SquareEnix

[Apollo]

Nope. I just say it as I see it.

M'kay?

I'd say it would be just better to bow out of the thread if you feel that way rather than posting something that can only negatively affect the thread.

Personally I'd ban anyone who posts things such as "you're a Ninty boy" "you're just saying that because you hate Nintendo/Sony" etc.

(except myself, of course).

[rjpageuk]

Yet more invalid examples.

We're not asking for FFCC not to exist, or to be diluted or any such thing. Just an option for those of us who don't have enough GBAs to play it.

Then, all of you who have the GBAs can play it as it is intended, the rest of us can play a slightly inferior version.

Why are they invalid examples?

They all do exactly the same as FF:CC - you either play the game the way it is intended or not at all.

None of the examples have a "diluted" version for those people without the necessary equipment.

[Hawkeye]

Hang on have you actually played FF X-2?

Im guessing not, otherwise you`d realise how different from the others it actually is.

I've played it a bit, and I'd hardly call it a radical departure for the series. More of a slight evolution.

Plus I'm willing to bet it'll have the same folk moaning about it that moaned about FFX, can't please everyone sadly.

[___]

Haven't we been here before?

Repeatedly.

And it always takes a while for people to stop moaning in a way which suggests that they think you can't play it without a GBA at all.

[squirtle]

Anyway, can't see what the fuss is all over. Edge only gave it a 6 so it can't be that good anyway.

[Xevious]

Anyway, can't see what the fuss is all over. Edge only gave it a 6 so it can't be that good anyway.

Yes, but Edge probably only played it single-player, since they have no friends.

(winky smiley for those who are dim)

[Systemshock]

The comparison with Tekki is a good one - a game that simply wouldn't have worked without the controller.

Tekki = single player game with one (huge) controller needed

FF:CC = multiplayer with several GBA (preferably SP) controllers required, several GBA to GC connectors and most everyone willing to play through the game together

[a big boy]

personally, i think it's comparable to a band deciding they want to deviate from their usual style and experiment a bit. sure, it may alienate members of their usual audience, but they're being creative, doing what they want to do and if they pull it off they'll have thousands of adoring fans that appreciate what they've done.

the squarenix designers were set to work on a platform that's new to them, looked at what doors this new technology would open for them and, as artists, made the creative (if financially risky) decision to create the game that they have. and, i might add, surpassed their sales projections in doing so.

this is why everyone complaining that this game is inaccessible for them are missing the point. and they'll be back with Ok Computer X-2 later on in the year, so why complain?

[Sprite Machine]

But by taking out the GBA support, you *are* diluting it, and you *are* changing the game to something else. It'd be a different game. Why not just go and buy a different game, and leave those who can play it to buy this one?

I think he means just having an extra 'option' within the game to play it without GBA screens. It'd probably be very horrible like that, and simplified, and, well, not really worth while. Although it wouldn't affect the game for those that do set it up to play properly, so would it matter?

[Apollo]

Anyway, can't see what the fuss is all over. Edge only gave it a 6 so it can't be that good anyway.

Yes but they're anti-Nintendo, anti-Square, MS fanboys...

[Sprite Machine]

Tekki = single player game with one (huge) controller needed

FF:CC = multiplayer with several GBA (preferably SP) controllers required, several GBA to GC connectors and most everyone willing to play through the game together

The only real difference there is a slight price difference and the requirement of friends.

It's still a requirement though. Whether it's limited by funds or friends doesn't really matter; the point is, if you can't play it, don't expect it to bend to your needs.

Is it really so hard to just 'let it go'?

[CurryKitten]

Has anyone actually played it in single player AND in multiplayer with the appropriate number of GBA owning friends - just so we can have a decent idea of how crap/not crap single player is.

To be honest, just about everygame that has a multi player co-op mode is oodles of more fun than single play, so it's hardly a big surprise that multi is better in this game.

But fuck me, it's like it's the end of the world or something reading through this lot, it's a shame if the best mode needs 4 players and not many of us will do that, but if the game was absolutely outragously good, we'd all find a way to play it like that.

Can someone here review-me-up who has played both modes please.

[rgraves]

Tekki = single player game with one (huge) controller needed

FF:CC = multiplayer with several GBA (preferably SP) controllers required, several GBA to GC connectors and most everyone willing to play through the game together

Tekki = single game with one huge controller that is good for nothing else (apart from a soon to be released broadband-only online-only sequel)

FF:CC = game that makes use of hardware which many people might already have, and will certainly be able to use for many other great games as well.

PS Before anybody starts, I love Tekki and can't wait to play it online.

[Venice Cull]

I got a right fucking kicking on here last year for mentioning this.

I was a lone voice in a sea of hatred. How things have changed.

Anyway, to answer the main question, I'm sure Square did it under instruction from Nintendo. Probably 'sweetner's were passed around so that any limiting of the market share would have been compensated for.

FF was a very important title for Nintendo's GC/GBA connectivity strategy. Hence it's existance.

That aside, won't most die hard 'traditional FF' players already have PS2's and all those versions to play anyway?

[Systemshock]

May be SquareEnix are thinking ahead of the game here. With the PSP (and PS3) perhaps that too will be useable as an alternate controller. Perherhaps the DS will also act as a GC controller. Think of all the consoles and handheld combinations that new games could be dreamt up for in the future

[Pug Fugly]

I think he means just having an extra 'option' within the game to play it without GBA screens. It'd probably be very horrible like that, and simplified, and, well, not really worth while. Although it wouldn't affect the game for those that do set it up to play properly, so would it matter?

That's precisely it.

Although your prediction that it would be 'horrible' is just opinion. I've given plenty of reasons as to why it would still be fun, all you seem to be able to say is "It's different so it must be crap". Ad infinitum.

[Sprite Machine]

That's precisely it.

Although your prediction that it would be 'horrible' is just opinion. I've given plenty of reasons as to why it would still be fun, all you seem to be able to say is "It's different so it must be crap". Ad infinitum.

No, not "it's different so it must be crap", but rather "it removes a crucial element of the already-existing-game, so wouldn't have much to fall back on".

Unlike, say, a game that wasn't built around communication that would obviously be quite enjoyable without it because that's how it was designed, this isn't, so wouldn't. It's not just a case of it being a simple co-op game with GBA stuff 'tacked-on', it has literally been built from the ground up to accomodate this. If you were to take all that stuff out, it'd fall flat on its face!

But hey, if you reeeeeeally wanted to option to do that, I'd have no complaints.

[Systemshock]

Without trying especially hard, a possible normal controller format for FF:CC - here we are four multigamers - we all have to press Z at the same time to go into up to four partitioned menu screens. Bloody hell that took some thinking up!

I appreciate that they built special mapping options into the GBA screens but certain characters being able to do/see different things doesn't necessarily need seperate screens.

SquareEnix obviously bought into (or were 'bought' into) Nintendo's 'connectivity' dream!

[Pug Fugly]

No, not "it's different so it must be crap", but rather "it removes a crucial element of the already-existing-game, so wouldn't have much to fall back on".

Unlike, say, a game that wasn't built around communication that would obviously be quite enjoyable without it because that's how it was designed, this isn't, so wouldn't. It's not just a case of it being a simple co-op game with GBA stuff 'tacked-on', it has literally been built from the ground up to accomodate this. If you were to take all that stuff out, it'd fall flat on its face!

But hey, if you reeeeeeally wanted to option to do that, I'd have no complaints.

That's exactly the option I want. You appear to have plenty of complaints, you (and others like you) appear to explicitly not want that option their, even though it has no impact on your enjoyment.

This game isn't a million miles away from Baldur's Gate is it? It's very similar - RPG elements, hacking up monsters etc.. It's been described as 'Gauntlet like' more than once. It even sounds like it. I don't think comparing it to Baldur's Gate is exactly a chalk and cheese scenario is it?

So, take the fancy GBA elements out of FF:CC and you're left with a 4-player FF take on Baldur's Gate.

4 player Baldur's Gate based in the FF universe? I'm sold. It would be excellent.

[Sprite Machine]

Without trying especially hard, a possible normal controller format for FF:CC - here we are four multigamers - we all have to press Z at the same time to go into up to four partitioned menu screens. Bloody hell that took some thinking up!

Wouldn't work.

[___]

Without trying especially hard, a possible normal controller format for FF:CC - here we are four multigamers - we all have to press Z at the same time to go into up to four partitioned menu screens. Bloody hell that took some thinking up!

That would be because it's a terrible idea.

[Sprite Machine]

This game isn't a million miles away from Baldur's Gate is it? It's very similar - RPG elements, hacking up monsters etc.. It's been described as 'Gauntlet like' more than once. It even sounds like it. I don't think comparing it to Baldur's Gate is exactly a chalk and cheese scenario is it?

So, take the fancy GBA elements out of FF:CC and you're left with a 4-player FF take on Baldur's Gate.

4 player Baldur's Gate based in the FF universe? I'm sold. It would be excellent.

No.

You've been misled. Sorry.

[Phlebas]

I'm still waiting for my copy of this game, but I think I can see where all the people defending the connectivity thing are coming from. It doesn't seem to be just a gameplay element, but also the gaming environment that having the gba's with the various info on them produces. Without the gbas yes it would still be possible to keep the game they way it is. You could still play it, and yes you don't need to have a seperate map for one player, but then the camrederie the game generates as it is with the connectivity would be lost. Everybod compares this to BG:DA or even Gauntlet, but really, what do you talk about while playing this? Doesn't it just revolve around collect this or help me hit this or cast this? I played BG:DA in all it's modes and lots of similar games to this, and the problem is that is all the communication involves. Fair play to Square for trying to make players have more to talk/scream about while playing. The experience changes. Having to ask someone for a map or a player hiding the fact that of what his secret mission for that level is. It changes it. Yes they could have done without the gbas technically, but it would have not been the same game they designed, after all this is what the connectivity thing seems to be about, making players have more to do within a multiplayer context.

Phew!

[Sprite Machine]

Without the gbas yes it would still be possible to keep the game they way it is.

No, you couldn't. That's the problem.

You could replicate it, using the onscreen-space and having it pause every time you do something on your screen time, but it'd be terrible, and you'd lose the co-op/competetiveness of it all, because everyone will automatically know what the other players know - totally altering the game, in other words.

Like Battleships... but with all the squares visible!!!!

Each player has a different display on their Game Boy screen, determined randomly (and switching each time the party enters a new area) - a level map, an enemies radar, a treasure radar, and an enemy-stats display. Since the television screen only shows a little bit of the level at a time, the maps become necessary for navigation, which means that all four players have to constantly check their maps. When enemies pop up, the player with their stats at hand needs to check for weaknesses and hit points. Since each player only has a tiny bit of the total picture, this encourages constant communication. One piece of information on each player's screen that they might not be willing to share with the group is their own bonus condition for the current dungeon. This can be a certain task (deal out a lot of physical damage), something to avoid (don't get hit with magic), or something silly (do get hit with magic). The player who fills his bonus requirements best gets first pick at the artefacts that are found throughout the dungeon. These artefacts are the only way your characters can level up, so they are quite valuable, and having first crack at them is nice. And thus an element of competition is added to this mostly co-operative game.

\m/ B) \m/

[hub2]

Wouldn't work.

No it wouldn't...

How about an inventory you can scroll through using the c-stick... i'm imagining each item has a visual representation and you can see two slots in either direction, to make it easier like can be group with like. One click on the z-bitton brings up one type, two/three another... leave it more than 5 seconds and the visual disappears. ???

[Sprite Machine]

No it wouldn't...

How about an inventory you can scroll through using the c-stick... i'm imagining each item has a visual representation and you can see two slots in either direction, to make it easier like can be group with like. One click on the z-bitton brings up one type, two/three another... leave it more than 5 seconds and the visual disappears. ???

A bit like Pokemon Stadium, you mean?

All well and good for choosing between a select few items, but we're talking about there being actual information on screen that only one person is meant to know, enemy statistcs, rules and objectives, hidden items, map screens, etc., and then they decide whether to tell the other players this in order to help them work together, or whether to keep all the info for themselves and reap the rewards.

It just.... couldn't work any other way.

[hub2]

Maybe along with the inventory system I outlined they could have controller vibration taking the place of the maps.

Get closer to treasure more vibration on controller 1, enemy about to launch magic attack vibration on controller 2 etc etc.

[Xevious]

Has anyone actually played it in single player AND in multiplayer with the appropriate number of GBA owning friends - just so we can have a decent idea of how crap/not crap single player is.

But fuck me, it's like it's the end of the world or something reading through this lot, it's a shame if the best mode needs 4 players and not many of us will do that, but if the game was absolutely outragously good, we'd all find a way to play it like that.

Can someone here review-me-up who has played both modes please.

I have played single-player, two-player and four-player, all for about twenty minutes each.

Single player was OK, but not amazing. Two-player was great. Four-player was magic.

And the GBAs are necessary.

[Xevious]

Without trying especially hard, a possible normal controller format for FF:CC - here we are four multigamers - we all have to press Z at the same time to go into up to four partitioned menu screens. Bloody hell that took some thinking up!

What about when one person needs to go into their menu screen, but the other three have to stay fighting the enemy and keep him away from the player manipulating the menu?

Are you just going to cover up quarter of the screen, thus ruining it for the others?

[Xevious]

Maybe along with the inventory system I outlined they could have controller vibration taking the place of the maps.

Get closer to treasure more vibration on controller 1, enemy about to launch magic attack vibration on controller 2 etc etc.

But then you're excluding anyone who only owns Wavebirds!

And how's it going to give all the stats that need to be seen? Five shakes for 5 HP?