FF:Crystal Chronicles and Metroid ZM

[Pug Fugly]

OK, let's look at this from a feature perspective:

Without the GBA screen, how would you give one player, and one player only, a map?

Without the GBA screen, how would you give each player individual, private objectives for each level?

It's things like this that make the game unique, and totally reliant on the GBA link in multi-player. Sure, they could have scrapped the individual player objectives but they didn't want to - they wanted to build a game in this way. They weren't even trying to make it function any other way.

Look, I fully agree that the game wouldn't be quite as good if it used joypads. That is obvious, and I never denied it to be the case. The 4 GBAs version sounds like a riot.

But why isn't there a cut down version with a few odds n ends removed for the joypad brigade? I don't believe for one second that losing the few GBA reliant features would render the game worthless.

We don't live in an all or nothing world. A Mini One isn't considered useless because of the release of the Mini Cooper is it?

[Sprite Machine]

Look, I fully agree that the game wouldn't be quite as good if it used joypads. That is obvious, and I never denied it to be the case. The 4 GBAs version sounds like a riot.

But why isn't there a cut down version with a few odds n ends removed for the joypad brigade?

So you want Square to release another game that isn't Crystal Chronicals, so that you can play Crystal Chronicals? How does that work, exactly?

[Apollo]

Do you only own a Gamecube, Pug?

[Pug Fugly]

You NEED each player to have information available to them that the other players cannot see. This a fundamental principle of the game.

I'll tell you why I don't believe that.

The fundamental principle of the game is to have an adventure, preferably with friends. You'll fight monsters, find treasure, do general adventuring things. This is the core of the gmame.

That is the fundamental principle of the game, and it sounds like a great game.

Having information only visible to one player isn't a fundamental principle. It is just a neat little idea to stimulate conversation and increase enjoyment. What I've said, and you have consistently ignored, is that games will stimulate conversation purely because they are co-op.

Having to ask somebody about a map rather than look at it on the screen is just a detail as far as I'm concerned. I know it wouldn't be as good, but it certainly wouldn't be crap.

I think you're concentrating too much on the innovative extras - you don't seem to think that the core game is good enough to stand up by itself. If that's the case then just say so.

Personally, I reckon if I could play a shiney version of Gauntlet with 3 friends, it would be excellent, with or without our own little screens.

[Pug Fugly]

So you want Square to release another game that isn't Crystal Chronicals, so that you can play Crystal Chronicals? How does that work, exactly?

Not another version, just a game with options.

[Sprite Machine]

Having information only visible to one player isn't a fundamental principle. It is just a neat little idea to stimulate conversation and increase enjoyment.

Incorrect.

And it seems that your inability to understand this is the cause of your problem.

Personally, I reckon if I could play a shiney version of Gauntlet with 3 friends, it would be excellent, with or without our own little screens.

Crystal Chronicles isn't Gauntlet.

[Pug Fugly]

Do you only own a Gamecube, Pug?

No, I have all 3 plus 1 GBA.

The thing that really frustrates me is that 4 player co-op is a fantastic experience, but there are very few examples around - especially good ones. It even gets my wife gaming which is a good thing.

Now, as far as I can see, FF:CC sounds like good enough a game without the GBA functionality. Plus, as it's a Nintendo/Squaresoft collaberation, it will inevitably be of a very high quality. Throw in the Final Fantasy, and you have a very attractive sounding game.

I know that the GBA functionality adds new dimensions, but surely the option to play a slightly cut down version benefits everybody? Surely excluding large sections of the audience from what is effectively a mainsteam title is a little short sighted? At the very least, without the GBA functionality, we'd have nothing more than a really well made Gauntlet clone. I don't know about you, but I'd absolutely *love* a well made Gauntlet clone set in the FF universe.

[rgraves]

Not another version, just a game with options.

I'd suggest that what you actually appear to want, is a game with the guts ripped out of it.

I ask again:

Without the GBA screen, how would you give one player, and one player only, a map?

Without the GBA screen, how would you give each player individual, private objectives for each level?

These are not 'little add ons' - they are key/core/significant gameplay elements. Without them you would have an average game, and they didn't want to work on an average multiplayer game. They had their sights set above that.

[Hawkeye]

I'd suggest that what you actually appear to want, is a game with the guts ripped out of it.

I ask again:

Without the GBA screen, how would you give one player, and one player only, a map?

Without the GBA screen, how would you give each player individual, private objectives for each level?

These are not 'little add ons' - they are key/core/significant gameplay elements. Without them you would have an average game, and they didn't want to work on an average multiplayer game. They had their sights set above that.

It sounds like he just wants Guantlet 2004, which he probably picked up on from the comparisons some reviewers have made in an attempt to tell their readers what the game is like.

[Sprite Machine]

Now, as far as I can see, FF:CC sounds like good enough a game without the GBA functionality.

It wouldn't be.

It'd be like playing Battleships with all the squares visible.

[Pug Fugly]

Without the GBA screen, how would you give one player, and one player only, a map?

You wouldn't, you'd share an onscreen map. Suddenly the game is crap? I can't think for a minute why.

Without the GBA screen, how would you give each player individual, private objectives for each level?

You wouldn't. Either they don't get them, or everybody sees them. Suddenly the game is crap? No.

Just to make it clear - I don't advocate that these features are removed, I just reckon it would be cool if it could be played with joypads albeit with a slight compromise on a few aspects.

These are not 'little add ons' - they are key/core/significant gameplay elements. Without them you would have an average game, and they didn't want to work on an average multiplayer game. They had their sights set above that.

I don't think for a second they are core/key gameplay elements. I don't think the game would be merely average without them. It would still be a great game, I'm sure. I don't for a second believe the guts would be ripped out - just a few features would be unavailable.

[Pug Fugly]

It wouldn't be.

It'd be like playing Battleships with all the squares visible.

No it wouldn't. Knowing where the other player's ships are would completely ruin the game, and render it poinless. Not knowing where the ships are is the *entire point*

Being able to look at the map in an RPG game does nothing of the sort. Suddenly, are all multiplayer games where you can share a map automatically average because of the invention of Final Fantasty:CC?

Now, you're gonna have to come up with far better analogies than that.

(Plus, I'm gonna have to learn how to quote properly )

[rgraves]

I don't think for a second they are core/key gameplay elements.

That's because you haven't played it. Seriously, you need to play the game - I think it will really clear a few things up for you.

[Pug Fugly]

That's because you haven't played it. Seriously, you need to play the game - I think it will really clear a few things up for you.

Okay.

But the point is, I won't ever play it

If you genuinely think that without these extra features, the game is not worth playing, then I can't argue with that. I happen to think it would - but then again neither of us will ever know for sure.

In truth, I can see myself buying a cheap GBA so that my wife and I can play it. If she ever sees it on the shelf and learns what it's like, there's no way I will be able to not buy it!!!

Damn you Nintendo you win again......

[dr_lha]

I refer the honorable gentlemen of this thread to the post I made some pages ago:

I can't believe people are still pissed off about the GBA thing, its not like they haven't said that this will be how the game works for the last 12 months. Then it came out in Japan needing GBAs and people were saying "maybe they'll fix that for the US release", which of course they didn't. Now we have people hoping it'll be fixed before it's released in Europe. NEWSFLASH: You need GBAs to play this game multiplayer in Europe too.

Learn to live with it, if you don't have mates with GBAs or at least 2 GBAs don't bother playing this game, and stop coming here moaning about the GBA requirements because after 12 months of listening to it I'm sick and tired of it.

[Sprite Machine]

Being able to look at the map in an RPG game does nothing of the sort.  Suddenly, are all multiplayer games where you can share a map automatically average because of the invention of Final Fantasty:CC?

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, CRYSTAL CHRONICLES IS NOT ANY OF THOSE GAMES!!! IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GAME THAT DOES REQUIRE YOU TO USE THE MAP IN THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WORKS!!!!!!

[Pug Fugly]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, CRYSTAL CHRONICLES IS NOT ANY OF THOSE GAMES!!! IT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GAME THAT DOES REQUIRE YOU TO USE THE MAP IN THAT WAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WORKS!!!!!!

You really are a narrow minded arrogant fool. Honestly, get your head out of your arse. The thing, is you haven't even bothered to explain why. You just use capitals and italics and get arsey, as if that means anything. If you want to tell me why the game would be crap if players could share a map, then please tell me and I'll consider what you have to say. Or you could do what you usually do, just repeat what you said the last 13 times in a larger font. I'm interested in details and reasoning.

You really don't have the imagination to see how the game could still work without this element?

You really believe that change any one element in the game and it's suddenly worthless? Do you really believe that?

I'm not saying that it would be *the same* or *just as good*, but I'm saying it would still be a worthwhile experience. I don't know about anybody else, but I thought the game sounded good even before the GBA bombshell.

My basic point is that there would still be a game worth playing, even without these GBA elements. I've attempted to tell you why. If you don't agree then tell me why, rather than being a loser about it.

Because at the end of the day, we'll never play a joypad version, so nobody can be right about this. That's what opinions are all about you see.

As a separate issue, does the packaging make it quite clear you need at least 2 players and 2 GBAs for the game to be worth playing?

[blue swIIrl]

All quotes: Pug Fugly

You really are a narrow minded arrogant fool.  Honestly, get your head out of your arse.  The thing, is you haven't even bothered to explain why.  You just use capitals and italics and get arsey, as if that means anything.

And you're an insulting little shit*. We have explained to you again and again and again. All we get back from you is insults and calls for explanations. How many explanations do you want?

I have never met anyone on this forum as annoying and close minded as you. And thats saying alot.

You really believe that change any one element in the game and it's suddenly worthless?  Do you really believe that?

Not worthless, but we already have Gauntlet. The GBA part of FFCC is something fundamental to the game. If you can't see that after you've had around 5 people explain it to you for 7 pages, then I feel sorry for you.

I'm not saying that it would be *the same* or *just as good*, but I'm saying it would still be a worthwhile experience.  I don't know about anybody else, but I thought the game sounded good even before the GBA bombshell.

Fair enough, your opinion. But please wait until you've actually played the game before arguing an opinion like this for aslong as you have

My basic point is that there would still be a game worth playing, even without these GBA elements.  I've attempted to tell you why.  If you don't agree then tell me why, rather than being a loser about it.

Also, fair enough, apart from the loser comment. If thats what you believe, thats cool. But again, you haven't played this game. So you can't really argue this in anyway.

Because at the end of the day, we'll never play a joypad version, so nobody can be right about this.

As I said in a previous post, I can, using what intellect I have been granted, work out that playing this game with pads would lose the aspect that makes this thing great, whether it be the communication, the personal info, or just something that we can't describe.

As a separate issue, does the packaging make it quite clear you need at least 2 players and 2 GBAs for the game to be worth playing?

Yes.

*This is, as far as I can remember, the first time someone on this forum has driven me to such frustration that I felt the need to insult them. Isn't that a good portent for the future?

[HoneyMonster]

Has anyone got a despatch notification from DVDBO yet?

[Sprite Machine]

If you want to tell me why the game would be crap if players could share a map, then please tell me and I'll consider what you have to say.

What, again? Okay:

If players share a map, then there would be no need for the communicative aspect of the game. This game RELIES on players having secret knowledge so that they HAVE to share it verbally.

Without it, the game loses the point. Without it, there is no point to the game other than hacking stuff up. Without it, the game is almost totally worthless.

Is this clear?

You really don't have the imagination to see how the game could still work without this element?

Yes, I do. As I have said already it would be like playing Battleships with all the squares visible.

I've no doubt that some people would actually like to play Battleships with all the squares visible and I can quite easily imagine what that would be like - pointless.

FF:CC without communicative aspect = Battleships with visible sqaures.

I can't possibly make that ANY clearer I'm afraid.

--------------------------------------------------

Has anyone got a despatch notification from DVDBO yet?

Metroid ZM has been dispatched!!!! Yay!!!!

[Takizawa]

These are not 'little add ons' - they are key/core/significant gameplay elements. Without them you would have an average game, and they didn't want to work on an average multiplayer game.

Sounds like the single player, which is tremendous in its own right, not average.

[Pug Fugly]

Sounds like the single player, which is tremendous in its own right, not average.

So if the game is tremendous in its own right as a 1 player game (which as far as I understand doesn't rely on any extra GBA functionality), then it follows that a joypad based 4 player version would be at worst, 'tremendous'?

Sounds sensible to me.

[Sprite Machine]

So if the game is tremendous in its own right as a 1 player game (which as far as I understand doesn't rely on any extra GBA functionality), then it follows that a joypad based 4 player version would be at worst, 'tremendous'?

Sounds sensible to me.

The single-payer game doesn't work like the multiplayer game.

Oh, sure, they could release the game with an option in there called "defeating the point" which lets you run around hacking things with reckless abandon and no teamwork, but... well, I despair! You'd buy it, wouldn't you. And then complain that Gauntlet was better.

[Pug Fugly]

What, again? Okay:

If players share a map, then there would be no need for the communicative aspect of the game. This game RELIES on players having secret knowledge so that they HAVE to share it verbally.

Without it, the game loses the point. Without it, there is no point to the game other than hacking stuff up. Without it, the game is almost totally worthless.

Is this clear?

Yes, I do. As I have said already it would be like playing Battleships with all the squares visible.

I've no doubt that some people would actually like to play Battleships with all the squares visible and I can quite easily imagine what that would be like - pointless.

FF:CC without communicative aspect = Battleships with visible sqaures.

I can't possibly make that ANY clearer I'm afraid.

--------------------------------------------------

Metroid ZM has been dispatched!!!! Yay!!!!

Okay, so you say the game relies on secret knowledge so that they have to share it verbally.

Sounds good.

I've already given you 3 examples of games that don't have secret information, but simulate communication. Yes, I know that they aren't the same game but they do share a similarity that is crticial to this I believe.

In all of those games I mentioned, 4 players play together to acheive a particular goal. I'm sure you can't deny that - even though Desert Storm & Chrystal Chronicles are very dissimilar games, that element is the same - communicate to succeed. Maybe you can deny that - fair enough, if you can I'd like to know why.

In all other 4 player co-op games I've played, even Gauntlet Dark Legacy which demands the minimum of tactical discussion, players communicate a lot - having a laugh, having a dig, discussing approaches to particular sections of the game, etc..

What I'm saying is, secret information isn't necessary to promote communication. 4 friends battling to a common goal will do that anyway. In my experience, play a game with friends and communication will become a vital key to success.

It appears that what you're saying is, with a shared map on the screen there is no need to communicate. I don't agree, because I've played other games (that aren't the same, but share a common goal) that demand communication from all the players.

Basically what I'm saying is that co-operative games, by their very nature, promote communication - it doesn't have to be forced by hiding information from players.

Also - if the basis of the game is 'just hacking stuff up' as you say, how the hell does having to ask player 3 where to go next improve it to some wonderful gaming experience? This is what I don't get. An apparently 'average' 4 player co-op game, which is only made good by including features to stimulate things that a 4 player co-op game would stimulate anyway.

As for Blue SwIIrl - the reason you are getting frustrated is that you don't appear to understand my points.

You keep saying you've explained it over and over, and I've cited examples of other 4 player co-op games (some good, some bad) that promote communication without the need for hidden information. And as I've already said - I know CC isn't Gauntlet, but 4 players co-operating to achieve a common goal (with the odd bit of mischief thrown in) is core to both games.

And I apologise for the insults - they have been uncalled for I agree.

[Pug Fugly]

The single-payer game doesn't work like the multiplayer game.

Oh, sure, they could release the game with an option in there called "defeating the point" which lets you run around hacking things with reckless abandon and no teamwork, but... well, I despair! You'd buy it, wouldn't you. And then complain that Gauntlet was better.

What I'm saying is - other games that don't hide the information still require team work. I haven't played a co-op game yet that doesn't require teamwork and discussion - even Gauntlet which is as simple a 4 player co-op game as you could wish to play.

This is the point you're failing to understand/acknowledge I've made/whatever.

4 player co-op games, by their very nature, demand communication. If you don't agree with that, then I'd like to know which 4 player co-op games you've sat in silence through.

[Sprite Machine]

4 player co-op games, by their very nature, demand communication.

No they don't 'demand' anything. Communicating may help you, however, but it isn't an essential part of most 'co-op' experiences.

In Crystal Chronicles it is an essential part of the experience. The information holders are the guide to success, rather than all information being available to all. No-one knows everything, but all know something - that's the point. It's like having your own character, your own stats, your own little management system - well, pretty much your own game - in the palm of your hand, but still being part of a bigger adventure. In fact, Crystal Chronicals isn't so much a game itself as it is a conduit for 4 games to be played at once (or 2 or 3) through the same world.

The GBAs are the only way this can be achieved.

[Apollo]

What I'm saying is - other games that don't hide the information still require team work. I haven't played a co-op game yet that doesn't require teamwork and discussion - even Gauntlet which is as simple a 4 player co-op game as you could wish to play.

This is the point you're failing to understand/acknowledge I've made/whatever.

But what you are describing would require a lot of extra development work, wouldn't it?

To use the earlier analogy (of course, slightly flawed as all analogies are) GTA could have an extra option to make the game suitable for 5 year olds. It doens't, but nobody minds.

[Pug Fugly]

No they don't 'demand' anything. Communicating may help you, however, but it isn't an essential part of most 'co-op' experiences.

In Crystal Chronicles it is an essential part of the experience. The information holders are the guide to success, rather than all information being available to all. No-one knows everything, but all know something - that's the point. It's like having your own character, your own stats, your own little management system - well, pretty much your own game - in the palm of your hand, but still being part of a bigger adventure. In fact, Crystal Chronicals isn't so much a game itself as it is a conduit for 4 games to be played at once (or 2 or 3) through the same world.

The GBAs are the only way this can be achieved.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere!

Yes, I agree fully - the experience you describe is only possible with the GBAs. I don't deny that for a single second.

Plus, when you say that 4 player co-op games don't require communication - I think you're missing the point a little. Actually, I think it is necessary. In Gauntlet you will continually discuss who needs the food most, which way to go, who should take on which batch of monsters etc, along with the usual digs for people stealing all the treasure and food and the like. I know that everybody knows the goal, and can see the information - but the 'why' and the 'how' demand co-operation hence communication.

And with a game like Desert Storm - each character has different abilities / weapons etc. (much like CC I suspect?), and a real tactical approach is required to win levels. Hence communication is required, essential in fact.

I appreciate fully what you are saying with regard to the CC experience - it is only possible with the GBAs (GBA SPs recommended?).

Where we differ, is on the game that would be left were the GBA features removed (or optional). You see a mindless hack n' slack - fair enough. All I'm saying is that 4 player co-op hack n slash games are good (even Hunter & Gauntlet, which really are quite poor, are supremely enjoyable with 3 friends). Look at the Baldur's Gate console games for example. 2 player co-op is a scream, and it is little more than a hack n' slash. CC, even before you consider the GBA functionality, already sounds more interesting than Baldur's Gate.

But also, I can't help thinking - based on what you're saying - that the initial idea was "lets make a game where each player has secret information, it would be great to stimulate communication". As for the game - oh, just a basic hack 'em up will do, and set it in the Final Fantasty universe to gather some interest. Is this how it happened?

[Sprite Machine]

To use the earlier analogy (of course, slightly flawed as all analogies are) GTA could have an extra option to make the game suitable for 5 year olds. It doens't, but nobody minds.

'Cept for 5 year olds.

And of course, it would be equally possible to make a Battleships game where both players see the same screen, but there isn't one.

Actually, I reckon some sort of Battleships game would be really cool for GC/GBA link up play. Or maybe even an Advance Wars multiplayer thing with Fog Of War enabled!!! Oh wow! And of course, that's be the only way you could get it to work... you could even have a co-op feature where you have to communicate with your ally... perhaps via the GBA!! Oh my!! B)

[Sprite Machine]

Plus, when you say that 4 player co-op games don't require communication - I think you're missing the point a little.  Actually, I think it is necessary.  In Gauntlet you will continually discuss who needs the food most, which way to go, who should take on which batch of monsters etc, along with the usual digs for people stealing all the treasure and food and the like.

Yes, but you don't have to talk, because the information is on the screen already, anyone else can already see full well what health you have, what items you need, etc, etc.

Do you not see the difference?

Where we differ, is on the game that would be left were the GBA features removed (or optional).  You see a mindless hack n' slack - fair enough.  All I'm saying is that 4 player co-op hack n slash games are good (even Hunter & Gauntlet, which really are quite poor, are supremely enjoyable with 3 friends).

Oh I know they can be great! But they work differently to CC which is a communicative game.

You're wanting something which it isn't. However, maybe it could feature a dumb-down mode as well, but then, it wouldn't be Crystal Chronicles; it'd just be a (possibly quite fun) Gauntlet type game, so you'd end up still not 'getting to play' CC anyway, so what'd be the point? You just want a fun co-op game. There are loads to choose from that'd meet your requirements, I reckon you should just stick to those.