Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Who judges a company/games system/anything by the worst they produce, instead of the best?

Well, when the worst shit is so disproportionately produced vs. the quality stuff, then that's when they get judged like that.

Ubisoft occasionally releases nice things... but damn if people aren't bitching at them for their consistently buggy products or the fact that they port a game to a billion different places for a loss of quality. SquareEnix is the Ubisoft or EA of the East.

 

[Deku]

:\

My opinion ^^ I like the Ogre Battle games and FFT

 

[Bebpo]

Chocobo and DQMJ rox, so all hope is not lost for Squeenix. Can't blame a company for putting out stuff that will sell. I know I'll buy the PSP remakes.

You really think they will sell?

I think most Japanese people own these games in some form already unlike some of the Tales ports where maybe people didn't play them on PS1. I'd be very surprised if FF1 on PSP did more than 50k lifetime...which I guess is fine for a game that probably costs SE $100 to make. :\

 

[RevenantKioku]

You really think they will sell?

I think most Japanese people own these games in some form already unlike some of the Tales ports where maybe people didn't play them on PS1. I'd be very surprised if FF1 on PSP did more than 50k lifetime...which I guess is fine for a game that probably costs SE $100 to make. :\

When did this turn into sales talk?

 

[jj984jj]

You really think they will sell?

I think most Japanese people own these games in some form already unlike some of the Tales ports where maybe people didn't play them on PS1. I'd be very surprised if FF1 on PSP did more than 50k lifetime...which I guess is fine for a game that probably costs SE $100 to make. :\

I think it'll outsell ToP PSP honestly... maybe not by much... but FF is definitely big enough for it to sell that much.

 

[Amir0x]

You really think they will sell?

I think most Japanese people own these games in some form already unlike some of the Tales ports where maybe people didn't play them on PS1. I'd be very surprised if FF1 on PSP did more than 50k lifetime...which I guess is fine for a game that probably costs SE $100 to make. :\

But it's GREATLY ENHANCED! Didn't you see the widescreen support!?

 

[jman2050]

But it's GREATLY ENHANCED! Didn't you see the widescreen support!?

Or the MODE 7 OVERWORLD?

 

[Bebpo]

When did this turn into sales talk?

Since you implied Square is putting this out because they think it will sell?

 

[RevenantKioku]

Since you implied Square is putting this out because they think it will sell?

I did, didn't I! God my memory is bad.
I'd say this will sell better than most new PSP games, yeah.

 

[My Arms Your Hearse]

this is rather pointless.

 

[Jammy]

I did, didn't I! God my memory is bad.
I'd say this will sell better than most new PSP games, yeah.

That's not really saying much. 150,000 is a stretch for many games on the handheld. S-E would easily profit off of those sales, though.

 

[ZeoVGM]

It's hard for me to get annoyed that they're doing quick ports. Square Enix has been so quality for over a year now, I'll let some quick ports slide.

DQVIII, KH2 (my GOTY), VP2, Rocket Slime, Mario Hoops, FF3, FF12, Chocobo Tales.. <3 Square Enix lately

 

[Pureauthor]

Well, when the worst shit is so disproportionately produced vs. the quality stuff, then that's when they get judged like that.

Ubisoft occasionally releases nice things... but damn if people aren't bitching at them for their consistently buggy products or the fact that they port a game to a billion different places for a loss of quality. SquareEnix is the Ubisoft or EA of the East.

No, not really. Your personal opinions on several games aside, SE games generally have a fair amount of effort put into them. That they're straight-up porting FF1 and FF2 to the PSP is a black mark on the record, but it's comparatively rare - especially considering the comparison to the likes of Ubisoft.

Take FFIIIDS. Yeah, yeah, you didn't like it, you think it's the worst of the FFs, etc. But is your dislike stemming from the lack of effort/work put into the game, or the fact that it had several game features that simply don't appeal to you? (random battles/DS 3D, for example)

 

[Doctor_No]

Come to think about it, there is also a FF1/FF2 remake for the DoCoMo phones in Japan. So this would be their 5th remake of the same game; PS1, GBA, WS, mobile, PSP (not including the 94' famicom remake); wondering if SE will move some of these remakes to the PSN/XBLA? I'm still wishing they redo the sprites for FF4 like they constantly redo for FF1/FF2, I honestly don't understand why they focus on those two games rather then the newer sprite based FFs.

http://www.square-enix.co.jp/mobile/ff/

 

[PolyGone]

they're selling FF1 and 2 seperately for psp, but they sold them as one on the gba?

huh?

 

[kenta]

I'm quite excited for this news, I never played these original FF games and a graphical update would get me to take the plunge for sure. And FFT sounds better and better every time I hear about it. CG cutscenes, Balthier, new classes, yes please

 

[Avalon]

It's hard for me to get annoyed that they're doing quick ports. Square Enix has been so quality for over a year now, I'll let some quick ports slide.

DQVIII, KH2 (my GOTY), VP2, Rocket Slime, Mario Hoops, FF3, FF12, Chocobo Tales.. <3 Square Enix lately

SE only published VP2, I doubt they had anything to do with it's quality.

 

[Amir0x]

No, not really.

Yes really! wlgif:

Take FFIIIDS. Yeah, yeah, you didn't like it, you think it's the worst of the FFs, etc. But is your dislike stemming from the lack of effort/work put into the game, or the fact that it had several game features that simply don't appeal to you? (random battles/DS 3D, for example)

It stems from the fact that it sucks. That's what's up. You can easily argue that there's plenty of hardworking individuals putting plenty of long hours into any EA or Ubisoft game. "Effort" is subjective, but I don't think SquareEnix or EA or Ubisoft are any different in this arena. They all release just mountains of shit, and they have their games which draw a rabid fanbase that keeps coming back for some reason. That 'reason' may be because it actually appeals to those people - hey, whatever - but it's not for being a good company.

I would assume the vast majority of Madden's fanbase thinks EA does damn good work in the franchise, just like I assume the people who will buy Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six think Ubisoft's team is doing a great job on them. But as a company, overall? Yikes.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I liked laws... conceptually. I did not like laws... in execution. I actually think that aspect is still salvageable.

Bring back perm deaths. Kill territories (or if you must keep them, make attacking enemies MUCH harder). Balance classes, or cut some of the unnecessary ones.



Oh, I forgot about Romancing SaGa... the only SaGa game I ever liked. That's true, that was a good one.

To be good, A2 just needs to keep laws out - I liked FFT a lot more, and it was a lot more challenging (but in effect, a lot more fulfilling). Also, it needs to make it a lot more fast-paced. I played Disgaea after playing FFTA - even though I had no interest in going back anyway, I can't even play FFTA anymore.

 

[Square2005]

Square-enix're remaking FF1/2 again!?
This is the fourth remake in six years!
How do they think it's gonna sell?

[U]Here are the sales/shipments for the [B]first two FFs [/B]+ remakes (Japan only):[/U]
[B]FF1 FC - 520k   FF2 FC - 760k   [/B]FF1+2 FC ~ 51k [famitsu sales]
FF1 WSC - 510k   FF2 WSC - 330k  FF1+2 PSX - 60k
FF1 PSX - 190k    FF2 PSX - 200k   FF1+2 GBA - 290k

 

[Pureauthor]

It stems from the fact that it sucks.

Nice way of avoiding the question. The whole issue here is why you think it sucks. Because of any objective reason, or because the gameplay happens to be of a type you don't care for.

That's what's up. You can easily argue that there's plenty of hardworking individuals putting plenty of long hours into any EA or Ubisoft game. "Effort" is subjective, but I don't think SquareEnix or EA or Ubisoft are any different in this arena. They all release just mountains of shit, and they have their games which draw a rabid fanbase that keeps coming back for some reason. That 'reason' may be because it actually appeals to those people - hey, whatever - but it's not for being a good company.

The very fact that they manage to appeal to a wide fanbase makes them a good 'company'. The issue here is whether or not you feel they put sufficient work into the games they use to appeal to said fanbase, correct?

 

[Shard]

Some is it fair to call this kind of support Ubi-Love?

 

[RevenantKioku]

Nice way of avoiding the question. The whole issue here is why you think it sucks. Because of any objective reason, or because the gameplay happens to be of a type you don't care for.

It's Amir0x. Hate + flowery words = Best story since the Renaissance. <3

 

[Mejilan]

Eeeeeh?

Taking the GBA port of FFI&II Dawn of Souls and splitting it up into TWO PSP ports? Eeeeeeh?!

Budget price... I hope. Hell, even at half price, they'd both still cost more than the GBA version.

I didn't see this coming. What a waste. Porting Valkyrie Profile and Final Fantasy Tactics makes sense, IMHO. But this?!

 

[Amir0x]

Nice way of avoiding the question. The whole issue here is why you think it sucks. Because of any objective reason, or because the gameplay happens to be of a type you don't care for.

I already said why I think it sucks before. Unless a game flat out doesn't work, there's no objective reason why things suck. So this is a pointless diversion in the discussion. It sucks because it's a bad game, and the reasons I personally think it's a bad game are X, Y or Z. Those reasons are always going to be subjective.

The very fact that they manage to appeal to a wide fanbase makes them a good 'company'. The issue here is whether or not you feel they put sufficient work into the games they use to appeal to said fanbase, correct?

Ok then EA and Ubisoft are good companies, and you disagree with the whole premise of my argument. So where would we go from there. SquareEnix is lame, Ubisoft and EA are lame. And they're lame because they release mountains of shit, and very limited amounts of quality.

 

[Pureauthor]

It's Amir0x. Hate + flowery words = Best story since the Renaissance. <3

*shrugs* Got nothing better to do right now.

Have to be somewhere in about an hour or so, though.

 

[Avalon]

That 'reason' may be because it actually appeals to those people - hey, whatever - but it's not for being a good company.

Yes, I agree.

However, if they are constantly putting out products that appeal to their fan base and are keeping them happy (a HUGE fanbase also)... Why exactly aren't they a good company? They don't live up to your standards (or mine), but certainly you realize that you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

 

[Dali]

Come to think about it, there is also a FF1/FF2 remake for the DoCoMo phones in Japan. So this would be their 5th remake of the same game; PS1, GBA, WS, mobile, PSP (not including the 94' famicom remake); wondering if SE will move some of these remakes to the PSN/XBLA? I'm still wishing they redo the sprites for FF4 like they constantly redo for FF1/FF2, I honestly don't understand why they focus on those two games rather then the newer sprite based FFs.

I wonder the same thing. FFVI wouldn't be that hard to add a layer of pretty to, yet they keep going back to the NES FF's. But thinking, "why doesn't Sqeenix do this" or "why doesn't Sqeenix do that" will only lead you to bigger enigmas. Namely, what happened to Crono Trigger, Vagrant Story, and XenoGears?

 

[Error]

FF3 rox hard, screw the haters (except scarlet <3)

 

[RevenantKioku]

Ok then EA and Ubisoft are good companies, and you disagree with the whole premise of my argument. So where would we go from there. SquareEnix is lame, Ubisoft and EA are lame. And they're lame because they release mountains of shit, and very limited amounts of quality.

Okay, so they're lame...but still manage to release good games. So, isn't this petty nitpicking?
OH WAIT

 

[Pureauthor]

I already said why I think it sucks before. Unless a game flat out doesn't work, there's no objective reason why things suck. So this is a pointless diversion in the discussion. It sucks because it's a bad game, and the reasons I personally think it's a bad game are X, Y or Z. Those reasons are always going to be subjective.

Brilliant. In which case you could have skipped the attitude of 'because it sucks' one post earlier, could you not?

Ok then EA and Ubisoft are good companies, and you disagree with the whole premise of my argument. So where would we go from there. SquareEnix is lame, Ubisoft and EA are lame. And they're lame because they release mountains of shit, and very limited amounts of quality.

Okay, then what exactly is the premise of your argument? That a company is terrible because it doesn't make games I like? Valve is a lousy company, and Rockstar is absolutely worthless? Is that your premise? Because if it's not, I'm missing something here.

 

[Deku]

I wonder the same thing. FFVI wouldn't be that hard to add a layer of pretty to, yet they keep going back to the NES FF's.

FF was never a big franchise, and 1 and 2 had pretty limited runs, so much so that 1&2 was re-released on a single cartridge for the FC during the mid 1990s.

When FF as a franchise grew in popularity, demand for it grew, and there was good reason to reprint those games and update them. At this point I am not sure myself where these two are being made.

There's the possibility 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 are also in the works and they have to start with 1 and 2, but given S-E's DS centric publishing strategy I am skeptical myself.

 

[lordfroakie]

I'll just buy the GBA FF remakes since they're cheap.

 

[Amir0x]

*shrugs* Got nothing better to do right now.

Have to be somewhere in about an hour or so, though.

RevenantKioku is being ironic, especially since he is now most known for the legendary post where he *craps on game cases* for the most silly things imaginable

Okay, so they're lame...but still manage to release good games. So, isn't this petty nitpicking?

That's nitpicking? A company that releases a vast majority of garbage, and only a tiny bit of quality? I'm sorry, maybe we have a different perception of what makes a videogame company good, but a few gems amidst a mountain of shit is not something that makes my list.

Just me, though.

Okay, then what exactly is the premise of your argument? That a company is terrible because it doesn't make games I like? Valve is a lousy company, and Rockstar is absolutely worthless? Is that your premise? Because if it's not, I'm missing something here.

EVERY company is only judged on whether or not you like the quality of their content. Let's not play pretend and act like that's not what the judgment essentially equals. I know there's this movement to try to think those types of things are disconnected, but they're not.

There's no mystery here, it's extremely simple to understand. The premise of my argument is: A company that releases a mountain of shit and a few errant 'gems' in between is not good.

 

[No.1]

Their 20th Anniversary games are remakes (poor remakes) of the original two on the PSP? That's sad.

 

[RevenantKioku]

RevenantKioku is being ironic, especially since he is now most known for the legendary post where he *craps on game cases* for the most silly things imaginable

This is not directed at you, btw, but I think it is a fun image:

That's nitpicking? A company that releases a vast majority of garbage, and only a tiny bit of quality? I'm sorry, maybe we have a different perception of what makes a videogame company good, but a few gems amidst a mountain of shit is not something that makes my list.

Just me, though.

I'm actually not really concerned about the goodness of the whole company as much as the games. Going blanketed "Squeenix is lame", to me at least, implies their games are, blanket-statement, lame. And that's far from the case. Now, if you want to argue about their tactics and all that, okay, but I think that's petty when it comes down to, yes, they release a sizable chunk of fun games.
Edit - To simplify, I think it's wiser to focus on the individual games, than the companies themselves. Sure there will be times when even I say "company x rox/sux" but in the end, it's a general game by game basis that I think is best.

 

[ccbfan]

There's no mystery here, it's extremely simple to understand. The premise of my argument is: A company that I think releases a mountain of shit and I think a few errant 'gems' in between is not good.

fixed

 

[Amir0x]

I'm actually not really concerned about the goodness of the whole company as much as the games. Going blanketed "Squeenix is lame", to me at least, implies their games are, blanket-statement, lame. And that's far from the case. Now, if you want to argue about their tactics and all that, okay, but I think that's petty when it comes down to, yes, they release a sizable chunk of fun games.

Hey, your mileage may vary. If you think SquareEnix is a good videogame company, that's up for you to decide. I think SquareEnix is lame. Or, if you prefer, the same level of lame as EA and Ubisoft. They got some major improving to do before they get out of that label.

fixed

Why did you fix it, because it makes you feel better to read it that way outloud, or because you missed the importance of the paragraph before that, or because it hasn't hit you yet that this is how EVERYONE judges a company (by their own opinion of their games)?

 

[Error]

Amir0x needs more pick and choose games! like Brain Training: Gambits Edition special guest Vaan

 

[ethelred]

Yes, I agree.

However, if they are constantly putting out products that appeal to their fan base and are keeping them happy (a HUGE fanbase also)... Why exactly aren't they a good company? They don't live up to your standards (or mine), but certainly you realize that you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

Square Enix makes RPGs. Ami, at his core, hates RPGs. Thus Square Enix sucks because they're not making whatever shitty games he'd rather they be making instead.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Hey, your mileage may vary. If you think SquareEnix is a good videogame company, that's up for you to decide. I think SquareEnix is lame. Or, if you prefer, the same level of lame as EA and Ubisoft. They got some improving to do.

Obviously mileages will vary. I just think it's a tad unfair to compare them towards EA/Ubisoft. It's more like Nintendo and their Mario-whoring, I'd say.

 

[Pureauthor]

EVERY company is only judged on whether or not you like the quality of their content. Let's not play pretend and act like that's not what the judgment essentially equals. I know there's this movement to try to think those types of things are disconnected, but they're not.

This doesn't add up, especially when I can understand that Metal Gear Solid is a great game that I didn't enjoy.

Opinions are all subjective, but it's very easy to separate the opinions of 'I don't like this.' and 'This isn't good.'

 

[Amir0x]

Square Enix makes RPGs. Ami, at his core, hates RPGs. Thus Square Enix sucks because they're not making whatever shitty games he'd rather they be making instead.

I hate shitty RPGs, which SquareEnix churns out a mile a minute. But, they also churn out a billion other shitty things that aren't even necessarily RPGs... so I mean, there's plenty of shit in all genres to niggle about!

 

[dili]

This is not directed at you, btw, but I think it is a fun image:

I'm actually not really concerned about the goodness of the whole company as much as the games. Going blanketed "Squeenix is lame", to me at least, implies their games are, blanket-statement, lame. And that's far from the case. Now, if you want to argue about their tactics and all that, okay, but I think that's petty when it comes down to, yes, they release a sizable chunk of fun games.
Edit - To simplify, I think it's wiser to focus on the individual games, than the companies themselves. Sure there will be times when even I say "company x rox/sux" but in the end, it's a general game by game basis that I think is best.

bujingai. Such an awesomely stylish action game. Don't know what taito were thinking when they decided to model the main chaarcter after gackt though.

 

[Error]

I hate shitty RPGs, which SquareEnix churns out a mile a minute. But, they also churn out a billion other shitty things that aren't even necessarily RPGs... so I mean, there's plenty of shit in all genres to niggle about!

yeah FF12 sucks I know.

 

[Pureauthor]

yeah FF12 sucks I know.

FF12 wasn't a mile a minute. It takes a special kind of perserverance to get dungeons so incredibly tedious.

 

[Amir0x]

This doesn't add up, especially when I can understand that Metal Gear Solid is a great game that I didn't enjoy.

Opinions are all subjective, but it's very easy to separate the opinions of 'I don't like this.' and 'This isn't good.'

I still have no idea where this movement came from. If you hate a game, and did not enjoy it (the very central aspect of gaming), then why would you act like it's any good? It's one thing to not enjoy something because it's not in a genre you like - say, you prefer arcade racing to sim racing. So, you'd avoid sim racing because it doesn't appeal to you. But if you're a fan of action games and didn't enjoy Metal Gear Solid at all, why would you act like it's quality?

Hey if that makes you feel better, be my guest. If you think it's just less rude, a bit more diplomatic that's cool too.

I don't have any pretense in me, when I hate something I hate it because it has a plethora of gameplay mechanics that shouldn't be there to me. And "to me" is all that matters, I don't consider something "great" just because it got a 98% ranking at gameranking and is the current queen of the ball at neoGAF or any other forum. On a similar note, there's also no reason for me to pretend I can understand why others would enjoy it. It is enough to recognize there are people who enjoy everything on Earth in some way, and from there you just pick and choose.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Yes, perish the thought of being less rude, Amir0x. For christ's sake.

Hey, it's all just posturing. If something sucks, it sucks. I respect someone more for not playing pretend.

So, saying that I think a game is good but I don't like it is pretending? What was it you used to snort again? Nyquil? I need to get me some of that into my brain to start comprehending some of this stuff.

 

[Amir0x]

Yes, perish the thought of being less rude, Amir0x. For christ's sake.

Hey, it's all just posturing. If something sucks, it sucks. I respect someone more for not playing pretend.

 

[ethelred]

It'd be nice if some folks would stop ruining the ****ing weekly news thread.