.

[hian]

I'd say they certainly do think that far (original ff7 team, certainly not the modern!), or you'd see out of control scenes in the FMV and outside of battle (or, at the least, no explanation for the more unrealistic cut-scenes).  Battle mechanics work completely different to FMV/cutscenes in FF7 and a lot of games.  And that goes for a lot of RPGs.

No you wouldn't, because as you should be perfectly aware of, animating that kind of stuff back in the early days of the PSX era, was extremely challenging - if not outright impossible.
Even the FMVs of fighting games like Tekken at the time used actual person on person action in their FMVs very sparingly for the same reason.

In fact, as a person who knows how this works - I'd argue that it would take more time, resources, and skill to make convincing animations in the FMVs than in the battle sequences - which should be apparant to laypeople as well simply by looking at the difference of quality in the animation of movement between FF7's fight scenes and the FMVs (hint - the latter is much less fluid, staccato and just bad)

Also, I am not denying that the mechanics work differently - Naturally Cloud and Co are not actually standing in place waiting for ATB gauges to fill up, only to attack once, and then go back into line. It's an abstraction - however, to think that it's only just an abstraction, and that there is no overlap between what happens in battles the rest of the story is IMO patently absurd.

I think the player is supposed to be able to extrapolate from the battles what is actually going on once you remove the floating numbers, the ATBs etc. And as I already said, which you didn't address in your apply, there are just as many discrepancies waiting to happen if you decide to make this 100% dedication to the field fight scenes, and nothing else. Since you didn't actually address those points I see little point in addressing your list - but I will make an exception this time -

Tifa almost dead from 1 slash

Tifa was slashed by Sephiroth wielding Masamune, which should have killed her outright, if not split her in half - especially granted that the blade travels directly through her body. However, again, there is probably a level of abstraction and technical limitation underlying this scene as well.
However, taken for what it is, and nothing more, his scene makes no sense period - again going to show that action sequences and the scenomatography of FF7 is shoddy at times.

Tifa coma 7 days from a fall
Corneo dead from fall (lots of falling)
Dyne dead from fall
Cloud knocked out from fall

You put all these falls in the same list and didn't pick up on the problems it causes for the setting of the game in how inconsistent they show the rules of the game to be?

Tifa fell as a child, and from a height so large a coma is warranted, if it should have killed her outright compared to what apparently kills other characters in the game.
Cloud survives as an adult who's been tinkered with extensively and has his fall broken by a magical flower bed (yet his inner voice said he would have gotten off with a pair of skinned knees back then, which makes even less sense) - what's Tifa's excuse?

As for Dyne, nobody knows how deep that pit went, but granted the logic behind how certain characters (even children) in the FF7 world can survive falls from mountain-tops, maybe we shouldn't even assume Dyne to be dead, just to be consistent? No, of course we shouldn't - but this would make another good example of FF7's selective physics at work.

Rufus dead from explosion (retcons don't count)
Pres Shinra dead from stab
Corneo dead from fall (lots of falling)
Zeng seriously injured by slash
Zax dead by firing squad
Heidegger and Scarlet killed in machine explosion (note that this is shown in a cutscene)

The rest becomes pretty inconsequential at this point -

Falling deaths VS survival falls in FF7 are completely inconsistent, as are melee weapon damage.
If anything, the most consistently dangerous attacks in cut-scenes seem to be gunfire, which makes it even harder to imagine how people like Cloud are supposedly fighting people with machine-guns without a certain level of over-the-top swordsmanship.

And in battle you see:  Cloud shot repeatedly by Rufus, bitten by dogs, dolphins from Tifa's feet,
houses that come alive... and so on.  Hell, Rufus "survives"  your repeated sword slashes in battle and then rides off on a chopper.  Clearly, the writers mean for you to interpret that as you fought him but didn't literally hit him in the face with a sword.  But that's how games work.  You can't plant that logic into a story.

And as I clearly said - there is a blurred line - I did not sat that everything that happens in battles should be taken literally, which would be a very uncharitable reading of my post, if not an outright straw-man, making that point moot.

The point here is that both the plot, and the battles, are inconsistent in their own ways and with each other - but they also tie together when it's convenient for the story-telling, such as in the Nibelheim flash-back and the final encounter between Cloud and Sephiroth in life-stream, which I take to mean that the split between the two is not entirely clear nor even consistent.

How do you think, for instance, the Highwind fight against Ultima Weapon played out? You really think that the limited amount of action outside of the battle-system and the very specific and selective use of battle scenes for dramatic effect throughout the plot is all done as the optimal choice on part of the devs, and not because it was a pain to animated anything, much less battle sequences, with the field models (so much so in fact, that the game keeps on recycling the same mannerism to the characters over and over again)?

There is most definitely a distinction.  I'd say it was good writing and awareness, but it could equally have been a limit of the tech, as Covarr thinks.  I am not convinced of that.

It doesn't have to be just the one or just the other. What I am trying to point out here, is that there can be cases of both.
They quite obviously chose certain scenes - after all, the reactor showdown between Cloud and Sephiroth, or Zack and Sephiroth could just as easily have been rendered in the battle engine for dramatic effect like the final showdown, so they obviously went with the field models for a reason.
I am simply saying that the large stylistic difference between the battles and the field scenes, combined with selective use of
very carefully picked battle scenes at other times, technical limitations, the nature of the Gaia world with its mix of real and fantasy, and the scope of the battles the story throws at Cloud and Co, seems to suggest that we ought to extrapolate from at least some of what is going on in the battles and imagine it as, at least, partly reflective of what the devs intended to have going on in general if they could have rendered the entire thing exactly the way they envisioned it.

I certainly don't think the writers or devs intended people like Cloud and Sephiroth to be limited to human feats of speed and strength, especially when you consider the blades they are wielding, and the way in which they wield them is already physically impossible.
In fact, with the size and length of Buster Sword, wielding it would be physically impossible even for a super-strong human being, since a swing of it would generate so much momentum it would literally launch the wielder off into the air after it, unless  he was nailed to the ground, or weighed a ton or so.

Some things clearly weren't all that well-thought out period. I don't think we should credit the authors, nor the devs of FF7 too much for their work - for while it's stellar in many departments, it also has issues, like all other narratives and works of fiction ever made.

 

[DLPB_]

I'd say that the person is supposed to use common sense and also fill in the blanks for the narrative to make sense in a game, but it's helped when the writers try (which, with FF7, they do).  It isn't helped when they don't (like in AC where being shot in the face is like being flicked).  I don't believe the writers were oblivious to this.   The game genre is always going to have unrealistic elements and absurd elements (mainly localized to actual battles, if the writers are clever), but a movie should always try to have an internal logic that is true to its fictional setting. Advent Children absolutely doesn't do this, which is one of the reasons why it is universally panned by non-gaming movie goers.

When a game is changed to a movie, some things cannot be "ported".  The Weapon battles you mention cannot be ported 100%.  What you can do is show magic being used or the Highwind firing at them, and change the story to accommodate them in  away that is consistent with physics and the FF7 world.  What you can't do is what AC did... show characters using limit breaks, jumping up 100 feet into the air, and attacking these monsters in the most unrealistic way there is.

You can do that in a game battle.   You cannot do that in a movie.  They are two completely different genres.

This isn't limited to games.  If you watch the Red Letter Media review on "Baby's Day Out" you'll see the same criticism.  The problem there was that cartoon slapstick was placed into the REAL world we live in concerning a baby wandering around busy streets and dangerous situations - to the point that the story absolutely collapsed.  Because cartoons and a real world based fiction are two different genres.  It CAN work if the comedy is designed around slapstick (Laurel and Hardy), but not to the extent that Baby's Day Out is asking you to suspend disbelief.

 

[hian]

I'd say that the person is supposed to use common sense and also fill in the blanks for the narrative to make sense in a game, but it's helped when the writers try (which, with FF7, they do).  It isn't helped when they don't (like in AC where being shot in the face is like being flicked).  I don't believe the writers were oblivious to this.   The game genre is always going to have unrealistic elements and absurd elements (mainly localized to actual battles, if the writers are clever), but a movie should always try to have an internal logic that is true to its fictional setting. Advent Children absolutely doesn't do this, which is one of the reasons why it is universally panned by non-gaming movie goers.

Last time I checked, non-gaming movie goers panned it for its incoherent plot, and its reliance on the viewer already being familiar with the setting and the cast - not the battle-scenes, which as far as I remember, are the very thing being praised by non-gaming audiences as well as the most of the gaming audience as well.

The people who panned that aspect of the movie, were generally FF7 purists like you and me for plot-related reasons, and people who don't like over-the-top battle visuals all that much in either case.

When a game is changed to a movie, some things cannot be "ported".  The Weapon battles you mention cannot be ported 100%.  What you can do is show magic being used or the Highwind firing at them, and change the story to accommodate them in  away that is consistent with physics and the FF7 world.  What you can't do is what AC did... show characters using limit breaks, jumping up 100 feet into the air, and attacking these monsters in the most unrealistic way there is.

This is rationalizing - you're not making a coherent point anymore. As much as I agree that certain things cannot be well ported, those things would be that which is inherently tied to the game-play. Being able to fight the weapons relying on personal skill, or generally unrealistic combat is not one of them. Unrealistic combat can be coherent with itself - your complaint here, as is apparent with the example you keep raising, can be summed up as a complaint about inconsistency - it's not really central to whether the fighting is over the top or not, but whether the battle scenarios in FF7 make sense as a part of the plot.

I would argue that they have to be, when you consider the enemies FF7 constantly pits against Cloud and Co, which they supposedly defeat.
If Cloud and Co can defeat the Air-Buster, the Bottom Swell, or the Materia keeper, then they're already fighting at a level far beyond the staccato and slow strikes of the events in the field scenes, and the Weapon fights are merely an extension of that.
I think it's obvious that we're supposed to extrapolate the party's ability to find enormous monsters, and there is no reason to think this cannot be done neither in game nor in movie (in fact it's done often in both) without particular appeals to Highwind firing cannons etc.
I'll grant you magic though, and the Weapon fights could easily be realized by pitting them against summons etc.

You can do that in a game battle.   You cannot do that in a movie.  They are two completely different genres..

However, this entire line of reasoning is a case of moving the goal-post and largely irrelevant, because we were discussing the change of art-direction in the remake, which is a game, not a movie, and we were discussing the inconsistency in the combat choreography within the original game depending on the scene, which again, is a game not a movie.

Or are you making the argument that the field scenes in FF7 should be treated like a movie, while the battle scenes should be treated as a game?

In either case, it's patently obvious that many movies, series, anime's etc use over the top combat where people smash buildings etc. so that's not a real concern. The real concern is whether or not the building smashing makes sense in the narrative, and in FF7 it mostly doesn't. However, it also wouldn't make sense for Cloud not to be able to over-power machine-gun wielding grunts using his sword, and the combat reflects this, and thus I won't be bothered if the remake cut-scenes reflect this as well (as long as it is done with respect to the power-gap between him and other characters throughout the game).

This isn't limited to games.  If you watch the Red Letter Media review on "Baby's Day Out" you'll see the same criticism.  The problem there was that cartoon slapstick was placed into the REAL world we live in concerning a baby wandering around busy streets and dangerous situations - to the point that the story absolutely collapsed.  Because cartoons and a real world based fiction are two different genres.  It CAN work if the comedy is designed around slapstick (Laurel and Hardy), but not to the extend that Baby's Day Out is asking you to suspend disbelief.

But how does this relate to what we're talking about here? We're talking about a game, which is pretty absurd by any standard, being remade, once again, as a game - not transitioning to a live-action movie.

To illustrate -
Omnislash as a technique is no more grating or jarring to the FF7 narrative than characters selectively surviving huge falls, or Cloud and Co fighting and besting large monsters and robotos, or Sephiroth summoning a meteor to make himself a god, or countless of other strange scenes.
The reason AC is jarring is because the action doesn't make sense, not because it is over-the-top.
The reason it would be jarring in the remake, is because you know, just as well as I, that Cloud will be doing Omnislash-like stuff from the very
first 10 minutes of the game, and that's what's going to create a "dragonball loop" and start begging questions down the line when the devs and writers have to create contrived plot-devices to explain sudden shifts in strength, or weaknesses.

The original FF7 didn't have that issue, even if we accept the more extreme of the battle scenarios, or skills/limit breaks - because the progression of these elements is reasonably well-paced, and they increase in tune with the general flow of the narrative.
Cloud isn't fighting Weapons from day 1, he slowly reaches that point together with his team-mates after having gradually fought
more and more drastic enemies and gained more and more materia. And even with all that being said, there is nothing
to suggest that Cloud would have to levitate to the degree of AC, or break buildings to make the weapon fights work -
as I said, they have materia and perhaps other means.
The Monster Hunter Series has pulled off humans versus giant monsters quite well from a choreographic perspective for
quite some time, without appealing to super-saiyan modes.

 

[DLPB_]

It's pretty clear we're going to disagree on this particular point (mostly - parts of your post are agreeing), but I'll sum my position up as this:  I, and many other people, cannot suspend disbelief if the fiction breaks its own internal logic.  FF7 original didn't go too far, too often, and allowed me to suspend my disbelief or have the freedom to interpret the story in a way that made sense (for the most part).  Advent Children did not, and the remake very likely won't either, for the reasons I stated.  The original script could have had Cloud totally unharmed from his fall through that church roof with no explanation given or surprise at surviving the fall given.  If that had been the case, the fiction would have been lazy and poorer for it, but the writers DID give a reason and they weren't lazy.  A good fiction does not have to make perfect sense or have ultra realism, but it does need to be believable up to a point in order for most people to accept it - even when that fiction is game-based.

A writer can make anything happen if he/she wants to, but not if they want a story that people can respect - and it's this part where AC fails entirely, and where, I believe, the remake will disintegrate as well.

This is a separate issue to the art design problem, but since the new art style is largely a result of them wanting to add eye candy for the sake of it (well, we all know it's also because of how much people rate graphics in importance these days), it will inevitably lead to the issue above... whacky out of control CGI scenes that break the fiction.

 

[hian]

Yeah, I think that's pretty clear - but it's been an interesting conversation in either case.

And, I agree with your general sentiment - I just think you're making a special exception for FF7 due to your attachment to it (and I am not saying this is unreasonable - it's my favorite FF game for a reason).
Personally, I found the scene were Cloud falls to be very jarring. Unlike you, I don't think the creators provided a good reason for why Cloud survives unscathed (blacking out for a couple of seconds or whatever, hardly counts as being damaged, especially considering his total recovery after waking up), except by asking us to accept it because he "was in soldier", until the narrative makes a habit out of having people survive huge falls with the flashback in Calm, and you start getting the vibe that physics and physiology are much more loose in Gaia than on Earth.

I would make the argument that what makes good fiction is consistency, and that's it. It doesn't matter how unrealistic it is - it matters that the rules of the world are consistent with themselves - that is to say that there is a system to the aspects that are unrealistic by our standards.
I never really though of the in-game battle system mechanics as being inconsistent with the field scenes because the field scenes truly break with conventional realism quite often, whether we're talking about people falling, or the physical feats that the cast regularly must perform whether on screen or off.

As for the art-style of the remake - I really don't understand why they couldn't have opted for some sort of cell-shade, or toonish style instead. It's perfectly possible to have great graphics that don't go in the direction of realism, and that would argue be the best way to keep the game true to the source material.
Although I am not a fan of the changes made to the original plot, Last Order is probably the best FF7 spin-off in terms of the art-direction. If they'd made a game look like that, which is perfectly possible, I'd be more inclined to be positive about the remake.

 

[Scrat]

I am very interested in two things.

How much interpretation we will be allowed in a full HD 3D Voice over remake. I mean things like blacking out and hearing voices. In text you think they are your own voice at first, later you are unsure, it could be Sephiroth, etc. How will this be portrayed, will these sorts of scenes be lost. I am concerned that a lot of games these days are heavily tutorial focused and often lead you along.

How will the remake cope with the new feel of the game. This point came out of a conversation with my brother yesterday. A lot of the plot and scenes from the 97 game were pretty close to the bone and though the devs were trying to make it quite serious (I think) it often came out cute. For example Barret being angry, waving his arms in the air. Or the already discussed cloud in a dress scene.

To be honest I hope they go for serious and realistic. This will make it cringy at times. Cloud convincing people that he is a whore... I really hope it makes my skin crawl.
Will they, in the modern day culture, dare to make the terrorists the heroes and soldiers the enemy?

edit: grammar

 

[Jenova's Witness]

.

 

[DLPB_]

They should definitely allow you to turn off voice acting, Sunz.  And it's such an EASY thing to allow, as well.  I can imagine that the VA will get annoying in parts or ruin scenes that people had imagined a certain way and, if there is no way to disable it, that becomes a big issue.

As for "hero" and "enemy", the game later shows Barrett repentant about what he did, and Tifa explaining that what they did can never be forgiven.  So it's not like the original game condoned terrorism.

 

[hian]

To change the pace a bit, and ask a bit more difficult question - If we discard the idea of this being a remake, and more of a reboot, with pretty much everything being different except the general gist of the story, the cast and the setting - what would it take for you people to think of it as a good game on its own merits, and play/enjoy it as such?

 

[DLPB_]

To change the pace a bit, and ask a bit more difficult question - If we discard the idea of this being a remake, and more of a reboot, with pretty much everything being different except the general gist of the story, the cast and the setting - what would it take for you people to think of it as a good game on its own merits, and play/enjoy it as such?

I love the original game because it go so much right (with exception of Cait Sith, I hate that guy).  Changing everything I like just wouldn't work...   At the least, the reboot story would have to be a serious gritty tale like the original without the crazy CGI nonsense.  If it was made with a serious intent to be more adult (without Cait would be a bonus!) and less for the fanboy screamers, then I could respect it and give it a chance.  I respect a fiction when the writers care enough to appreciate the intelligence of the viewer and are creating art that has a soul.  So if effort had been placed into the reboot, I'd definitely give it a chance.  But the second I saw a scene where Zax is dodging 1000 soldiers and smiling at the camera, the game would go off.

 

[Covarr]

I'll play it and probably enjoy it, but I don't really trust them to do the story right in a reboot. One of the biggest criticisms people had for Advent Children was that it didn't make any sense if you hadn't played the game, and I can definitely see them remaking that mistake even in a reboot, which really should be able to stand on its own. I mean, that wouldn't be a problem for me at all, or likely anyone here, as we've all played the original and many of us have played the entire compilation, but it would definitely be an objective problem considering the sheer number of people who will be entering the FF7 universe for the first time.

 

[gjoerulv]

I'm not caught up with the thread yet, but I'll leave this here: SE have become too big of a company to create any game with a soul. Development is not a passion driven (perhaps on a individual level, but not on a global level) process. It's business minded. Your hard pressed to find any true good games that spawn from this mentality. SE and other AAA companies tries to create the new Justin Bieber of gaming with each title, not a marble that will stand the test of time. </rant repeat>

I dare SE to prove me wrong. The shareholders wish that I'm right.

 

[Mayo Master]

Hey guys!
I'm back from my two weeks trip. What did I miss?

 :mrgreen:

 

[hian]

I love the original game because it go so much right (with exception of Cait Sith, I hate that guy).  Changing everything I like just wouldn't work...   At the least, the reboot story would have to be a serious gritty tale like the original without the crazy CGI nonsense.  If it was made with a serious intent to be more adult (without Cait would be a bonus!) and less for the fanboy screamers, then I could respect it and give it a chance.  I respect a fiction when the writers care enough to appreciate the intelligence of the viewer and are creating art that has a soul.  So if effort had been placed into the reboot, I'd definitely give it a chance.  But the second I saw a scene where Zax is dodging 1000 soldiers and smiling at the camera, the game would go off.

These are my minimum requirements to bother playing this game if they decide to change things up completely :

- If they make a real reboot in terms of the story, I think I'd like to see them experiment a bit with some of the original concepts for the game - like making it a bit more like an old-school detective/noir kind of narrative presentation. I'd like them to make sure that the presentation of the story is more streamlined in the sense that integral story moments that were only present as obscure flash-backs in the original, now happen as you progress throughout the main story.
The could also flesh out the characters by adding more "moments"/skits/banter along the road.

- If they absolutely must go with an action system, I'd like an action-ATB hybrid system, where for instance, movement/dodges and attacks are freely available, whilst menu devices like materias, items etc. could only be used upon a full ATB gauge, and where opening the extended attack menu, or changing character stops/pauses the flow of combat to allow for deliberate tactical choices.

- If they scrap the world-map, they need to create some sort of large over-world that allows for exploration on par with the original game - no matter how unlikely or how difficult that may be.

There are also some sins for me, that would make me disqualify the game entirely, reboot or not :

- No party play. If the game goes the FF15 route with your party always being under NPC control, I am not bothering with it.

- If the remove meaningful exploration by using a quick-travel map system like FF10, I am not bothering with it.

- If they opt for an entirely action driven fighting system that doesn't allow for dynamic and strategic party battles

- If they start screwing with the soundtrack, and only use a few of the iconic tunes for certain scenes (like in FF15) and the rest
entirely Uematsu-free.

- If the game has your typical Nomura presentation.

As a side-note -

I liked Cait Sith's design, but I felt that his entire being was somewhat of a poor plot-device. Since it's not a real person, but a remote controlled robot controlled by Reeve, it starts begging questions like if Reeve can spare all that time on using that robot, then why the hell can't he just join your party in the flesh once his cover is blown?

Or, why is Cait Sith a recurring character in the FF7 extended universe, seeing as Reeve would have no reason to keep on using that god damn robot once his true identity was known to Cloud and Co.?

Some of the extended universe titles try to back-peddle by making it so that the cat is not being directly controlled but has it's own personality or A.I and is simply receiving orders from Reeve, but this is never expanded upon nor mentioned in the original, and ignores the fact that in the original script, Cait Sith and Reeve speak with the same dialect (Kansai ben) and are indistinguishable in terms of mannerisms etc.

I'm not caught up with the thread yet, but I'll leave this here: SE have become too big of a company to create any game with a soul. Development is not a passion driven (perhaps on a individual level, but not on a global level) process. It's business minded. Your hard pressed to find any true good games that spawn from this mentality. SE and other AAA companies tries to create the new Justin Bieber of gaming with each title, not a marble that will stand the test of time. </rant repeat>

I dare SE to prove me wrong. The shareholders wish that I'm right.

Look up Bravely Default or Bravely Second to see SE games with soul.
You forget that SE is now a publishing company, and that a lot of the games they publish are not produced in-house, and that even some of the games that are, are being produced by smaller teams for smaller markets, who therefore don't work with the same constraints as their AAA departments.

 

[EQ2Alyza]

Hey guys!
I'm back from my two weeks trip. What did I miss?

 :mrgreen:

SE announced a FF7 Remake at the E3 Sony Press Conference, so we're having a conversation on how glorious the game will turn out.

Errr wait, that's a little off. More like, how glorious the game could turn out IF....

Errr wait, that's not all of it. More like also, how glorious the game will not turn out beacause....

You have a lot of reading to catch up on

 

[Mayo Master]

SE announced a FF7 Remake at the E3 Sony Press Conference, so we're having a conversation on how glorious the game will turn out.

Errr wait, that's a little off. More like, how glorious the game could turn out IF....

Errr wait, that's not all of it. More like also, how glorious the game will not turn out beacause....

You have a lot of reading to catch up on

I think you summed it up pretty nicely though

Personally, I'm really looking forward to it. Of course, I'm already aware that it may not conform my own vision of a remake. Additionally, I think the announcement pretty much cans the project I was leading with Team Avalanche (IMO there's little sense for me to pursue a graphical overhaul with my very limited means if SE deploys the resources for it) - I guess I'll just have to find something else to do with my time

[My 2 cents]
- For numerous reasons, I believe that a full-fledged remake cannot be a simple overhaul of the original. Graphics have to be overhauled, animations have to be overhauled, gameplay has to be modernized (IMO turn-based is obsolete), and the story has to be edited. What is essential is to preserve the "spirit" of the original game. But how do you do that? That's the big problem, because everyone has its own interpretation of what the spirit of FF7 should be like.
- However, speaking of the "spirit" of FF7, I believe that what was shown in the trailer was promising. Midgar was completely revamped, but you could still feel the atmosphere of the dystopian metropolis, with a very strong "Blade Runner" vibe to it. Additionally, we got glimpses of some details (such as the playground slide in the Sector 5 slums) which rather suggest a faithful re-creation of the environments. So far, so good.
- I strongly disagree with the notion that advanced graphics are detrimental to storytelling. As everybody seems to agree with the fact that the golden era of Final Fantasy games were in the PS1 times, remember that these games had such an impression on us back then because they looked amazing. Visuals are essential to get the player immersed in these fantastic worlds (or to display emotions).
- I do not think it is fair to say that there's no passion in the gaming industry anymore. Productions such as The Last of Us or the Witcher 3 show how much heart was put into these games. Heck, even when watching the active time reports related to FFXV, you should see it. Saying "developers are lazy" when these guys are probably above 50 hr/week on it, it's disrespectful at the very least.
- I'm aware there's a lot of potential for derailment, and it's out of our hands, now. And even if they manage in the future to pull off the best remake which could ever be made, it will make some people unhappy. However, part of the reasons why I'm on the "optimistic bandwagon" is that it seems like SE listens: how they turned around FFXIV and how they made the survey on the FFXV demo are signs of that.
[/My 2 cents]

So, in summary, Yay

 

[Scrat]

Very true. Despite my criticisms I remain optimistic. I am one of the loud community that begged for a remake and I have got it. What moral standing can I have against it?

This does not make me stop wishing that they would open up preorder tomorrow for £10, take the 20mil and give it half to sakaguchi and half to Uematsu to join the team old bad blood forgotten.

BUT, square does listen and I am excited for it. Shame though my contributions never made it to the game :'(

 

[Shard]

SE have become too big of a company to create any game with a soul. Development is not a passion driven (perhaps on a individual level, but not on a global level) process. It's business minded. Your hard pressed to find any true good games that spawn from this mentality. SE and other AAA companies tries to create the new Justin Bieber of gaming with each title, not a marble that will stand the test of time. </rant repeat>

Unfortunately big companies don't care. The gaming market is so big now that you can release an utter piece of garbage, stamp "EA" or "Blizzard" or whatever brand on it, and it's guaranteed to make way more than it cost to produce.

Most people who call themselves gamers aren't. They're just posers trying to hop on the "gaming is cool" bandwagon. Real gamers actually do research on games before they buy them to make sure they're high quality. Case and point: League of Legends and Call of Duty are two of the biggest games in the world, and they're both awful.

 

[hian]

- For numerous reasons, I believe that a full-fledged remake cannot be a simple overhaul of the original. Graphics have to be overhauled, animations have to be overhauled, gameplay has to be modernized (IMO turn-based is obsolete), and the story has to be edited. What is essential is to preserve the "spirit" of the original game. But how do you do that? That's the big problem, because everyone has its own interpretation of what the spirit of FF7 should be like.

This is irrelevant unless you presuppose that the spirit of FF7 is entirely subjective, which it isn't. The experience of it is, but the game is made up of individual components that have specific qualities. Saying that AC is true to the spirit of the original, when it's radically changed the art-style for instance, is a pretty meaningless statement to make.

It's very easy to preserve the spirit of the original, if that's what you set out to do - let's not pretend otherwise. The real issue here, is whether or not it makes sense for SE to preserve the spirit of the original, if doing so runs the risk of harming sales for a new iteration of the game that is going to be extremely costly to make.

I agree - this is a reboot, more than a remake. But let's not pretend that a reboot is going to be true to the original in any meaningful sense of the term in regards to anything but the rough strokes, such as the general story, setting, and cast.

- However, speaking of the "spirit" of FF7, I believe that what was shown in the trailer was promising. Midgar was completely revamped, but you could still feel the atmosphere of the dystopian metropolis, with a very strong "Blade Runner" vibe to it. Additionally, we got glimpses of some details (such as the playground slide in the Sector 5 slums) which rather suggest a faithful re-creation of the environments. So far, so good.

I though the new rendition of Midgard was pretty nice in its own right, but I really don't think it makes sense to say that it's true to the spirit of the original, because the original Midgard was not just a dystopian metrolopolis - it was also filled with vibrant colors, and quirky throwbacks to real-life 90's Tokyo, and anime/street-fashion influences - whilst the new one seems to be going for a much more subdued post 2005 architectural spin, and a much more "realistic"(western) look to it with the exception of the road-way systems, and the trains.
Not saying it's bad - but it's certainly not much like the original except in its basic concept.

- I strongly disagree with the notion that advanced graphics are detrimental to storytelling. As everybody seems to agree with the fact that the golden era of Final Fantasy games were in the PS1 times, remember that these games had such an impression on us back then because they looked amazing. Visuals are essential to get the player immersed in these fantastic worlds (or to display emotions).

Nobody said this though - and besides, advanced graphics does not equal realistic graphics. There are plenty of cartoony games that have extremely advanced graphics. Realism is a style, not a sign of graphical fidelity or quality. The argument people are making is that the new art direction is going to jar with the original narrative and plot, unless they change things up - and chances are that the things they end up changing will not necessarily be good for the plot, and it certainly doesn't bode well for how true it's going to be to the original (which can pan out either way - good or bad).

The PS1 games had very good graphics for their times, but with the exception of FF8, the other PS1 FF games all went for a more stylistic look, rather than a realistic one, and their character designs, and story scenarios reflect this. The two are therefore tied together, so if you change one, the other must too for the sake of consistency.

- I do not think it is fair to say that there's no passion in the gaming industry anymore. Productions such as The Last of Us or the Witcher 3 show how much heart was put into these games. Heck, even when watching the active time reports related to FFXV, you should see it. Saying "developers are lazy" when these guys are probably above 50 hr/week on it, it's disrespectful at the very least.

The Last of Us shouldn't be put next to the Witcher in this regard, seeing as The Last of Us is an enormous AAA production that is emblematic of exactly what a lot of people don't like about the AAA industry (bland game-play that ends of being a "jack of all trades, master of non") whilst the Witcher started out as the first-time a passion product from a relatively small, Polish company.

Besides, just because each single component in a development cycle is developed with care and lots of time, does not mean that the entire product isn't lazy or shoddy. That's a fallacy of composition right there.
It goes without saying that the person on the floor who makes the animations for a character or something to that effect is working their ass off, and probably really invested in that work.
However, when the game itself has been compromised by publishing pressure, and financial concerns, that's going to take its toll on the finished product regardless.
The writers and producers might have great intentions, but when they're working within a corporate structure that rewards recycling of old material and puts out dictates based on way too broad focus groups and market studies enforced on threats of withdrawal of founding, then it's difficult not to view the end-product as passionless.

If anything, if most developers had true passion for their medium and cared about making a product as true to their vision as possible, they'd take their projects to crowd-funding platforms and bypass the greedy publishing mafia altogether - which, many of them have started to do.

- I'm aware there's a lot of potential for derailment, and it's out of our hands, now. And even if they manage in the future to pull off the best remake which could ever be made, it will make some people unhappy. However, part of the reasons why I'm on the "optimistic bandwagon" is that it seems like SE listens: how they turned around FFXIV and how they made the survey on the FFXV demo are signs of that.
[/My 2 cents]

So, in summary, Yay

I will grant you this though - SE, especially those in the department dealing with FF products have become better, it seems, at listening to their fans.
In the case of FF7R though - my worry is that the real fans of the original games don't actually make up enough of the market they need to cover, to make it worth listening to them to begin with.
They're more likely to listen to the "average consumer" instead, and make this a game for people who want this game to essentially be a playable version of Advent Children, not FF7 - and with that being said, that's not a game I would be interested in playing, nor a game I think would be very good.
But, we'll see. Again, it might become the next best thing since sliced bread.

It's still better to go into this negative, and be positively surprised, than to go into this positively and get negatively surprised - especially after you dished out 60 bucks for it, and maybe even bought an entire console for it.

 

[Mayo Master]

This is irrelevant unless you presuppose that the spirit of FF7 is entirely subjective, which it isn't. The experience of it is, but the game is made up of individual components that have specific qualities. Saying that AC is true to the spirit of the original, when it's radically changed the art-style for instance, is a pretty meaningless statement to make.

It's very easy to preserve the spirit of the original, if that's what you set out to do - let's not pretend otherwise. The real issue here, is whether or not it makes sense for SE to preserve the spirit of the original, if doing so runs the risk of harming sales for a new iteration of the game that is going to be extremely costly to make.

I agree - this is a reboot, more than a remake. But let's not pretend that a reboot is going to be true to the original in any meaningful sense of the term in regards to anything but the rough strokes, such as the general story, setting, and cast.

It doesn't seem like we would use terms such as "spirit" or "true to the original" with the same ideas in mind. IMO, AC isn't "true to the original" because of its plot and character development, not because of its art style.

I though the new rendition of Midgard was pretty nice in its own right, but I really don't think it makes sense to say that it's true to the spirit of the original, because the original Midgard was not just a dystopian metrolopolis - it was also filled with vibrant colors, and quirky throwbacks to real-life 90's Tokyo, and anime/street-fashion influences - whilst the new one seems to be going for a much more subdued post 2005 architectural spin, and a much more "realistic"(western) look to it with the exception of the road-way systems, and the trains.
Not saying it's bad - but it's certainly not much like the original except in its basic concept.

I do believe it's true to the original, personally. I don't think that Midgar is so "filled with neons and vibrant colors". Some elements are (Honey Bee Inn, Don Corneo's mansion), but many scenes are made with piles of rusted beams and worn corrugated sheets (I've been examining the Sector 5 scenes for a while). 

Nobody said this though - and besides, advanced graphics does not equal realistic graphics. There are plenty of cartoony games that have extremely advanced graphics. Realism is a style, not a sign of graphical fidelity or quality. The argument people are making is that the new art direction is going to jar with the original narrative and plot, unless they change things up - and chances are that the things they end up changing will not necessarily be good for the plot, and it certainly doesn't bode well for how true it's going to be to the original (which can pan out either way - good or bad).

I do believe that the original art style for the fields was aiming at a "realistic" rendition of the environments, with the technological limitations of the times (lighting techniques, shading techniques, limited color palette, etc.). In my opinion, the chibis of the original game were jarring, and I always thought it needed to be addressed. With that in mind, I don't think that a "realistic" art direction is detrimental, or vastly deviating from the spirit of the original.

The PS1 games had very good graphics for their times, but with the exception of FF8, the other PS1 FF games all went for a more stylistic look, rather than a realistic one, and their character designs, and story scenarios reflect this. The two are therefore tied together, so if you change one, the other must too for the sake of consistency.

Sure, I appreciate that I don't really know how the Choco/Mog summon will turn out with realistic art style

The Last of Us shouldn't be put next to the Witcher in this regard, seeing as The Last of Us is an enormous AAA production that is emblematic of exactly what a lot of people don't like about the AAA industry (bland game-play that ends of being a "jack of all trades, master of non") whilst the Witcher started out as the first-time a passion product from a relatively small, Polish company.

The Last of Us being emblematic of what people don't like about AAA industry? Sorry, I can't agree with that.

Besides, just because each single component in a development cycle is developed with care and lots of time, does not mean that the entire product isn't lazy or shoddy. That's a fallacy of composition right there.
It goes without saying that the person on the floor who makes the animations for a character or something to that effect is working their ass off, and probably really invested in that work.
However, when the game itself has been compromised by publishing pressure, and financial concerns, that's going to take its toll on the finished product regardless.
The writers and producers might have great intentions, but when they're working within a corporate structure that rewards recycling of old material and puts out dictates based on way too broad focus groups and market studies enforced on threats of withdrawal of founding, then it's difficult not to view the end-product as passionless.

If anything, if most developers had true passion for their medium and cared about making a product as true to their vision as possible, they'd take their projects to crowd-funding platforms and bypass the greedy publishing mafia altogether - which, many of them have started to do.

In that respect, what I'm rather hoping for is that the devs of the remake of FF7 won't be constrained by some kind of "20th anniversary deadline". I believe we would agree that they'd take their time to polish this one (it's not like waiting for 1 or 2 more years will matter, and for the anecdote, it is actually possible to polish a turd).
Otherwise, I believe that the comparison "Greedy publishing companies" vs "Friendly crowd-funding platforms" is a lot less "black & white" world than what you described.

I will grant you this though - SE, especially those in the department dealing with FF products have become better, it seems, at listening to their fans.
In the case of FF7R though - my worry is that the real fans of the original games don't actually make up enough of the market they need to cover, to make it worth listening to them to begin with.
They're more likely to listen to the "average consumer" instead, and make this a game for people who want this game to essentially be a playable version of Advent Children, not FF7 - and with that being said, that's not a game I would be interested in playing, nor a game I think would be very good.
But, we'll see. Again, it might become the next best thing since sliced bread.

It's still better to go into this negative, and be positively surprised, than to go into this positively and get negatively surprised - especially after you dished out 60 bucks for it, and maybe even bought an entire console for it.

Well, the FF7 community of "real fans" is so broad that it exhibits the signs of the unpleasable fanbase. If you prefer to be negative so that you won't get disappointed, I can appreciate that. But if people decide to dislike it, or be dissatisfied by a product "for the masses" in order to assert some kind of intellectual superiority, I don't find it very constructive.
I'll be remaining reasonably optimistic, but that's just me. If the remake doesn't turn out well, I'll still have plenty of other games to play.