Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno View Post
You would be surprised actually, I'm accused more often of being aloof and cold than angry but I guess I would admit I was in a bit of an angry mood when I did respond (not because of this thread mind you, irl stuff). If you met me, you would probably be spending more of your time trying to make me smile and stop being so Squall-like.
irl stuff will do that, I had no idea you're the real life Squall!!!!

I'm happy to see you have finally come to terms and accepted your inner fanboy. Now its time for you to jump into the Kefka thread in the VI forum and start some game bashing. You know you want to.
Oh ho hooo!!! You shouldn't have told me about that Kefka thread (I haven't checked too many of the sub-forums lately), but it's totally on now!!!

As far as inner fanboy, I was being funny, but I'm still ready to trade novel for novel with you in the VII forums if this ever comes up again!!! Best believe!!!

I did read your post, but not all of my post was purely directed at you. I'm just using you as a scapegoat to rant.
Hey, that's cool.

On the other hand though, you did very little to explain why you felt the games were weak beyond the fact the story is simple, only implying they are the worst in the series and criticizing fans for making a big deal out of something you didn't feel was all that important. In many ways, your post felt like a nodding agreement to the thread starter rather than an explanation of why they are the worst with a small implication of technology being a factor which is why I made the post I did. Hopefully that clears up any misunderstandings on my part. You should know better than to be vague around me; I could be in politics.
Well, I do not believe the games are "weak" at all, I totally agree with your hunch on something being hidden in the code, how strong they stand up, and was blown away by your analysis comparing III to IV.

But I did say in posts that the characters are below paper-thin, the combat systems not as deep or free-flowing, the music not as complex, and the stories not as substantive. Or maybe I'm just explicitly saying that now, who knows?

So I took it out and played with his other games and he had the PSP port of FFI and the game instantly grabbed me and I ended up nearly playing it to completion until my friend asked for his PSP back and I had to finally force myself through Crisis Core's ending. It just threw me off that I was getting more fun and excitement out of a 20 year old game with a plot that extends to a paragraph over a shiny new title that at the time was pushing the PSP's limits and boasting to have the deepest story in the FF series at the time.Of anything, I felt the FF series lost its ability to lead the industry sometime during the PS2 era. I don't feel like SE is up to task and I feel other competitors have taken what made the series so great in the past and are using it to make themselves a name in the new era.
That's a pretty cool story. I don't have any desire to play Crisis Core, but how's the difficulty in FFI PSP? I'd still play Dawn of Souls but it's just way too easy.

I don't think the PS2 era was where Square lost it, since FFX was one of the games that really introduced its generation, FFXI put a respectable dent in the MMO business, and FFXII was Japan's answer to this new series that was called "Knights of the Old Republic." Unfortunately, FFXII was overshadowed in my opinion because the gaming media was suddenly gearing up and so ready to be on the XBox 360's nuts for the next 3 years as if it was the second coming of our Lord and Savior.

How is it a fair evaluation when you are comparing two different eras that asked for too different things by its fans? The later games are story driven cause that's what fans wanted in that time frame, but how is it fair to compare it to titles where story was not the major selling factor at the time, it was just about having a good time. To me, that's almost like trying to compare Silent movies of the early 20th century to today's film and criticizing the old silent films for being too short and simplistic. How dare Charlie Chaplin not utilize CGI in his films and remove frames from his film to give the illusion of speed instead of using quick camera changes. How dare he ignore nearly a 100 years of innovation that didn't exist at the time, his movies suck.
Alright, this is the last thing I'm going to say. Well, two. First, I think you've scratched the surface of making a powerful argument that FFI-III, when you take them apart and analyze them critically, are in fact better games than some newer titles. I mean, when you look at FFIII's repetition of battles and cutscenes in areas with little exploration, can you really say that's a better design concept than the adventure of FFI? That's a rhetorical question, not aimed at you, I think you would answer in the negative, as I am almost coming to do.

BUT I still hold to my guns. Of course we should appreciate and celebrate what people did for their time. It's a beautiful thing. But there comes a point where you have to admit, for whatever reason, that a quality in something newer offers more varied opportunities to appreciate it, and farther depths of each appreciation. I'm not even sure what that means, but I think you get the point. There comes a poitn where you can say that it may not give more enjoyment, or have an aesthetic of its own because of the feelings attached to its time period or ballsyiness of coming out in such, but the game, movie, thing just isn't better.

Is Avatar really better than "Modern Times"? (I got some Chaplin for ya) Probably not. Is FFXIII better than FFI? I already said I'm starting to lean towards the negative for that as well.






BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE INCORPORATION OF MARX'S ALIENATION THEORY IN THE NUMBERING OF MIDGAR'S SECTORS TOTALLY BLOWS ANYTHING THE NES OFFERED OUT OF THE WATER, BABY!!!! FFVII FOR EVA WOOO!!!21``1!!!!