SquareEnix

[Systemshock]

SquareEnix are used to selling 2 to 3 million copies of a FF game at launch (just in Japan alone and that probably over the first weekend) so when they decided to come up with FF:CC for the GC, why did they:

1. Make it multiplayer (at all)?

2. Make it multiplayer but on the one machiene - multiplayer racing/ sports/ fighting or party games make absolute sense but a multiplayer (off-line) RPG? What chance that every one will be able continually get together to play through the whole game?

3. Make the game force every one to use GBA's to play it?

4. Make the single player game over simplistic (from the reviews I've read).

In developing for the GC they know they would be up to sell less software (but that alone would be worth it as it keeps Sony on their toes). But in making it a multiplayer RPG they effectively alienate more of the potential market and by making it an absolute requirement to use a GBA even more of the market is eroded. The final problem of a (relatively) poor single player experience also puts people off.

Just using pretty conservative generalisations: GC only halves the market, multiplayer RPG halves it again, GBAs required all round halves it again and simplistic single player halves it once more. Without trying they've created a game that maybe has a sixteenth of the selling power of a conventional Final Fantasy game.

I really wanted this game about a year ago but all of these issues as they came out mean that I won't be getting it.

FF-X2 looks better as a single player game and FFXI better as an on-line multiplayer.

[rjpageuk]

SquareEnix in trying something new shocker.

Yeah its a pity they didnt just release another FF7 clone, then we would all have been happy, right?

[mechamonkey]

FFX-2 why did they make it the same shocker.

See what I did there.

People moan because theres not enough new ideas or risks being taken. /sigh Roll on TombRaider 23525

[rjpageuk]

If you want to play a FF clone, why dont you just buy them on the PS2?

[SomeNaiveChump]

That isn't affordable or practical for me.

neither is bombing around the Nurburgring in an Enzo, or shafting Lucy Liu where she likes it best.

so it doesn't mean it can't be aces.

practically everyone I know has a GBA or an SP, and has pleasant memories of multiplayer Secret of Mana.

[mechamonkey]

But the gameplay is different to FF7. That isn't the problem. Another FF clone wouldve been pretty boring but I wouldve been interested as I havent played a FF game since FF8.

The problem is that I need 3 mates round, with GBA's each, to play this game properly. That isn't affordable or practical for me. And I dare say it's isn't for most Cube owners.

So play FF 9, X , X-2 XI or await XII and stop moaning about an attempt at innovation and originality.

OH NoS I CAnT AffORD SaMBA and MARAccas IT MuST SUXX!! 1!!1!

[Pug Fugly]

3. Make the game force every one to use GBA's to play it?

This issue has been discussed, at some considerable length, in the topic (still on the first page) called something like "FF:CC and Metroid Zero Mission feedback"

It is very interesting reading. There is quite a lot of anger and frustration involved, but it basically boils down into two camps:

Camp 1

People who think without the GBA functionality, the game is worthless. They say that the GBA functionality forces communication, whithout which the game is just a mindless hack 'n slash fest.

Camp 2 (includes me)

People who think the game should have an option for a cut down joypad driven version. Everyone must agree it makes far better commercial sense, but it also gives more people a chance to play the game. Personally, I think it would still be great even without the GBA stuff.

[Systemshock]

SquareEnix in trying something new shocker.

Yeah its a pity they didnt just release another FF7 clone, then we would all have been happy, right?

That's a fair point and I would have loved them to try and do something new. But why not try something new that stands a chance of success?

I really liked FF9 and like the contiuation of characters from that in FF:CC and the graphics look stunning in FF:CC. Making a multiplayer RPG on its own would have been fine (but not forcing GBAs as controllers) providing that the single player game was up to scratch.

[Pug Fugly]

In fairness, I think I've read that people can join and leave games as you go. So if you can only get 2 or 3 of your regular party together, you can continue your adventure (Gauntlet Dark Legacy style)...

[Hawkeye]

I've said it befpre and I'll say it again, take away the Final Fantasy name and the arguments stop.

The only reason the GBA thing bothers folk is due to the FF name attached to the game. They should have just called it "The Crystal Chronicles".

[rgraves]

Camp 1

People who think without the GBA functionality, the game is worthless. They say that the GBA functionality forces communication, whithout which the game is just a mindless hack 'n slash fest.

Not worthless, just not as good.

The designers made a choice to go with GBAs. They felt that it made the game better. So they went with it. Sure it limits their audience, but are you really saying that they should have diluted their ideas down in order to make it a more accessible but ultimately more simple game?

We should be applauding them for going out on a limb like this, not slamming them for trying something new.

[Pug Fugly]

I've said it befpre and I'll say it again, take away the Final Fantasy name and the arguments stop.

The only reason the GBA thing bothers folk is due to the FF name attached to the game. They should have just called it "The Crystal Chronicles".

I disagree.

I think the problem is because it sounds like a really great game, but many of us can't enjoy it properly because we don't have any/enough GBAs.

Further, some of us believe the game would still be good even without the GBA functionality, so maybe there could have been options for the GBAless amongst us.

[squirtle]

neither is bombing around the Nurburgring in an Enzo, or shafting Lucy Liu where she likes it best.

so it doesn't mean it can't be aces.

practically everyone I know has a GBA or an SP, and has pleasant memories of multiplayer Secret of Mana.

So you are part of that small majority who can play this game as it was intended. I know one other person with a GBA but. I know him from work and never see him apart from that. My other gaming friend does not have a GBA and doesn't want one. Not all of us have the resources for this game. It seems odd that it has been targetted at such a small demographic.

[rgraves]

SquareEnix have messed up. They have messed up.

You do realise that they sold considerably more than they expected to in Japan don't you? How can breaking your own sales targets (300k) be deemed "messed up"?

[Pug Fugly]

Not worthless, just not as good.

The designers made a choice to go with GBAs. They felt that it made the game better. So they went with it. Sure it limits their audience, but are you really saying that they should have diluted their ideas down in order to make it a more accessible but ultimately more simple game?

We should be applauding them for going out on a limb like this, not slamming them for trying something new.

I'm not slamming them for going out on a limb. Like I said, they are good ideas - but severly limiting the games audience isn't a good idea.

I'm just disappointed that they chose not to include an option so that joypad folks can play. A 'not as good' version sure, but a version that is very much worth playing.

[Hawkeye]

I disagree.

I think the problem is because it sounds like a really great game, but many of us can't enjoy it properly because we don't have any/enough GBAs.

Further, some of us believe the game would still be good even without the GBA functionality, so maybe there could have been options for the GBAless amongst us.

I'd argue that take away the FF name and most of the folk complaining would bother about the game controller issue. Most folk complaining seem to be FF fans who either don't own a GBA, or know people who have GBA's thus not allowing them to play a FF game.

I see your point about including a non GBA option, but I would guess that if the designers thought it would work well that way that would have been implemeted. I can only assume they came to the conclusion it would alter the game way beyond what they intended to create.

Let's be honest when looking at it they must have known that not allowing controllers to be used would limit the appeal, so it must have been a consideration at one point. Plus going down that route would have made it more of a Mana update if anything, and maybe they are doing or looking at that for another project.

[rgraves]

I'm not slamming them for going out on a limb. Like I said, they are good ideas - but severly limiting the games audience isn't a good idea.

But it is!!

It's a great idea, as it's enabled them to do something that's never been done before. As I said in the other thread, I really think you need to play the game in order to understand just what making use of the GBA link has enabled them to do. The game just wouldn't be what it is without it.

[Systemshock]

Not worthless, just not as good.

The designers made a choice to go with GBAs. They felt that it made the game better. So they went with it. Sure it limits their audience, but are you really saying that they should have diluted their ideas down in order to make it a more accessible but ultimately more simple game?

We should be applauding them for going out on a limb like this, not slamming them for trying something new.

I know what you mean but I've bought FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, FFX, FF Tactics Advance, have FFXI on order, like the looks of FFX-2 and, longer term, will almost certainly get FFXII.

I'm not getting FF:CC though which disappoints me, especially as I'm a real fan of the Gamecube as well as Final Fantasy games!

[rgraves]

Ok. They haven't messed up. Good on them.

But they have neglected a significant portion of their market who simply cannot meet the games requirements.

Why can't you meet the games requirements? Are you going to be thrown into jail if you buy three more GBAs or make friends with people who already have them??

You are choosing to not meet the requirements.

[Grimnir]

Why can't you meet the games requirements? Are you going to be thrown into jail if you buy three more GBAs or make friends with people who already have them??

You are choosing to not meet the requirements.

Who said anything about jail? I just don't think anyone can be bothered (or has the money to) spend around £300 or hunt down 3 people with GBAs just so they can play a game

[hub2]

Why can't you meet the games requirements? Are you going to be thrown into jail if you buy three more GBAs or make friends with people who already have them??

You are choosing to not meet the requirements.

If 'choosing' to meet the requirements means I have to shell out anything up to £250 to play a game then that its de facto 'can't meat the requirements'.

It's not steel battalion you know.

[squirtle]

Why can't you meet the games requirements? Are you going to be thrown into jail if you buy three more GBAs or make friends with people who already have them??

You are choosing to not meet the requirements.

Oh, sod off!

So, buying two more GBA's (£100 approx) and finding three more gaming friends who like multiplayer turn based RPG's is my fault.

Riiiight...

I like my Gamecube, but you're like a stuck record sometimes.

[rgraves]

Oh, sod off!

So, buying two more GBA's (£100 approx) and finding three more gaming friends who like multiplayer turn based RPG's is my fault.

Riiiight...

I like my Gamecube, but you're like a stuck record sometimes.

Why do you have to buy the GBAs - the game is intended to be played by groups of friends who already own the hardware. If you don't, then you are not who the game is aimed at.

Worldwide, there are many more GBAs out there then GCs.

[Pug Fugly]

Why can't you meet the games requirements? Are you going to be thrown into jail if you buy three more GBAs or make friends with people who already have them??

You are choosing to not meet the requirements.

Make friends with people who have GBAs? Not a solution really. I'm 30, hanging around with the local 10 year olds isn't gonna be doing me any favours

Buy extra GBAs? For one game? What if it turns out not to be very good after all? I'll have bought 3 GBAs which I'll never use again! I'm generally not a handheld gamer, so it doesn't make sense on any level.

That's another problem - unless you have the hardware, you can't even try the game out.

So telling me I need to play the game to realise how good it is with 4 GBAs isn't gonna work!

What we've got here is a console game made for handheld fans. I want to play GC games, so I bought a GC. I don't like handheld games generally, so I can't play this GC game?

Lorks!!

[rjpageuk]

Why do you have to buy the GBAs - the game is intended to be played by groups of friends who already own the hardware. If you don't, then you are not who the game is aimed at.

Worldwide, there are many more GBAs out there then GCs.

Indeed.

I dont see anyone complaining that they have had to buy their GC to play it.

Or anyone complaining that they had to spend £100 on Super Monkey Ball to get 3 extra controllers.

[squirtle]

Indeed.

I dont see anyone complaining that they have had to buy their GC to play it.

Or anyone complaining that they had to spend £100 on Super Monkey Ball to get 3 extra controllers.

Oh, now I really have heard it all.

I'd heard talk of these mythical Nintendo fanboys where no ill could be said of their precious company.

I never thought they existed.

Until now...

Super Monkey Ball has a fairly decent 1 player game, by the way.

And complaining about buying the console...

[Pug Fugly]

Indeed.

I dont see anyone complaining that they have had to buy their GC to play it.

Or anyone complaining that they had to spend £100 on Super Monkey Ball to get 3 extra controllers.

Both your examples are invalid.

Buying a GC to play a GC game is quite acceptable. I bought a GC to play GC games (although I can't play CC)

Buying extra controllers is worth it, as Super Monkey Ball isn't the only 4 player game outthere.

Controllers are a gaming requirement. As somebody who doesn't like handheld gaming - I'm not going to buy 3 extra GBAs to play one game am I?

[Sprite Machine]

What we've got here is a console game made for handheld fans.

Yes, that is exactly what we've got here.

the trouble is, people see the Final Fantasy name, they see it has lovely graphics and they see it's on the Gamecube, and they want it. Well too bad, man, you can't have it, 'cos it's not for you!

I want to play GC games, so I bought a GC.  I don't like handheld games generally, so I can't play this GC game?

Exactly. Leave it be, and forget it ever existed!

[Hawkeye]

Both your examples are invalid.

Buying a GC to play a GC game is quite acceptable. I bought a GC to play GC games (although I can't play CC)

Buying extra controllers is worth it, as Super Monkey Ball isn't the only 4 player game outthere.

Controllers are a gaming requirement. As somebody who doesn't like handheld gaming - I'm not going to buy 3 extra GBAs to play one game am I?

Simple solution, pass it over, ignore it, play something else.

It's not like it's the only game released that month.

[rgraves]

Both your examples are invalid.

Buying a GC to play a GC game is quite acceptable.  I bought a GC to play GC games (although I can't play CC)

Buying extra controllers is worth it, as Super Monkey Ball isn't the only 4 player game outthere.

Controllers are a gaming requirement.  As somebody who doesn't like handheld gaming - I'm not going to buy 3 extra GBAs to play one game am I?

Yes you can play FFCC on your GC - in single player.

FFCC also isn't the only game you'll be able to make use of your GBA for.

I totally understand your situation, but I don't see how that makes any case for the designers of the game making concessions to suit you specifically. Should somebody in an area without access to braodband be on here complaining that no 56k option is available in PGR2?