Final Fantasy XIII PS3

[IMJ]

I saw some great video of this game at a buddy's place recently and was really impressed. There's some info on it at Gamespot here:

Final Fantasy XIII Looks Amazing!

What I've been reading about this game inspired me to play some of the old Square Soft discs I've got (and subsequently put some of the more sought after demos on the bay here).

Going back to them, they are great games but I just don't have the time anymore to invest 15+ hours into an RPG of any kind. Even when the game looks as incredible as the new FFXIII.

Any of you guys hangin' in there with these games?

[slym2none]

If it's PS3, I don't hang.





-slym

[superman-prime]

Ya finding the time is by far the problem now a days

[ian_house]

I'm currently playing FFIV on the DS and although it's an absolutely brilliant game, I too, am finding it increasingly difficult to find the odd hour to batter some monsters, get through a dungeon or save a princess.

[Daniel Jackson]

Looks very cool.

[xodacia81]

I'm currently playing FFIV on the DS and although it's an absolutely brilliant game, I too, am finding it increasingly difficult to find the odd hour to batter some monsters, get through a dungeon or save a princess.

There is something off putting about it, true. The DS version is great. But as much as the rest of the game is improved over what it used to be-and it has always been great-they slowed down the tempo of the actual play and made it WAY harder than it has to be. Thus, for me, the DS version of 4 is not as re-playable. However, Final Fantasy 6-known in the States on the SNES as 3, but on the GBA as FF6 Advance-is, to me, the best FF game NOT found on the PS2.

[xodacia81]

If it's PS3, I don't hang.





-slym

I've heard there is a version coming to the XBOX360.

[IMJ]

I'm actually more of a fan of the both the Legend of Legaia and Parasite Eve games more than Final Fantasy.

There's no denying that the FF series are generally top of the line RPG's though.

[xodacia81]

I'm actually more of a fan of the both the Legend of Legaia and Parasite Eve games more than Final Fantasy.

There's no denying that the FF series are generally top of the line RPG's though.

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

[depluto]

I think Western RPGs keep getting better and the JRPGs aren't improving much. Fallout 3 is the best game I've played in the last year, fo sho.

[xodacia81]

I think Western RPGs keep getting better and the JRPGs aren't improving much. Fallout 3 is the best game I've played in the last year, fo sho.

I haven't played-to really play-a new RPG, since FF12.

[ian_house]

I'm currently playing FFIV on the DS and although it's an absolutely brilliant game, I too, am finding it increasingly difficult to find the odd hour to batter some monsters, get through a dungeon or save a princess.

There is something off putting about it, true. The DS version is great. But as much as the rest of the game is improved over what it used to be-and it has always been great-they slowed down the tempo of the actual play and made it WAY harder than it has to be. Thus, for me, the DS version of 4 is not as re-playable. However, Final Fantasy 6-known in the States on the SNES as 3, but on the GBA as FF6 Advance-is, to me, the best FF game NOT found on the PS2.

Yeah I'm a little annoyed by how slow it is, particularly in the battle sequences. Haven't really noticed it being too difficult, but maybe thats still to come. I loved 6, used to play it to death on the SNES. Never completed it though, may have to get it on the DS at some point.

Never really liked any of the PS2 Final Fantasy games.

[IMJ]

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

Is Zelda an RPG? I always thought of Zelda as a platforming adventure game. Swords and magic don't make an RPG...

I've always considered the primary criteria for a Role Playing Game the ability to upgrade a characters specific stats and overall level and weapons as you wanted. It doesn't have to be turn based, but usually they are.

I'd got so far as to say that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is closer to the RPG genre than any Zelda game I've ever played (but I also stopped playing Zelda with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64.

[xodacia81]

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

Is Zelda an RPG? I always thought of Zelda as a platforming adventure game. Swords and magic don't make an RPG...

I've always considered the primary criteria for a Role Playing Game the ability to upgrade a characters specific stats and overall level and weapons as you wanted. It doesn't have to be turn based, but usually they are.

I'd got so far as to say that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is closer to the RPG genre than any Zelda game I've ever played (but I also stopped playing Zelda with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64.

I look at Zelda as perhaps the premier "action-adventure" RPG, for the simple reason that you do take on the role of Link and many of the conventions of the genre are to be found within the confines of the game. I also consider Ocarina of Time to be the pinnacle of the AA-RPG genre. I haven't played a better one, although a better one might exist. If so, I just haven't played it. I do agree that it is usually the "upgrade" stuff you mentioned, but Zelda just fits.

[xodacia81]

I'm currently playing FFIV on the DS and although it's an absolutely brilliant game, I too, am finding it increasingly difficult to find the odd hour to batter some monsters, get through a dungeon or save a princess.

There is something off putting about it, true. The DS version is great. But as much as the rest of the game is improved over what it used to be-and it has always been great-they slowed down the tempo of the actual play and made it WAY harder than it has to be. Thus, for me, the DS version of 4 is not as re-playable. However, Final Fantasy 6-known in the States on the SNES as 3, but on the GBA as FF6 Advance-is, to me, the best FF game NOT found on the PS2.

Yeah I'm a little annoyed by how slow it is, particularly in the battle sequences. Haven't really noticed it being too difficult, but maybe thats still to come. I loved 6, used to play it to death on the SNES. Never completed it though, may have to get it on the DS at some point.

Never really liked any of the PS2 Final Fantasy games.

I've heard rumors they are bringing 6 to the DS, which if they do, could be awesome as long as they don't repeat the few mistakes they made with the otherwise wonderful update of 4. As for not liking the stuff on PS2, that's fine. I liked 10 & 12-never played 11-and found the PS1 games very good but just not as engrossing, for me, as 4,6,10 or 12. And that says a LOT, because I've spent massive amounts of time with 7-9, esp 7. Of course, I'm the guy with the 130+ hour save on FF 12...and the 90+ hour save on 7...

[ian_house]

I'm currently playing FFIV on the DS and although it's an absolutely brilliant game, I too, am finding it increasingly difficult to find the odd hour to batter some monsters, get through a dungeon or save a princess.

There is something off putting about it, true. The DS version is great. But as much as the rest of the game is improved over what it used to be-and it has always been great-they slowed down the tempo of the actual play and made it WAY harder than it has to be. Thus, for me, the DS version of 4 is not as re-playable. However, Final Fantasy 6-known in the States on the SNES as 3, but on the GBA as FF6 Advance-is, to me, the best FF game NOT found on the PS2.

Yeah I'm a little annoyed by how slow it is, particularly in the battle sequences. Haven't really noticed it being too difficult, but maybe thats still to come. I loved 6, used to play it to death on the SNES. Never completed it though, may have to get it on the DS at some point.

Never really liked any of the PS2 Final Fantasy games.

I've heard rumors they are bringing 6 to the DS, which if they do, could be awesome as long as they don't repeat the few mistakes they made with the otherwise wonderful update of 4. As for not liking the stuff on PS2, that's fine. I liked 10 & 12-never played 11-and found the PS1 games very good but just not as engrossing, for me, as 4,6,10 or 12. And that says a LOT, because I've spent massive amounts of time with 7-9, esp 7. Of course, I'm the guy with the 130+ hour save on FF 12...and the 90+ hour save on 7...

Yeah 7 was my big draw. Every year or two I go back and complete it again just for kicks. 4,6 &7 were always my favourites. 8 & 10 were good and I never really got into any of the others.

[Drift]

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

Is Zelda an RPG? I always thought of Zelda as a platforming adventure game. Swords and magic don't make an RPG...

I've always considered the primary criteria for a Role Playing Game the ability to upgrade a characters specific stats and overall level and weapons as you wanted. It doesn't have to be turn based, but usually they are.

I'd got so far as to say that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is closer to the RPG genre than any Zelda game I've ever played (but I also stopped playing Zelda with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64.

I look at Zelda as perhaps the premier "action-adventure" RPG, for the simple reason that you do take on the role of Link and many of the conventions of the genre are to be found within the confines of the game. I also consider Ocarina of Time to be the pinnacle of the AA-RPG genre. I haven't played a better one, although a better one might exist. If so, I just haven't played it. I do agree that it is usually the "upgrade" stuff you mentioned, but Zelda just fits.

I partly agree with Xodacia on this. The original Zelda is an action adventure RPG in that there isn't much in the way of story, there is no customisation, there are upgrades to health and magic and new weapons and tools and the battles take place in real time. Zelda 2 was a platformer but almost everything since has been very story based. It is still bit of story then dungeon crawl which I don't like so much, I prefer a deep immersion style of play much the same as a table-top RPG. For me, story is everything and that is why Square-Enix do so well when it comes to making games. I find the majority of J-RPGs have more of a story telling aspect than just kick-in-the-door-and-batter-some-baddies which is where, until recently, western RPGs have fallen down because in general, western audiences prefer all out action, they just want to fight stuff and blow *SQUEE* up. There just isn't the same slow, methodical demeanor that the East has which is why there have been so many rubbish to mediocre slashers beaters and platformers released in America.

England has it even worse. If a game doesn't sell well in the States they won't even give it a trial over here. Whilst the gaming community (not just people who play games because there are far too many idiots who think FIFA 'XX and GTA are the be all and end all of games) in England sits roughly in the middle attitude wise between Japan and America, everything is done using the American market as a guideline and, no offense, but you guys are far too fickle when it comes to what you want. If it doesn't have more action than plot then games don't get released or TV shows get canceled. I think it is that US Commercialism and to a smaller degree, the rest of the world because we take our cue from you guys, is always looking for the short term gain and the quick fix rather than the big picture. Look at Marvel under Perelman and the comic market of the 90's and you'll see that I am on to something here.

Back on topic: Other examples of Zeda-style RPGs are the recent (past couple of years) Ys: Ark of Napishtim, Sword of Mana series and Alundra.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance is more of an Arcade beat-em-up RPG. All the story takes place in tiny bits between levels and before bosses. The majority of the gameplay revolves around beating hordes of enemies and the majority of customisation is done in terms of special moves with very little character customising.

[xodacia81]

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

Is Zelda an RPG? I always thought of Zelda as a platforming adventure game. Swords and magic don't make an RPG...

I've always considered the primary criteria for a Role Playing Game the ability to upgrade a characters specific stats and overall level and weapons as you wanted. It doesn't have to be turn based, but usually they are.

I'd got so far as to say that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is closer to the RPG genre than any Zelda game I've ever played (but I also stopped playing Zelda with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64.

I look at Zelda as perhaps the premier "action-adventure" RPG, for the simple reason that you do take on the role of Link and many of the conventions of the genre are to be found within the confines of the game. I also consider Ocarina of Time to be the pinnacle of the AA-RPG genre. I haven't played a better one, although a better one might exist. If so, I just haven't played it. I do agree that it is usually the "upgrade" stuff you mentioned, but Zelda just fits.

I partly agree with Xodacia on this. The original Zelda is an action adventure RPG in that there isn't much in the way of story, there is no customisation, there are upgrades to health and magic and new weapons and tools and the battles take place in real time. Zelda 2 was a platformer but almost everything since has been very story based. It is still bit of story then dungeon crawl which I don't like so much, I prefer a deep immersion style of play much the same as a table-top RPG. For me, story is everything and that is why Square-Enix do so well when it comes to making games. I find the majority of J-RPGs have more of a story telling aspect than just kick-in-the-door-and-batter-some-baddies which is where, until recently, western RPGs have fallen down because in general, western audiences prefer all out action, they just want to fight stuff and blow *SQUEE* up. There just isn't the same slow, methodical demeanor that the East has which is why there have been so many rubbish to mediocre slashers beaters and platformers released in America.

England has it even worse. If a game doesn't sell well in the States they won't even give it a trial over here. Whilst the gaming community (not just people who play games because there are far too many idiots who think FIFA 'XX and GTA are the be all and end all of games) in England sits roughly in the middle attitude wise between Japan and America, everything is done using the American market as a guideline and, no offense, but you guys are far too fickle when it comes to what you want. If it doesn't have more action than plot then games don't get released or TV shows get canceled. I think it is that US Commercialism and to a smaller degree, the rest of the world because we take our cue from you guys, is always looking for the short term gain and the quick fix rather than the big picture. Look at Marvel under Perelman and the comic market of the 90's and you'll see that I am on to something here.

Back on topic: Other examples of Zeda-style RPGs are the recent (past couple of years) Ys: Ark of Napishtim, Sword of Mana series and Alundra.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance is more of an Arcade beat-em-up RPG. All the story takes place in tiny bits between levels and before bosses. The majority of the gameplay revolves around beating hordes of enemies and the majority of customisation is done in terms of special moves with very little character customising.

I only recently got Sword of Mana. I can't believe I forgot that MANA was actually a SERIES! As much as I love Zelda, I've spent just as many, if not MORE hours, with Secret of Mana. I love the 3 player option, although my multiplayer adapter is long dead. I still bust out the SNES and plug it in every now and then. Fantastic game. I haven't played Y's in AGES and as for Alundra? Never gotten the chance. I guess another "series", while I'm at it, would be the Chrono series, which, imo, still has the 1st game, Chrono Trigger, as the best example. Oh, and I agree with you about the "short term, action based, what have you done for me lately" attitude in the market. It's for that reason that many FINE products haven't made it over here, or didn't make it without huge delays. It's why so many great tv series die quickly and why so many great films underperform at the box office or even have zero chance of a wide release.

[IMJ]

Alundra was cool. But then again in my mind Working Designs can do no wrong.

[xodacia81]

Alundra was cool. But then again in my mind Working Designs can do no wrong.

I must admit to having still not played Lunar.

[Knightt]

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

Is Zelda an RPG? I always thought of Zelda as a platforming adventure game. Swords and magic don't make an RPG...

I've always considered the primary criteria for a Role Playing Game the ability to upgrade a characters specific stats and overall level and weapons as you wanted. It doesn't have to be turn based, but usually they are.

I'd got so far as to say that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is closer to the RPG genre than any Zelda game I've ever played (but I also stopped playing Zelda with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64.

I look at Zelda as perhaps the premier "action-adventure" RPG, for the simple reason that you do take on the role of Link and many of the conventions of the genre are to be found within the confines of the game. I also consider Ocarina of Time to be the pinnacle of the AA-RPG genre. I haven't played a better one, although a better one might exist. If so, I just haven't played it. I do agree that it is usually the "upgrade" stuff you mentioned, but Zelda just fits.

I partly agree with Xodacia on this. The original Zelda is an action adventure RPG in that there isn't much in the way of story, there is no customisation, there are upgrades to health and magic and new weapons and tools and the battles take place in real time. Zelda 2 was a platformer but almost everything since has been very story based. It is still bit of story then dungeon crawl which I don't like so much, I prefer a deep immersion style of play much the same as a table-top RPG. For me, story is everything and that is why Square-Enix do so well when it comes to making games. I find the majority of J-RPGs have more of a story telling aspect than just kick-in-the-door-and-batter-some-baddies which is where, until recently, western RPGs have fallen down because in general, western audiences prefer all out action, they just want to fight stuff and blow *SQUEE* up. There just isn't the same slow, methodical demeanor that the East has which is why there have been so many rubbish to mediocre slashers beaters and platformers released in America.

England has it even worse. If a game doesn't sell well in the States they won't even give it a trial over here. Whilst the gaming community (not just people who play games because there are far too many idiots who think FIFA 'XX and GTA are the be all and end all of games) in England sits roughly in the middle attitude wise between Japan and America, everything is done using the American market as a guideline and, no offense, but you guys are far too fickle when it comes to what you want. If it doesn't have more action than plot then games don't get released or TV shows get canceled. I think it is that US Commercialism and to a smaller degree, the rest of the world because we take our cue from you guys, is always looking for the short term gain and the quick fix rather than the big picture. Look at Marvel under Perelman and the comic market of the 90's and you'll see that I am on to something here.

Back on topic: Other examples of Zeda-style RPGs are the recent (past couple of years) Ys: Ark of Napishtim, Sword of Mana series and Alundra.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance is more of an Arcade beat-em-up RPG. All the story takes place in tiny bits between levels and before bosses. The majority of the gameplay revolves around beating hordes of enemies and the majority of customisation is done in terms of special moves with very little character customising.

Did sombody say 'blow *SQUEE* up' ?

I'm in ! ! !

[xodacia81]

I never got into either of those. My fave RPG series have been FF, Zelda, Breath of Fire and Suikoden.

Is Zelda an RPG? I always thought of Zelda as a platforming adventure game. Swords and magic don't make an RPG...

I've always considered the primary criteria for a Role Playing Game the ability to upgrade a characters specific stats and overall level and weapons as you wanted. It doesn't have to be turn based, but usually they are.

I'd got so far as to say that Marvel Ultimate Alliance is closer to the RPG genre than any Zelda game I've ever played (but I also stopped playing Zelda with Zelda Ocarina of Time on N64.

I look at Zelda as perhaps the premier "action-adventure" RPG, for the simple reason that you do take on the role of Link and many of the conventions of the genre are to be found within the confines of the game. I also consider Ocarina of Time to be the pinnacle of the AA-RPG genre. I haven't played a better one, although a better one might exist. If so, I just haven't played it. I do agree that it is usually the "upgrade" stuff you mentioned, but Zelda just fits.

I partly agree with Xodacia on this. The original Zelda is an action adventure RPG in that there isn't much in the way of story, there is no customisation, there are upgrades to health and magic and new weapons and tools and the battles take place in real time. Zelda 2 was a platformer but almost everything since has been very story based. It is still bit of story then dungeon crawl which I don't like so much, I prefer a deep immersion style of play much the same as a table-top RPG. For me, story is everything and that is why Square-Enix do so well when it comes to making games. I find the majority of J-RPGs have more of a story telling aspect than just kick-in-the-door-and-batter-some-baddies which is where, until recently, western RPGs have fallen down because in general, western audiences prefer all out action, they just want to fight stuff and blow *SQUEE* up. There just isn't the same slow, methodical demeanor that the East has which is why there have been so many rubbish to mediocre slashers beaters and platformers released in America.

England has it even worse. If a game doesn't sell well in the States they won't even give it a trial over here. Whilst the gaming community (not just people who play games because there are far too many idiots who think FIFA 'XX and GTA are the be all and end all of games) in England sits roughly in the middle attitude wise between Japan and America, everything is done using the American market as a guideline and, no offense, but you guys are far too fickle when it comes to what you want. If it doesn't have more action than plot then games don't get released or TV shows get canceled. I think it is that US Commercialism and to a smaller degree, the rest of the world because we take our cue from you guys, is always looking for the short term gain and the quick fix rather than the big picture. Look at Marvel under Perelman and the comic market of the 90's and you'll see that I am on to something here.

Back on topic: Other examples of Zeda-style RPGs are the recent (past couple of years) Ys: Ark of Napishtim, Sword of Mana series and Alundra.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance is more of an Arcade beat-em-up RPG. All the story takes place in tiny bits between levels and before bosses. The majority of the gameplay revolves around beating hordes of enemies and the majority of customisation is done in terms of special moves with very little character customising.

Did sombody say 'blow *SQUEE* up' ?

I'm in ! ! !

You can always count on some *SQUEE* getting blown up in FF. There's lots of magic, technology and war in the games. Huge, epic fights. Noble warriors. Evil creatures. Persons in between. Simply my favorites series ever. However, if you don't want to rock it old school, I'd suggest to start off with FF12, which begins with an enormous battle in the midst of a war between kingdoms. If you DO want to start out with the older stuff, go for 4 & 6-10. 11 is online only and not worth it from what I hear. I am NOT a lover of 1,2,3 (the DS version, not the snes which was really 6) or 5. Just too system based and lacking excitement. My favorite story was 6, but the best one in terms of action elements? 12. It's for PS2.

[Knightt]

So.... no literal blowing *SQUEE* up ?

[xodacia81]

So.... no literal blowing *SQUEE* up ?

Depends. Your characters are always destroying things and, especially in 12, the battles get rather pitched with much destruction. The best games in the series have battles that require constant attention/concentration. You don't get a moment off.

[Knightt]

No... no. I mean like literally. Me... det cord... 1/2 brick of C4... a detonator... and a REALLY BIG F@CKIN" LOUD NOISE, THE KIND THAT MAKES 'THE LITTLE GENERAL' CRAWL UP IN YER BELLY !!!