow and cliched ridden and it's plot is written in a confusing way to make people believe that's it's actually profound when in reality it's just superflous fluff created to make the game seem intellectually stimulating and to serve as ameans to keep the player mentally enthralled. To me, VII is no more deeper than any of the previous six installments of the franchise. But to be fair, I don;t feel any of the main line FF games are actually deep or profound, they are just fun and entertaining.

I like the way you debate. You do it in a very kind manner.

There is only one point I have to solely disagree with, and that is the characters.

I thought all the characters were very shallow at the beginning, but as the plot drove on, you could surely see some human-like traits sprouting up in the characters. By the end, you were so attached to all the people in the game because you knew who they were and what they were all about because you've been with them for the whole time. Heck, you get pretty damn attached to Aeris by the end of disk one because they did a pretty nice job of delving into her character before she died. But they didn't over do it because it left you wondering:

I wanted to know more about her!

So, you keep playing the game, in hopes Aeris might somehow magically be resurrected. But instead you find that you are really weaving through the characters, especially Cloud and Tifa. The end of the game really showed true emotions.

[Zora]

Woo, read the whole thread. That takes determination.


Now for me, FFVII was not revolution. All it did was take older concepts, and expanded on them. Take FMV's for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but in Final Fantasy VI wasn't there a "FMV-esque SNES" cut-scene right after everyone escaped from the floating continent after Kefka abused the Warring Triad (it was in 2-D though, more specifically showing the planet being turned into the WoR)? Now I played the Advance version of FFVI (not the SNES), so it could have FFVIA only, but the point is Square tried to do a scene that was done differently than the typical S/NES cut-scene

What did FFVII do? It merely took the concept of FMV's, and used the PlaySation's power, to produce a high-quality FMV.

Actually, generally speaking, FFVII took CONCEPTS from previous RPG installments, and used the power from the PlayStation and making it better quality. One thing though, THE CONCEPT NEVER CHANGED. Only the quality/power of the concept change, but not the concept itself.

Now part of the term revolution is that it brings something radically new to the series. The only thing that FFVII brought, generally speaking, was power. That isn't something radically new. The concepts all remained the same, they were simply improved. NOT revolutionized.

Also, all the gameplay mechanics were just concepts taken from previous games. For example, Materia was a combination of Espers and Relics from FFVI IMO. The Limit Breaks were already done before. Heck, one could argue the biggest change in gameplay was 3 people instead of 4.

That aside, anything "NEW" about FFVII is merely a vastly improved idea from past RPG games, or something incredibly minor. Now the story I don't see as revolutionary. It was new, I will give you that (but every story is pretty new), but one could argue that Final Fantasy VI was complex, or Final Fantasy IV. Or Chrono Trigger. How complex a story is can't be defined. One could say CT is more complex than FFVII, or vica-versa. But it isn't enough to pass it off as a revolution. If so, every RPG could be argued a revolution.

Also it seems some people (typically those in favor of FFVII being revolutionary) seem to not understand the fact that a game doesn't need to be revolutionary in order to be GOOD. You can say FFVII is your favorite or is the best or whatnot, but it is an opinion through and through, and moreover it has nothing to do with how revolutionary it is. On a somewhat related note, how well a game sells has NOTHING to do with how revolutionary it is.

Movie games sell very well, and 99% of the time they aren't good games NOR revolutionary. Granted their sales are like fads (sell very high, and then fail to sell later).

So basically, sales have nothing to do with good, bad, or revolutionary a game is. It only shows one thing: the game is popular.

[Goldenboko]

Wow, I choose not to respond to this thread for a little while and I get swamped with too much stuff to dare to read. All I can say is...

What Zora said. >.>

[Bolivar]

Now I highly doubt you will stay quiet now...

haha, well I hope I don't dissapoint you, but I feel like I said everything I have to say. I just wanted to say I think this has been a top knotch debate, and I'm amazed that it hasn't devolved to us calling eachother fanboys (except for Avarice ). I have to admit, it's hard to challenge your counter-arguments, i think we're more on a misunderstanding than a disagreement. But yeah, i'm interested in where other people will take this, Dagger and Zora have both brought up good points, its been really interesting so far.

[Wolf Kanno]

You should play it again and finish it. It's far deeper than you think it is. It's just not as preachy as VII . Once again I find something we will probably never agree upon I'm afraid. You speak of VII story as "deep and profound" yet you fail to see that I as well as many other people, don't feel this way. Due to technology, VII could tell more elaborate and complex stories. That does not necessarily mean they were good.

I love VII's world and it's central theme of Life (which is the only thing I feel is actually "deep" about this game) but I feel it's cast of characters are shallow and cliched ridden and it's plot is written in a confusing way to make people believe that's it's actually profound when in reality it's just superflous fluff created to make the game seem intellectually stimulating and to serve as ameans to keep the player mentally enthralled. To me, VII is no more deeper than any of the previous six installments of the franchise. But to be fair, I don;t feel any of the main line FF games are actually deep or profound, they are just fun and entertaining.

I like the way you debate. You do it in a very kind manner.

There is only one point I have to solely disagree with, and that is the characters.

I thought all the characters were very shallow at the beginning, but as the plot drove on, you could surely see some human-like traits sprouting up in the characters. By the end, you were so attached to all the people in the game because you knew who they were and what they were all about because you've been with them for the whole time. Heck, you get pretty damn attached to Aeris by the end of disk one because they did a pretty nice job of delving into her character before she died. But they didn't over do it because it left you wondering:

I wanted to know more about her!

So, you keep playing the game, in hopes Aeris might somehow magically be resurrected. But instead you find that you are really weaving through the characters, especially Cloud and Tifa. The end of the game really showed true emotions.

I'm afraid I'm not nearly as eloquent in real life but thank you for the compliment, as well as you Avarice.

As for your points, it comes down to personal opinion and taste at this point. Though I am afraid I can't emphasize specifically to your feelings concerning VII, I can at least do it from someone who has played many games and agree that it's these elements that keep us playing this wonderful genre.

VII's cast did little for me, though I still love Cid and the Turks very much

Woo, read the whole thread. That takes determination.


Now for me, FFVII was not revolution. All it did was take older concepts, and expanded on them. Take FMV's for example. Correct me if I am wrong, but in Final Fantasy VI wasn't there a "FMV-esque SNES" cut-scene right after everyone escaped from the floating continent after Kefka abused the Warring Triad (it was in 2-D though, more specifically showing the planet being turned into the WoR)? Now I played the Advance version of FFVI (not the SNES), so it could have FFVIA only, but the point is Square tried to do a scene that was done differently than the typical S/NES cut-scene

What did FFVII do? It merely took the concept of FMV's, and used the PlaySation's power, to produce a high-quality FMV.

Actually, generally speaking, FFVII took CONCEPTS from previous RPG installments, and used the power from the PlayStation and making it better quality. One thing though, THE CONCEPT NEVER CHANGED. Only the quality/power of the concept change, but not the concept itself.

Now part of the term revolution is that it brings something radically new to the series. The only thing that FFVII brought, generally speaking, was power. That isn't something radically new. The concepts all remained the same, they were simply improved. NOT revolutionized.

Also, all the gameplay mechanics were just concepts taken from previous games. For example, Materia was a combination of Espers and Relics from FFVI IMO. The Limit Breaks were already done before. Heck, one could argue the biggest change in gameplay was 3 people instead of 4.

That aside, anything "NEW" about FFVII is merely a vastly improved idea from past RPG games, or something incredibly minor. Now the story I don't see as revolutionary. It was new, I will give you that (but every story is pretty new), but one could argue that Final Fantasy VI was complex, or Final Fantasy IV. Or Chrono Trigger. How complex a story is can't be defined. One could say CT is more complex than FFVII, or vica-versa. But it isn't enough to pass it off as a revolution. If so, every RPG could be argued a revolution.

Also it seems some people (typically those in favor of FFVII being revolutionary) seem to not understand the fact that a game doesn't need to be revolutionary in order to be GOOD. You can say FFVII is your favorite or is the best or whatnot, but it is an opinion through and through, and moreover it has nothing to do with how revolutionary it is. On a somewhat related note, how well a game sells has NOTHING to do with how revolutionary it is.

Movie games sell very well, and 99% of the time they aren't good games NOR revolutionary. Granted their sales are like fads (sell very high, and then fail to sell later).

So basically, sales have nothing to do with good, bad, or revolutionary a game is. It only shows one thing: the game is popular.

I agree. And I do feel that many people (and I'm guilty of this too sometimes) that we mistake this debate and turn it into a debate of whether VII was actually a good game.

I don't feel VII is a revolution to the genre or series, but I do believe it's a solid game with excellent quality that holds up to this day.

Now I highly doubt you will stay quiet now...

haha, well I hope I don't dissapoint you, but I feel like I said everything I have to say. I just wanted to say I think this has been a top knotch debate, and I'm amazed that it hasn't devolved to us calling eachother fanboys (except for Avarice ). I have to admit, it's hard to challenge your counter-arguments, i think we're more on a misunderstanding than a disagreement. But yeah, i'm interested in where other people will take this, Dagger and Zora have both brought up good points, its been really interesting so far.

I'm a bit surprised, but I can see your point. I too will probably bow out as I've stated my main points. It seems continuing would only result in me repeating myself which is a clear indicator that the debate is mostly over. It all comes down to personal opinion but at least we may have all learned a bit more about each other.

This is truly one of the better debates I've been in outside of the XII forums. I hope this thread continues and who knows, maybe someone will find some new element we missed originally.

[silentenigma]

I know the feeling;

Final Fantasy VII the most revolutionary thing in the world...

until you play the rest and see which one is truly the most revolutionary.

and yes, I know exactly what it means.

[Dr. Acula]

What Zora said. >.>

[grim07]

Very nice. So in the end, we all agree that FFVII brought new ideas, or as you all so grudgingly admit "vastly improved ideas" to the table. Which is the deffinition of revolutionary, which I posted earlier. Final Fantasy X also revolutionized the series as being the first on PS2 and so will XIII for being the first on PS3. Thats new. Its a new system, new power, things that couldnt be done before can now be possible with new hardware. You can put it all on the Playstation, but in the end, people play FFVII ON the Playstation. The Playstation was just a tool used to help create this game.

Like I said, my point was proven. It was revolutionary, and you all admit it.

[Flying Mullet]

grim07, it seems that everyone else in this thread understands what revolutionary means except for you, so I'm going to explain what revolutionary is:

Revolutionary
- radically new or innovative; unexpected, outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

As I have stated before, being new in-and-of-itself does not make something revolutionary. If this was the case, getting a new haircut or trying a new type of food would be revolutionary, but it's far from it. FFVII had several new ideas, themes and technologies used, but none were beyond established procedures or unexpected. Yes, it was new to have 3D graphics, but it was expected that gaming would move to the 3D realm with the next generation of consoles after the 16-bit generation. Yes, there was greater depth in the story, but the series is always striving to tell more in-depth stories as a whole, so again, this is expected and the natural progression.

For FFVII to be revolutionary it would have had to have a radical departure from any of the "norms" that the series held, which it didn't, it only expanded and improved upon other ideas.

So, in response to your last post:

So in the end, we all agree that FFVII brought new ideas, or as you all so grudgingly admit "vastly improved ideas" to the table. Which is the deffinition of revolutionary...

Yes, we did agree that there were improvements, but no, they do not meet the definition of revolutionary.

[Bolivar]

I still agree with you grim!

[grim07]

grim07, it seems that everyone else in this thread understands what revolutionary means except for you, so I'm going to explain what revolutionary is:

Revolutionary
- radically new or innovative; unexpected, outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

As I have stated before, being new in-and-of-itself does not make something revolutionary. If this was the case, getting a new haircut or trying a new type of food would be revolutionary, but it's far from it. FFVII had several new ideas, themes and technologies used, but none were beyond established procedures or unexpected. Yes, it was new to have 3D graphics, but it was expected that gaming would move to the 3D realm with the next generation of consoles after the 16-bit generation. Yes, there was greater depth in the story, but the series is always striving to tell more in-depth stories as a whole, so again, this is expected and the natural progression.

For FFVII to be revolutionary it would have had to have a radical departure from any of the "norms" that the series held, which it didn't, it only expanded and improved upon other ideas.

So, in response to your last post:

So in the end, we all agree that FFVII brought new ideas, or as you all so grudgingly admit "vastly improved ideas" to the table. Which is the deffinition of revolutionary...

Yes, we did agree that there were improvements, but no, they do not meet the definition of revolutionary.

Actually, getting a new haircut or trying a new food WOULD be revolutionary for you, as it fits the deffinition. FF VII had several new ideas. Your own words. While you can assume it was the natural progession of technology, and all games where expected to make this leap eventually, FFVII was the FIRST FF GAME to do so. Its like man landing on the moon. We all new it was gunna happen one day. It was inevitable. Technology was taking us there. Did that make it any less revolutionary when it happened? NOPE. Just because time and technology is leading us somewhere, doesnt mean that the first thing that does it isnt revolutionary.

Call them improvments, but the change from 2D to 3D graphics is a radically new change for the Final Fantasy series, and that alone makes it revolutionary. Text book deffinition as cited by you.

I rest my case. Again.

[Galvatron]

Yes, FFVII WAS revolutionary, I am not a big fan of the game and I recognize the fact that it was a huge milestone in FF history. The main fact is that it attracted so many new people to the RPG scene, which wasn't nearly as big before PS1 days. Was it the first sci-fi RPG? nope, you got Phantasy Star and the like, but it was the first in the Final Fantasy series to show modernized things the way it did, but that isn't revolutionary, it really only has to do with THAT game alone, not the series as a whole.

The graphics? FF turning 3D was inevitable, you can't say FFVII alone is what cause this, technology and time caused this.

I felt the characters to be pretty static and lacking, but you can't expect much from a JRPG anyway.

Basically I just recognize that it brought so many newcomers to the genre and helped bring RPGs to the mainstream, without VII there probably wouldn't be half the innovative and great PSX games that were released.

[FF_Chick]

Yeah, probably. All it did was cause fan-dom. Fanboy-ism.

[grim07]

Ahh, I see that people are finally turning around and realizing it. You can hate this game as much as you want, call it every name in the book, pick out every little detail, but in the end, it WAS revolutionary, and you have to admit it.