Soundtrack Central The best of VGM and other great soundtracks

Please sign up or log in for the best forum experience!

jb Apr 17, 2016

Are you somehow implying that people aren't complaining about every aspect of this game and every little piece of information announced? As noted above, no one even knows what episodic means yet. I, for one, am excited and thrilled that SQEX is investing more into these games than just dumping out a 1:1 remake with updated graphics. THAT would be worthy of the cash grab eveeryone is so quick to title this with. I really sympathize with game companies who have to wade through this ocean of negative feedback and try and actually make informed business or game decisions, it has to be the worst job ever.

This internet culture of complaining about everything and the loudest voice in the conversation drowning out and marginalizing every other opinion is really dumb. It's fanboy culture with the anonymity of the Internet and it's only getting worse. I mean, I can't even say I'm perfect because I tend to hyperbolize things (this game f---ing sucks, etc) but it's a far cry from the twitch chat, memelord, change.org, political stuff

Qui-Gon Joe Apr 17, 2016 (edited Apr 17, 2016)

jb wrote:

This internet culture of complaining about everything and the loudest voice in the conversation drowning out and marginalizing every other opinion is really dumb. It's fanboy culture with the anonymity of the Internet and it's only getting worse.

This.  So much this.  I participate less and less in conversations on the internet about ANYTHING these days because every one is so, so negative.  This place is still okay, but I have to admit I'm sad every time I log in and the only thing with new posts is the humans-are-dumb thread or whatever.  One post before this someone literally called someone else's positive comment being excited about a new game to be "trash" after STC's owner asked for civility.  Sigh.

On topic, remaking ANYTHING, especially something as beloved as FF7 is going to be tricky business.  How often is a remake of a film more beloved than the original?  Rarely, but it does happen.  Same with games.  I'd say it seems evenly split as well between good remakes that are different than the original vs. good remakes that are totally faithful to the original.  With FF7 I was hoping for something like the Resident Evil remake for Gamecube Capcom did years ago.  The things about THIS game that don't hold up are all technical - I think the actual gameplay of FF7 holds up tremendously well.  So why change it?  If you want to do something new, do something new.  This is the same company that greenlit a remake of Lufia II, one of my favorite RPGs of all time, and stripped everything about the GAME that I liked out of it.  It makes me nervous for their handling of another of my favorite RPGs.

All that said, I'll still have the original (and it just got released in what seems to be a definitive edition on PS4?).  If they DO manage to pull off something great (which current Square just might - they've been producing MUCH better material lately than they have for a long time), I'm all for it.  Genuinely curious about how it turns out!

GoldfishX Apr 17, 2016

I think the change in gameplay and the idea of making the content come in multiple parts is very fair game for criticism...I take issue with saying its "bitching for the sake of bitching". Especially since it reflects growing trends (and struggles) in the market nowadays, which are controversial to some people. The online gags about Aeris revival DLC would be absurd if they were not a possibility.

I will just say this...I am absolutely struggling to find reasons to purchase a PS4 or even to care about next/current gen gaming. A $60 game that pays homage to the original would have been an easy feather in the cap for Sony. A multi-part remake that fundamentally alters how the original is played and I am okay with just watching a lets-play in my spare time to see how certain parts get handled.

Amazingu Apr 17, 2016

jb wrote:

I really sympathize with game companies who have to wade through this ocean of negative feedback and try and actually make informed business or game decisions, it has to be the worst job ever.

This.
Look, I love video games, always have and always will, but the entire culture and community around it can go to hell for all I care. It doesn't matter what you do as a video game company, people will always find reasons to complain. And it doesn't matter if you have a perfectly valid and logical explanation for you actions either, because people won't listen and most gamers don't know how development works anyway.

GoldfishX wrote:

A $60 game that pays homage to the original would have been an easy feather in the cap for Sony.

For you and a lot of other people maybe, but not for thousands of others who would have been every bit as vocal about it if it had been a simple $60 game. How do you think they could've squeezed the entirety of FF7 into one $60 game using state-of-the-art technology? Just polish up the pre-rendered backgrounds and character models and keep it exactly the same? It would flop because it would be "outdated."
Making it full 3D was probably the only real option (for all of the clamor for an FFVII remake over the years, I think very few people have ever had a clear idea of what it should look like), and if you're going to make a mammoth game like FFVII fully 3D with modern graphics, it's going to be hard to make a profit if you only charge $60.

One of the main problems with the industry is that people keep expecting more bang for their buck, while prices remain exactly the same, but dev costs keep going up. It's just not sustainable for a lot of companies, which is why you see so much DLC, micro-transactions and Season Passes nowadays.
This would be easily remedied by spending less exorbitant amounts of money on development, but woe is the company that dares release a AAA game that isn't 1080p and 60fps nowadays!

I think the only reason they're even bothering is because they're reusing the engine and probably a lot of systems and assets from FFXV.

jb Apr 17, 2016

I completely agree.  I think if it was a feasible venture before this they would have already invested in something besides 2 simple ports.  My guess is it just wasn't worth it until now.

GoldfishX Apr 17, 2016

Sadly, there's nothing you've said that I disagree with. The cost goes up and is passed down to the consumer, in various forms. It's a real mess that is crippling a lot of developers/publishers and it's why I'm glad I'm not emotionally invested in newer videogames that much anymore. It certainly explains WHY there isn't much coming out for me to care about.

But it's naive to say that consumers cannot be unhappy with the direction and seeing the cost go up, right in front of them. I'd say that is being aware and vocal about an obvious problem.

The industry just got too big for itself and as a result, we have an environment where both the consumers and the developers/publishers have a strained relationship with each other.

jb Apr 17, 2016

Criticism is fine but most of what comes of these "loudest voice in the room" is Internet yelling and white noise. 

I don't think it's naive that consumers can't be unhappy with something.  It is, ridiculous, however, when consumers believe that they have a say in game development, production, or **anything** in the process -- you don't, and when people kick and scream until they get their way or they try to drag every conversation down and cloud relevant conversation, it becomes a problem.

I don't think the industry is too big for itself.  The industry is having a hard time adapting to the current culture and/or the current culture is having a hard time accepting the industry as it is.  I'm personally on the side of the industry and consumers need to take their expectations down about 100 notches and stop thinking they have a voice that matters, or at the very least a voice that matters only if they can produce relevant, meaningful feedback that isn't just "I HATE THIS", "THIS IS STUPID", "I WISH THIS WAS LIKE IT USED TO BE", etc.

I mean, even though I don't really play console games or have a real tune on most of the issues outside of exceptionally large/reported stuff, I do see the *exact* same issues and direct correlations to the things that happen in the WoW community between the game development staff/community managers and the community as a whole, and it's quite frankly disgusting.

I'm also a jaded old man and see this extending well outside of games and entertainment to the way the next generation of people carry themselves and it has me worried, but that's probably something every generation has said to the next over the course of human history.  This next generation of people having everything at their fingertips, constant feedback, immediate satisfaction is just ... not how the world really works.  Or at the very least, isn't how you should expect every part of the world to work.

GoldfishX Apr 17, 2016

I think we're talking about two different things here...You're talking about a sense of entitlement, I'm talking about rising costs/costs being passed onto the consumer. EVERY time prices go up on ANYTHING, there is negative feedback. I mean, are people being entitled when gas prices rise 50 cents? Or the "dollar menu" goes away at McDonalds? That is a legitimate gripe that people are allowed to have and SHOULD be vocal about. If you have to raise prices/resort to DLC and episodic schemes to keep your bottom line from bleeding, then the high profile games industry HAS gotten too big for itself.

But the problem I have with that is...the people that the products are being created for ARE the paying consumers. If that relationship breaks down, there's simply no reason for the industry to exist. I have to admit, I'm glad I'm not an insider...It's impossible to make a profit, it's impossible to satisfy your fanbase, you can't take risks, if you make a legitimately bad game the sky basically falls.

It's just...bleh.

jb Apr 18, 2016 (edited Apr 18, 2016)

GoldfishX wrote:

I think we're talking about two different things here...You're talking about a sense of entitlement, I'm talking about rising costs/costs being passed onto the consumer. EVERY time prices go up on ANYTHING, there is negative feedback. I mean, are people being entitled when gas prices rise 50 cents? Or the "dollar menu" goes away at McDonalds? That is a legitimate gripe that people are allowed to have and SHOULD be vocal about. If you have to raise prices/resort to DLC and episodic schemes to keep your bottom line from bleeding, then the high profile games industry HAS gotten too big for itself.

You're making a pretty big assumption that companies are raising prices and resorting to these kinds of things simply to boost their bottom line and not that it just costs real money (a lot of) to make video games.  You can't compare price increases in commodities to price increases in an entertainment industry.  They are two completely different things.  You don't need to buy a $60 game to get to work or feed your family. 

You are allowed to be vocal about pricing structures and such and I don't have a problem with that but it absolutely is entitlement when you expect game companies to change their business model because you don't like the way they release content.  The entertainment industry is only as consumer driven as the demand for consumption.  If you don't like how much something costs, you don't buy it and/or don't consume it or you find an alternative.  If you don't like the price of a movie, you go to a matinee, wait for video or streaming or you just don't go.  If you don't like the cost of a game, you don't buy it and you don't play it, or you rent it from a rental service, or you borrow it from a friend, or you wait until a bundle comes out or you find it in a used bin.  Which you're basically doing by saying you don't want to buy a PS4 or the game, which is perfectly reasonable.  The cost isn't passed down to the consumer, the consumer demand for/consumption rate is being passed up.  Or maybe a bit of both.

I don't think we're talking about two different things, I think we fundamentally think the responsibility lies in two different places.  I believe the problem is the consumer, and you believe the problem is the producer.  Perhaps it's a bit of both but this is an entertainment industry, after all.  Consumption is entirely optional.

GoldfishX Apr 18, 2016 (edited Apr 18, 2016)

jb wrote:

You're making a pretty big assumption that companies are raising prices and resorting to these kinds of things simply to boost their bottom line and not that it just costs real money (a lot of) to make video games.  You can't compare price increases in commodities to price increases in an entertainment industry.  They are two completely different things.  You don't need to buy a $60 game to get to work or feed your family.

No assumption, when I say trying to increase the bottom line, I'm taking the rising expenses into account. But ultimately, SE does have their shareholders to answer to as well and if they're not meeting their analyst estimates, they might as well be in the red (even if they ARE posting a profit). Frankly, I have not cared for their attitudes towards consumers since the merger (remember the whole "compilation of FF7" and "World of Mana"? And how long has it taken them to count to 3, in the case of Kingdom Hearts?). Let's also remember...the world's largest suppliers of food and gas are also publicly traded.

You CAN compare the two because a lot of the same factors are in place (rising labor costs mostly). I don't think any of us are in the position where we're going hungry because of rising food costs, but I might decide to pass up a road trip because of gas or to get a small fry instead of a large...Those are the lines I'm thinking of. And that is why you go the extra mile to hit the gas station down the road or food store with the lower prices, you don't want to give your business to the people that are raising prices. That is speaking with your wallet, but on the same hand, you're verbally telling people NOT to visit the gas station or store with the highest prices.

jb wrote:

You are allowed to be vocal about pricing structures and such and I don't have a problem with that but it absolutely is entitlement when you expect game companies to change their business model because you don't like the way they release content.  The entertainment industry is only as consumer driven as the demand for consumption.  If you don't like how much something costs, you don't buy it and/or don't consume it or you find an alternative.  If you don't like the price of a movie, you go to a matinee, wait for video or streaming or you just don't go.  If you don't like the cost of a game, you don't buy it and you don't play it, or you rent it from a rental service, or you borrow it from a friend, or you wait until a bundle comes out or you find it in a used bin.  Which you're basically doing by saying you don't want to buy a PS4 or the game, which is perfectly reasonable.  The cost isn't passed down to the consumer, the consumer demand for/consumption rate is being passed up.  Or maybe a bit of both.

And on the same hand, I think game companies are displaying a bit of an ego by basically telling consumers they need to pay more than they have in the past. It raises expectations frustratingly high. Assume $200 is the minimum total cost to experience all episodes of FF7...It better be the best damn game EVER for that price, relative to games that cost $40-$60. Why do you think .hack fizzled so hard and the Xenosaga saga went from 6 games to 3? This type of thing just has never yielded positive results and again, is very consumer un-friendly.*

The point of being vocal is you do expect to be listened to. Otherwise, you are wasting your breath. I can't stand passive consumerism...If people don't like something, they need to speak up or else nothing changes. The people who work at the companies sit in their little boardrooms, patting themselves on the back and laugh at the great job they've done when they don't receive negative feedback. In most cases, I think they remain oblivious to it anyway.

What I said was I am looking for reasons to buy a PS4 and a $60 one-shot deal of FFVII Remake would swing the decision in its favor. I'm not looking to make a sizeable entertainment investment in such a questionable prospect over a period of years. If I were more emotionally invested in the product, I'd be way more vocal, but my confidence in SE is just shot. But I certainly understand the sentiment of those that are on their Youtube channels, holding their breath and banging their heads on the floor.

jb wrote:

I don't think we're talking about two different things, I think we fundamentally think the responsibility lies in two different places.  I believe the problem is the consumer, and you believe the problem is the producer.  Perhaps it's a bit of both but this is an entertainment industry, after all.  Consumption is entirely optional.

I think the "business" part of the industry is incredibly toxic for both sides. It's hard to look at the underlying product when you feel like you are being taken advantage of. That's my take on it and why ultimately, I side with the paying, vocal and often obnoxious consumers. In reality, it's a large ugly gray area for both sides.

*Yes, I'm aware both had their fans, but generally neither was regarded as an overall success

Amazingu Apr 18, 2016 (edited Apr 18, 2016)

GoldfishX wrote:

And on the same hand, I think game companies are displaying a bit of an ego by basically telling consumers they need to pay more than they have in the past. It raises expectations frustratingly high. Assume $200 is the minimum total cost to experience all episodes of FF7...It better be the best damn game EVER for that price, relative to games that cost $40-$60. Why do you think .hack fizzled so hard and the Xenosaga saga went from 6 games to 3? This type of thing just has never yielded positive results and again, is very consumer un-friendly.

Like jb, I'm on the side that thinks the consumers are the problem, because, like I said above, YOU CAN'T KEEP EXPECTING DEVS TO CHURN OUT INCREASINGLY ADVANCED/EXPENSIVE GAMES FOR THE SAME PRICE.
It's ridiculous that game prices are "locked" at $60 when the dev cost is constantly rising, and consumers are getting increasingly demanding. Many people don't even accept 30fps as "playable" anymore, which is ludicrous.

You think companies have a bit of an ego by telling consumers they need to pay more than they have in the past, when the consumers are basically saying they won't buy any AAA title that doesn't run at 60fps and 1080p 100% of the time? Like I said, people keep wanting more FOR THE SAME PRICE; that's what's the issue here.
It's not about people having to pay more than what they used to pay for the same thing, it's about people expecting to get increasingly more for the same price. It's not about McDonald's asking more money for the same burger; it's about consumers now expecting a full-course dinner for that same dollar they used to buy a hamburger for. This is a world of difference, and again not sustainable or realistic in the long run.
You could argue that the industry worked itself into that corner, and you wouldn't be wrong, but it won't change until the consumers, as jb said, take their expectations down about 100 notches.

Also, I think the comparison to Xenosaga and .hack doesn't really work, because they were just not very good games. Technically speaking, you also had to pay close to $200 to experience the Uncharted trilogy (not anymore since there's a collection now, but you know what I mean), and that did well enough, didn't it?
I don't think the problem with .hack and Xenosaga was that they were trying to tell one story across multiple games, it's that the games just weren't very good and didn't have a lot of mass appeal. FF7 DOES have a lot of mass appeal, especially if they make it more of an action game.

GoldfishX Apr 18, 2016

Okay, not to totally deflect your point, but IF they had the guts to come out and say, "due to rising development costs, the MSRP for FFVII Remake will be $70 or $80", I think a lot of people would be okay with that if it was a single release.  I PROBABLY would. What I'm not okay and why I won't let them off the hook is I think they are seriously milking people's desire to see this game remade by making it multiple parts and (again) trying to fatten their bottom line as much as possible. My, I buy the game, it's crap, I eBay it for 3/4 of what I paid and watch whatever late game parts interest me online, no issue. Multi-parts? Still no idea how that is going to work.

Capcom essentially did this with Street Fighter V (promised only one release, no updates but advised the DLC would be coming out over time) and most of the FGC is fine with it.

I just think SE is being fundamentally dishonest with how they are working this. Again...Compilation of FF7 WAS a thing.

Amazingu Apr 18, 2016

GoldfishX wrote:

Multi-parts? Still no idea how that is going to work.

Nobody knows, which is why there's not really any point in getting up in arms about it yet.

They've said that it would be like the XIII trilogy, each installment is its own full-length (probably 40-50 hours) experience, and although there's bound to be numerous reused assets, I'm fine with that as long as they don't shamelessly recycle environments (which admittedly seems hard to avoid unless they just throw the world map out the window).
As much as I dislike the XIII trilogy, each game WAS its own unique thing that was, in terms of volume of content at least, well worth the money. If they make 3 worthy, full-length games out of this, I don't see how this is any different from making a series like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed or what have you.

Capcom essentially did this with Street Fighter V (promised only one release, no updates but advised the DLC would be coming out over time) and most of the FGC is fine with it.

Which is odd, because the way Capcom handled SFV is a f---ing disgrace.

I just think SE is being fundamentally dishonest with how they are working this. Again...Compilation of FF7 WAS a thing.

N-no it wasn't. I CERTAINLY DON'T REMEMBER IT.
*covers ears and sings loudly*

Seriously though, how are they being dishonest?
They've said what their plans are, and we don't really know any more than that.

GoldfishX Apr 18, 2016

Maybe I'm just looking at it too linear, but I don't think FFVII is big enough to warrant multiple releases (I think I said this earlier in the thread here). Okay, you have Midgar, which was only hinted at in its size in the original, but then you bop from town to town, dungeon to dungeon, across the overworld...It's comparable to just about any quality RPG from the late 16 or 32 bit era. I don't think the story is deep enough, I don't think there's 40-50 hours worth of content to fill 3 separate parts (unless you end up with serious grinding/bloat). Maybe they'll get serious about fleshing out some of the side characters? In my mind, it's just such a stretch. But...the fans asked for it and SE knows it...and I think they're taking advantage of it. Maybe we'll have a DLC Dirge of Cerberus dungeon to look forward to?

If Hironobu Sakaguchi were still with Square and came out and said, "I'm envisioning an epic tale that will spawn multiple releases to tell the full story of Final Fantasy 7", I might feel differently. But we're 20 years down the road, Sakaguchi and Uematsu are long gone and they need multiple releases to tell one classic tale? I'm sorry, I'm not buying into that.

As for SFV, the FGC mostly cares about competitive gameplay. So we really don't have too many issues this early on. Vanilla SF4 was a horrible game, but it HAD to exist to allow the game to evolve. It's not perfect...the storylines are rushed/nonexistent, the bugs are often hilarious, online play fails to punish ragequitters and the roster is laughably puny for a SF game at 16 (17 now) characters. But most people are happy to have the game available for tournament play now. Now if Capcom decides to go back on what they said and release Super SFV,,,the gloves will no doubt come off. But they will probably end up making out even better with the DLC characters and other paid content.

Zane Apr 19, 2016

GoldfishX wrote:

Maybe I'm just looking at it too linear, but I don't think FFVII is big enough to warrant multiple releases (I think I said this earlier in the thread here). Okay, you have Midgar, which was only hinted at in its size in the original, but then you bop from town to town, dungeon to dungeon, across the overworld...It's comparable to just about any quality RPG from the late 16 or 32 bit era. I don't think the story is deep enough, I don't think there's 40-50 hours worth of content to fill 3 separate parts (unless you end up with serious grinding/bloat).

C.R.E.A.M. (dolla dolla bills, y'all)

Latest Updates

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB