Average? Do you have any idea how much genius went into making that storyline?

Do you know? Did you ever get any information from the people who made the game?

Did you even know how much work went into it?

I don't even think you know the answer to that question. You apparently read this guy's rantings and assumed that Square intended everything this guy said.

Read this and learn just how big of an ignorant and stupid pig you are for calling ff7 anything short of genius.

Yep good way to proove your point. Just belittle everyone who doesn't agree with you.

http://www.angelfire.com/yt2/zforce6455/lit/ff7.html

"Final Fantasy 7 is a video game."
Atleast the author managed to get one thing right.

"It's one of the most involved games ever."
Well I'll cover why he's wrong later when I get to the right quote.

"It depends a lot on symbolism and relationships to mythology of different cultures."

Every game ever made depends on symbolism. You can't have games without symbolism as symbolism is in every letter you type, it's in everything you view, it's in everything you hear. So duh it does depend on symbolism.

Any game based on actual characters will obviously also have relationships and similarities to mythology of different cultures even if the author of the game didn't intend to since it's human nature to think in terms of patterns. When you first see something you compare it to things you already know which also in itself ties into symbolism yet again.

There is nothing special about depending on symbolism, culture or myth. You'll find that in any game so this is nothing special.

"John Brittenham, a skilled writer, showed me and others how ff7 works out in mythologies, and what the games really about."

I'm not sure about the author of the FF7 storyline but I wouldn't be able to stand someone going through my work, finding obscure references, tieing them together with thin logic, then claiming to know "this is what it's really about". Point is he didn't write and chances are he's got a different view than the author on what it's about, which would mean he doesn't know what it's all about.

I'm sure by tieing enough obscure references together and finding odd coincidences that you could argue that the logic behind the way tetris works can be tied into finding the cure for cancer or that pong had a deep plot behind it which tied into modern religions.

"I've never played a video game which has challenged me
more in it's requirement of the player to think about it's story in order to understand it."

He obviously didn't try hard in other games because if he put this much effort into any other game he could have found plenty of other plot lines and information the authors never intended to have in the game.

Moral of the story is if you spend long enough looking for deep meaning, you'll find it anywhere, even if the author himself never saw it.

Show me something from an actual plot writer from the game and it'll be a lot more convincing as any can say they know what it's all about.

blah, your all baka! Just because we believe that FF7 is a good game doesnt mean we are fanboy, mr.starcraft...this could go for starcraft too, i think generals is twice as better as starcraft, infact...all games are better then starcraft! ....looks whos going to get all fanboy now ehh? Perhaps we should just get back on topic, just because half of the world has played FF7, and think its great..doesnt mean they are fanboy/girls. Its a great game..you can't argue ...unless your just a closed minded jerk..right?

I think this movie is going to be good, no matter how long it is...

Theodis wrote:
> > Its a great game..you can't argue

No it's not and I've stated why it's not a great game. Obviously I can argue it.

I think he was meaning status wise, not your or anyone elses opinion for that matter. Final Fantasy 7 WAS the single hit RPG for 2 years, I don't think you can argue with that.

> http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff7ac/ff7acss.html

Personally the movie looks incredibly stupid. They've gone with a psuedo realistic look which makes Cloud look like a dork.

Hmm ... i've taken quite the gander at the screenshots, i'm not necessarily impressed. I always would've thought they'd go with the movie animation way, but real-life actors? Nay, this cannot be done, I think Squaresoft has officially ran out of ideas.

> His sword is even more evidently out of proportion and should be used by someone 6 times the size of Cloud considering the size of the handle that wouldn't even be unreasonable. If he actually managed to swing that weapon with enough force to cause damage he'd rip his arm right off. If that didn't happin and someone tried to parry him they'd be crushed under the force. If that didn't happin and the swords just clashed like it looks in the screenshots then it looks incredibly unbelievable which believe it or not is important for any movie.

You're one of those "if is realistic, it is cool" fellows aren't ye? Don't you know that his sword is made of reinbursted metal and that it is quite hallow inside? The sword itself weighs a hefty 60 or 70 pounds, but it definently can be swung with great agility and such. And concerning the whole "if he swung it at a sword it would break" the sword you are referring to is the Masamune, a mythological sword of great admirers, besides, it woulden't be too much fun if you had your strict foolish moderatations added to it either.

Sephiroth: "Cloud, are you ready to do battle?"
Cloud: "Lets go! Hyaaa!!"
*Cloud swings his sword and breaks the Masamune*
Sephiroth: "..."
Cloud: "Yay! I win!"

> Exaggeration is very important in a fantasy setting but if you go too far with things people can understand you really kill the suspension of disbelief. The only way you get away with this kind of thing is by providing some kind of explantion which makes sense within the bounds of Fantasy world.

Read the above reply.
Look, if you find Final Fantasy VII too fake, you have problems. The game itself had a nice plot, and a nice gameplay feature. Now, i'd understand if you were bagging on the playability, graphics, or even the storyline, but the realistic factor stays.


Personally, I thought Final Fantasy VII was indeed a great great game, I played it withen hours on end, I even have a 3-d model of the motorcycle of which Cloud drives throughout the Shinra invasion. Creating it into a movie is a very drastic idea, but who knows it could be a hit amongst our peers. As far as concerning the looks of the movie, it looks O.K. Cloud does look a little iffy but i'm positive it will grow on me (like the FF7 graphics). I only hope that they get it right as the game once was.

meh....this arguing is almost futile, specially when I know that anywhere from 40 to 60% of byond will agree that they will atleast take a look at the previews. It cant hurt just to look.... and while your just looking at the previews i'll be watching it ^^;

Hmm ... i've taken quite the gander at the screenshots, i'm not necessarily impressed.

I don't care about the graphics, infact I think I like them.
The only thing I WOULDN'T watch is some "3D" "cell" animation..or whatever -.-

anyway! I'm just going to stop posting, since others opinions are usually worthless to me unless they are positive, laters! ^^;

If Squaresoft really wants to make big bucks, they should make PS2 versions of Final Fantasy II and III. I think it would be a helluva great game to see such old characters made back in 1994 be remade into modern 3-d.

Nevertheless, I really thought those characters in the movie were actual actors! If they claim to be 100% CG, then I guess I must have been mistaken, the graphics on it look unbeleivably beleivable! Making a Final Fantasy VII sequel isn't a very bad idea, but like I mentioned earlier in my post, its a very drastic idea.

Ever see those shows that were truely great but the show hosts totally "wring" it out of style? An example of this theory is the "Power Rangers", yes I know it sounds silly but back then (7 or 8 years ago) I thought the show kicked major arse. Now that I look over back at the series again, I do beleive that have lost their minds. Point being, the creators of the "Power Rangers" totally wringed it out of ideas, the show should've ended long ago and perhaps it still would've still contained a legacy.

Jon88 wrote:
> Don't kill the classics with 3D.

Nothing NEEDS to be 3D(other than an FPS, or similar game whose whole premise IS 3D).
3D can actually make some types of games worse. There's no need to 3Dfy everything because you can, or it's cool, or some other pointless reason.

Aye, nothing necessarily NEEDs to be 3D, but all i'm saying is it would be something to look at. Graphics made with the SNES, with such small sprites lack in detail we all know that. 3D would hopefully rid of that perspective and then we can gaze in awe at what Cecil or Edgar for that matter, TRUELY was meant to look like. This world practically demands 3D, the graphics cards just keep getting better. And maybe sooner or later, the 2D perspective will be gone for good.

Don't get me wrong, I love 2D, but sooner or later and we all know this, 2D will be forgotten in the gaming industry. Infact, as of now I cannot name any major titles off the top of my head that was made during this year that has 2D aspects.

Asguard wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I love 2D, but sooner or later and we all know this, 2D will be forgotten in the gaming industry.

Pfffft. You may "know" this, but I certainly don't. Sure, 3D opens up some more possibilities and can sometimes look better, but it closes off other possibilities and can sometimes look worse. Besides, 2D is a LOT easier to work in than 3D. (I've tried both, so I know what I'm talking about.) Ever wondered why nobody has even tried to create 3D paper for writing letters on? Even assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing is technologically feasible, what's the point? The third dimension doesn't add anything.

Infact, as of now I cannot name any major titles off the top of my head that was made during this year that has 2D aspects.

Correction to the bolded bit: "Well-known commercial titles with enough of a budget for advertising".

I believe 3D is being excessively used in the computer gaming industry. While it looks prettier and sometimes enhances the gameplay, it often adds nothing to the game and is completely unnecessary. Why bother messing around with the third dimension if you can avoid it?

Karasu Kami wrote:

blah, your all baka!

Now I remember why I don't come around here anymore...

-grins-

Asguard wrote:

Infact, as of now I cannot name any major titles off the top of my head that was made during this year that has 2D aspects.

Look at Viewtiful Joe. It's 2d... it's a "major title."

Where's your "3d" now, hotshot? :P

Spuzzum wrote:

In my opinion, it's easier to visualise and make a 3D shape than it is to visualise and make a 2D shape.

Visualise, okay. Make? Eh... I reckon sprites are much easier to make than entire models. It literally takes me days to make a full humanoid character in gmax (at least it would, if I ever finished one!), complete with different facial expressions, bones, and IK solving, whereas I can make a sort-of-okayish humanoid sprite in less than 30 minutes.

On the other hand, the model does allow for much more flexibility; particularly with the bones system that gmax includes. (Whoever thought up that system was a genius! It rules. =) But I digress.) If I wanted different body positions and angles for a 2D sprite, I'd most likely have WEEKS of work ahead of me!

So really, it comes down to how much flexibility you need. If you want a sprite that can't move at all and never has to rotate in more than 4 directions, then using 3D is a bit of a waste. If you want a fully rigged character that can dance to a techno beat while the camera rotates around it and multi-coloured dance lights flash on and off, then 2D is obviously out of the question.

Now, I'm not saying that 3D is better than 2D, but I'm not saying that 2D is better than 3D either. Both have their niches.

Agreed. Also, sometimes merging the two is better than just one of them; look at Starscape. It looks and plays like a 2D game, but the ships and asteroids are actually 3D models. Which allows for all sorts of nice graphical effects that would be more annoying to implement in 2D. (Not only rotation; also lighting, etc.) It's not particularly useful for all games, but it does add a nice touch.