OPINION: A Newb's Impressions of Final Fantasy VII Remake

System

OPINION: A Newb's Impressions of Final Fantasy VII Remake

I've never played any Final Fantasy. So then, what do I think of Final Fantasy VII Remake?

Read the full story here

Sparka

You shelled out $60 for a small piece of the game. Its people like you who are ruining this hobby for the rest of us.

Kajidourden

Sparka said:

You shelled out $60 for a small piece of the game. Its people like you who are ruining this hobby for the rest of us.

The game is a full 40+ hour experience and incredible to boot.

In other words: you're an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about, you're ruining the hobby for the rest of us.

Kajidourden

Totally agree about FF7R's combat being an evolution/iteration on XV. I was not (and still am not really) a big fan on XV's combat but I'm playing through it to experience the story.

BizkitNL

Kajidourden said:

Sparka said:

You shelled out $60 for a small piece of the game. Its people like you who are ruining this hobby for the rest of us.

The game is a full 40+ hour experience and incredible to boot.



In other words: you're an idiot who has no idea what they're talking about, you're ruining the hobby for the rest of us.

I gotta quote this to emphasize.

This first part was worth every penny (and more) and I can't wait for the next one.

Aeander

I'm going into this as a non-Final Fantasy fan and someone who never played the original. And I loved every minute of it. 

My playthrough was over 47 hours, and I could easily get more through Chapter Select/Hard Mode so I would consider that a more than fair value.

Sparka said:

You shelled out $60 for a small piece of the game. Its people like you who are ruining this hobby for the rest of us.

Fuck you kindly, sir.

ShankTheTank

Sparka said:

You shelled out $60 for a small piece of the game. Its people like you who are ruining this hobby for the rest of us.

Cool story bro

xpsync

I played FFXIV for a few years (on and off) and am done with it, it's a little too linear for me as an mmorpg.

Also the no reason for alts which i thought at first would be amazing, in the end i found i really miss that new toon smell, fresh start, learn new class, starting from scratch, brand new adventure.

Also tried FFXV, great at first, but again too constricted, i guess i really love open world freedom.

FFVII is the one i've always heard mentioned for decades though, Final Fantasy VII Remake, i might have to go in to this universe one more time.

Aeander

xpsync said:

I played FFXIV for a few years (on and off) and am done with it, it's a little too linear for me as an mmorpg.

Also the no reason for alts which i thought at first would be amazing, in the end i found i really miss that new toon smell, fresh start, learn new class, starting from scratch, brand new adventure.

Also tried FFXV, great at first, but again too constricted, i guess i really love open world freedom.

FFVII is the one i've always heard mentioned for decades though, Final Fantasy VII Remake, i might have to go in to this universe one more time.

If all you care about is open world, don't buy it. It's a linear, curated experience and I love it for that.

If you desire more exploration, I recommend Xenoblade Chronicles for your JRPG needs.

xpsync

Aeander said:

I'm going into this as a non-Final Fantasy fan and someone who never played the original. And I loved every minute of it.

That has made me much less reluctant to try.

xpsync

Aeander said:

xpsync said:

I played FFXIV for a few years (on and off) and am done with it, it's a little too linear for me as an mmorpg.



Also the no reason for alts which i thought at first would be amazing, in the end i found i really miss that new toon smell, fresh start, learn new class, starting from scratch, brand new adventure.



Also tried FFXV, great at first, but again too constricted, i guess i really love open world freedom.



FFVII is the one i've always heard mentioned for decades though, Final Fantasy VII Remake, i might have to go in to this universe one more time.

If all you care about is open world, don't buy it. It's a linear, curated experience and I love it for that.

If you desire more exploration, I recommend Xenoblade Chronicles for your JRPG needs.

Thanks. I'm always up to try something new, going in if i know it's a linear story driven game that's ok.

I don't hate them, only need to be in the mood for one, SOMA was my last sp game, loved every second of that baby, omg every gamer should play SOMA at least once.

However XIV as an mmorpg, no, and advertising misled me with XV, it looked totally open world GTA5 style, ultimately what did it in for me was it was on the console which immediately means limited shelf life for me.

I've listened on podcasts, read on forums, for decades about how amazing 7 is, but it's so dated and the remake sounds just as amazing, i'm not sure how i could completely pass on this one given this second chance.

Theocritus

FF7 was by far the best of the series and I thought both MMOs (FFXI and FFXIV) were just awful.

Aeander

razor247 said:

$60 for 30 hours of game play..it's 1/10 of a real final fantasy game. just wait for all the pieces on PC in one game for $20 because you get value on PC and u get crapped on with console.

Where is anyone getting 30 hours? Playing on Easy while making no attempt to do any sidequests, manage equipment/materia, or stray off the beaten path for loot?

Don't make shit up.

lotrlore

Aeander said:

razor247 said:

$60 for 30 hours of game play..it's 1/10 of a real final fantasy game. just wait for all the pieces on PC in one game for $20 because you get value on PC and u get crapped on with console.

Where is anyone getting 30 hours? Playing on Easy while making no attempt to do any sidequests or stray off the beaten path for loot?

Don't make shit up.

I played my review on the regular difficulty, did about 80% of the side quests, missed a ton of stuff still and ended up with 40 hours thereabouts. It's a full game - it's not the full story and I think that's really where people are tripping up. This was always propped up to be a part of the overall retelling. The fact it feels like a stand alone game even knowing that knowledge going into this is a testament to what the team at Square Enix pulled off. 

Additionally, this really brings up the fact that time does not equal value in games for a lot of people. I could spend $20 on a game like The Banner Saga and more enjoyment out of it than I did spending $60 on a game that took me 80+ hours to beat, like say Final Fantasy XIII, and I can confidently say I did not enjoy as much.

Aeander

lotrlore said:

Aeander said:

razor247 said:

$60 for 30 hours of game play..it's 1/10 of a real final fantasy game. just wait for all the pieces on PC in one game for $20 because you get value on PC and u get crapped on with console.

Where is anyone getting 30 hours? Playing on Easy while making no attempt to do any sidequests or stray off the beaten path for loot?

Don't make shit up.

I played my review on the regular difficulty, did about 80% of the side quests, missed a ton of stuff still and ended up with 40 hours thereabouts. It's a full game - it's not the full story and I think that's really where people are tripping up. This was always propped up to be a part of the overall retelling. The fact it feels like a stand alone game even knowing that knowledge going into this is a testament to what the team at Square Enix pulled off. 

Additionally, this really brings up the fact that time does not equal value in games for a lot of people. I could spend $20 on a game like The Banner Saga and more enjoyment out of it than I did spending $60 on a game that took me 80+ hours to beat, like say Final Fantasy XIII, and I can confidently say I did not enjoy as much.

Quite the opposite, I'd say that a lot of games could do with quite a bit of fat trimming and would be better games if they were leaner. A lot of JRPGs, Assassin's Creed, etc. make themselves LESS compelling by artificially inflating playtime.

lotrlore

Aeander said:

lotrlore said:

Aeander said:

razor247 said:

$60 for 30 hours of game play..it's 1/10 of a real final fantasy game. just wait for all the pieces on PC in one game for $20 because you get value on PC and u get crapped on with console.

Where is anyone getting 30 hours? Playing on Easy while making no attempt to do any sidequests or stray off the beaten path for loot?

Don't make shit up.

I played my review on the regular difficulty, did about 80% of the side quests, missed a ton of stuff still and ended up with 40 hours thereabouts. It's a full game - it's not the full story and I think that's really where people are tripping up. This was always propped up to be a part of the overall retelling. The fact it feels like a stand alone game even knowing that knowledge going into this is a testament to what the team at Square Enix pulled off. 

Additionally, this really brings up the fact that time does not equal value in games for a lot of people. I could spend $20 on a game like The Banner Saga and more enjoyment out of it than I did spending $60 on a game that took me 80+ hours to beat, like say Final Fantasy XIII, and I can confidently say I did not enjoy as much.

Quite the opposite, I'd say that a lot of games could do with quite a bit of fat trimming and would be better games if they were leaner. A lot of JRPGs, Assassin's Creed, etc. make themselves LESS compelling by artificially inflating playtime.

Partly why I haven't finished an AC game since AC2 I think.

Also partly why, even in open world games, I find myself just crushing the main story. There are whole storylines in the Witcher 3 I've never experienced because I just mainly stuck to the story.

Partly too why I love Persona 5 - even though it's a 100+ hour JRPG, everything you do in that game ties into the core gameplay, so nothing feels like fluff or artificial padding. I can be slow in spots, yes, but I never feel like I'm wasting my time.

Iselin

lotrlore said:

Aeander said:

lotrlore said:

Aeander said:

razor247 said:

$60 for 30 hours of game play..it's 1/10 of a real final fantasy game. just wait for all the pieces on PC in one game for $20 because you get value on PC and u get crapped on with console.

Where is anyone getting 30 hours? Playing on Easy while making no attempt to do any sidequests or stray off the beaten path for loot?

Don't make shit up.

I played my review on the regular difficulty, did about 80% of the side quests, missed a ton of stuff still and ended up with 40 hours thereabouts. It's a full game - it's not the full story and I think that's really where people are tripping up. This was always propped up to be a part of the overall retelling. The fact it feels like a stand alone game even knowing that knowledge going into this is a testament to what the team at Square Enix pulled off. 

Additionally, this really brings up the fact that time does not equal value in games for a lot of people. I could spend $20 on a game like The Banner Saga and more enjoyment out of it than I did spending $60 on a game that took me 80+ hours to beat, like say Final Fantasy XIII, and I can confidently say I did not enjoy as much.

Quite the opposite, I'd say that a lot of games could do with quite a bit of fat trimming and would be better games if they were leaner. A lot of JRPGs, Assassin's Creed, etc. make themselves LESS compelling by artificially inflating playtime.

Partly why I haven't finished an AC game since AC2 I think.

Also partly why, even in open world games, I find myself just crushing the main story. There are whole storylines in the Witcher 3 I've never experienced because I just mainly stuck to the story.

Partly too why I love Persona 5 - even though it's a 100+ hour JRPG, everything you do in that game ties into the core gameplay, so nothing feels like fluff or artificial padding. I can be slow in spots, yes, but I never feel like I'm wasting my time.

I agree with you in general but IMO Witcher 3 is the exception to side quest bloat. I can't think of a single side quest that didn't have the same level of quality as the main quests.

I did skip playing Gwent though

lotrlore

I agree with you in general but IMO Witcher 3 is the exception to side quest bloat. I can't think of a single side quest that didn't have the same level of quality as the main quests.

I did skip playing Gwent though

Yea, my aversion to the side quests had nothing to do with their quality - the ones I played were superb. I just have a dissonance between an urgent, world-ending threat being put off by playing Gwent and what not. Narratively it never sits well with me. So I tend to go back and do side quests after I've beaten the main story. I'm honestly like this with every major open-world game I play. Just the way I operate I guess.

alkarionlog

lotrlore said:

I agree with you in general but IMO Witcher 3 is the exception to side quest bloat. I can't think of a single side quest that didn't have the same level of quality as the main quests.

I did skip playing Gwent though

Yea, my aversion to the side quests had nothing to do with their quality - the ones I played were superb. I just have a dissonance between an urgent, world-ending threat being put off by playing Gwent and what not. Narratively it never sits well with me. So I tend to go back and do side quests after I've beaten the main story. I'm honestly like this with every major open-world game I play. Just the way I operate I guess.

on witcher 3 I kinda can belive on this since, the main issue is prevent the hunt on ciri and as long she is hidden, they can't find her, so time is your ally on this game, so sidequests tend to be more urgents, so its not that bad, now if was skyrim then I would agree, dragons poping everywhere, a war going, but lets walk around stealing or wasting time with draedric princes vanitys

problem I can see on FF7 remake is they are forcing a extend on story, putting a lot of things "extras" so they can milk it the best they can, since its been years since square send a good game out, like chrono trigger and ff7, also square have a issue in making follow ups on they story who suck hard,(example FFX-2 and the whole FF13-2,3) they strangely enough didn't mkae the ff7 fllow ups too bad, was still playable, so maybe this is why they are trying to do with this remake

whoy

Sadly it wasn't a Remake, not when Nomura changed the core story, entirely.
At this point, Aerith might actually survive in this remake.

Theocritus said:

FF7 was by far the best of the series and I thought both MMOs (FFXI and FFXIV) were just awful.

FF11 and FF14 both are good by MMO standard.
You don't compare SP games with MMOs.

Asm0deus

Aeander said:

razor247 said:

$60 for 30 hours of game play..it's 1/10 of a real final fantasy game. just wait for all the pieces on PC in one game for $20 because you get value on PC and u get crapped on with console.

Where is anyone getting 30 hours? Playing on Easy while making no attempt to do any sidequests, manage equipment/materia, or stray off the beaten path for loot?

Don't make shit up.

Sorry but don't exaggerate there, I have seen streamers beat this easy in 30 hours, you shouldn't be counting replays and do over in hard mode in the time to complete either.

I am not putting the game down mind you but the ass kissing on this game and the taking the shit out of people not happy that this is like just a small portion of the whole game have a valid point.

It's like bitching at people that watch Naruto all 700 episode that don't like the fillers and want to skip em...nothing wrong with it and there's nothing wrong with letting others, that don't like fillers, know which ones to skip not to lose out on anything important.

Herithius

Remaking a classic rpg and milking it into 4-5 titles is unprecedented and not to be commended. So we're supposed to cheer and clap for having to spend $60 x 4 or more to play a remake? We're suppose to believe they couldn't do it in 2 titles?

Also 40-45h for an RPG is pretty short.

Would anyone applaud a Witcher, Skyrim or other title that is 40h?

lahnmir

Herithius said:

Remaking a classic rpg and milking it into 4-5 titles is unprecedented and not to be commended. So we're supposed to cheer and clap for having to spend $60 x 4 or more to play a remake? We're suppose to believe they couldn't do it in 2 titles?

Also 40-45h for an RPG is pretty short.

Would anyone applaud a Witcher, Skyrim or other title that is 40h?

Well, they are totally different games within the RPG genre. I don’t see length of a game as a good or bad quality either. I’ve played amazing 6 hour games and horrible 80+ hour games.

What I do know is that the longer the game, the bigger the chance of pacing issues and filler. The best in the genre avoid this, games like Persona 5 and Dragon Quest XI. But many fall in the trap of more is less. I wouldn’t say Witcher and Skyrim, but I would point at every Ubisoft open world game with the exception of TD2 and AC Odyssey.

/Cheers,
Lahnmir

cameltosis

The original Final Fantasy 7 remains one of my favourite games of all time and I still play through it roughly once a year.

I'm still really sceptical about the remake.

I loved the original combat mechanics (combined with materia system), so any changes have me worried. Moving the combat towards action combat almost definitely means a reduction in depth, and therefore a reduction in my enjoyment and replayability.

But more than that.....in the original FF7, 99% of your time was spent playing the game, as opposed to watching cutscenes or reading dialogue. Square Enix changed direction at the end of the 90s and started replacing gameplay with story. By the time we got to FF10, nearly 50% of my time was spent not playing the game! WTF!! What a fucking waste of my time.

So, I greatly fear the same for the remake. Of those 40+ hours of "playing" the remake, how much is actually playing the game, and how much is just watching the story?

alkarionlog

cameltosis said:

The original Final Fantasy 7 remains one of my favourite games of all time and I still play through it roughly once a year.

I'm still really sceptical about the remake.

I loved the original combat mechanics (combined with materia system), so any changes have me worried. Moving the combat towards action combat almost definitely means a reduction in depth, and therefore a reduction in my enjoyment and replayability.

But more than that.....in the original FF7, 99% of your time was spent playing the game, as opposed to watching cutscenes or reading dialogue. Square Enix changed direction at the end of the 90s and started replacing gameplay with story. By the time we got to FF10, nearly 50% of my time was spent not playing the game! WTF!! What a fucking waste of my time.

So, I greatly fear the same for the remake. Of those 40+ hours of "playing" the remake, how much is actually playing the game, and how much is just watching the story?

also knowing the ending already kinda make me want to really not rush to play it, its not like its a new thing

Aeander

whoy said:

Sadly it wasn't a Remake, not when Nomura changed the core story, entirely.
At this point, Aerith might actually survive in this remake.

Theocritus said:

FF7 was by far the best of the series and I thought both MMOs (FFXI and FFXIV) were just awful.

FF11 and FF14 both are good by MMO standard.
You don't compare SP games with MMOs.

So, essentially you're saying that MMO standards are lower than singleplayer ones. Aka, MMOs are worse than singeplayer games.

I agree with that statement, mind you, but it's certainly not a good excuse for the quality of the MMOs.