I'm surprised by all the negativity. I think it's a fantastic game, however it's by far not a traditional Final Fantasy. It's like when they switched from Resident Evil 3 to Resident Evil 4. I'm not talking about the tank to over the shoulder change, but instead of wandering about Raccoon City and constantly backtracking and re-avoiding Nemesis, you have a laid out path; place the shoppy guy and the save typewriter along the way and you're on your way. Final Fantasy 13 acts largely similar, which is very odd for a role-playing game, but I'm not losing much sleep over it.
Despite only being able to control one person at a time, controlling the person is at least 3 times as much work as the old ones, and you also have to balance the roles each party member is playing to fit the situation, which can be necessary in the blink of an eye. Also you get plenty of chance to play as every character throughout the course of the game.
I could go on, and might later, but I'll just leave this; It's not a bad game, just different.
March 4th wave tester, Caffeine.alcalol
45. Re: Final Fantasy 13..You getting it? 03/10/2010 03:23:35 PM PST
No, it isn't a bad game. It's a #***ing awful game.
Yep, and StarCraft 2 sucks because they took out Dragoons, Vultures, Goliaths, Firebats, ground Medics, Valkyries, Dark Archons, Scouts, Corsairs, Defilers, Scourge, Guardians, and Devourers am I right?
March 4th wave tester, Caffeine.alcalol
48. Re: Final Fantasy 13..You getting it? 03/10/2010 05:45:47 PM PST
Q u o t e: Gee, why would I respond to "kind of rude comments" in a rude way on the internet? It's a mystery for the ages.
Yeah.....okay. "Kind of rude comments" was just me saying sorry. I did not make fun of a sexual preference and/or guess your gender while being insulting....which you did to me. Not saying I can't take it, just telling you the difference between my "rude" comments and yours.
Q u o t e: And you are not understanding the point that in your examples there are attemps made to explain the why these things exist. FF does not do this when it comes to swords in a world full of guns (and not even the muzzle loading musket type where they would still make some sense at least).
Saying that Harry Potter and Transformer's attempt to explain something that is fictional while the explanation itself is fictional....is a moronic reason to give it any merit over Final Fantasy...
I'll take it back a step for you, using Harry Potter as my example...I was talking about flying brooms earlier, and you correctly answered that the explanation to that is "magic"...well what if we ask...how is magic.. magic? This question doesn't have an answer...it's simply because magic...is magic.
In Harry Potter: Why does that broom fly? Answer: Because magic propels it.
So...to put that into Final Fantasy terms: Why does that sword kill those people that wield futuristic guns? Answer: Because swords are all powerful.
These are equivalent. Neither one has an answer for how it's answer works...it just does. Magic is magic and all powerful swords are all powerful swords.
Q u o t e: How are the two similar? I don't see how they are.
These are both similar because.....THEY'RE FICTIONAL. They can say what they want. "Magic explains a lot", well no it doesn't, it doesn't have an explanation at all. "Swords are all-powerful" explains a lot, well, no it doesn't, it doesn't have an explanation at all. The only explanation is that it is fiction and what happens...happens, because that's how they told it to you.... It explains a lot, because they told you magic does those things...not because it makes sense.
49. Re: Final Fantasy 13..You getting it? 03/11/2010 06:51:25 AM PST
You're whining about what an anonymous guy said to you on the internet. You sure look like you can't take it.Get over it.
You are still not getting it or not wanting to get it. It's hard to tell with defensive fan boys that react to insulting the game they are in love as if you are insulting their mother. There are in universe explanations for you examples, the fiction makes an attempt to explain the existence of magic and why you can fly on a broom. FF does not do this with swords. There is no attempted explanation for why swords are so much better than guns. If you want to see an actual attempt at someone justifying swords in a futuristic setting go read Dune.
Magic is a mysterious force that can defy the laws of physics and stuff. Swords are just swords. How is that similar?
This has nothing to do with fanboy craziness and you know it. Stop constantly insulting me and back yourself up. Magic has no substance... Please, define it's origin of existence and what exactly it is....please, do tell. I am not being a "defensive fanboy". Your "insults" (note the quotes, they are weak remarks at best) towards the game has nothing to do with this; it's your weak arguments with little logic that annoys me... I even said earlier that swords being all powerful doesn't make sense, and that's why you're wrong, because this is all fiction and it doesn't have to make sense....you complained "why are swords powerful in this setting?!?!" well, because they can be....
I can tell that you're just as stubborn as I am (don't argue with that). So, this will go nowhere...
55. Re: Final Fantasy 13..You getting it? 03/11/2010 05:32:31 PM PST
You're completely missing the point. You're letting the fact that an explanation involves "magic" throw you off. Fantasy and sci-fi stories typically require some suspension of disbelief in order to accept certain premises that are true within the universe being presented. This does NOT mean that all sci-fi and fantasy stories are equal, or make equal sense; just because you're being asked to suspend disbelief about some things does not give the writer free reign to just make %@@! up as they go along without any attempt to justify it in the context of the universe and premises they are presenting.
For instance, if in one scene I clearly demonstrate that "magic" in this universe has a certain limitation, like being able to heal people with grievous wounds but not being able to bring someone back if they are actually dead, and then in the next scene I show a character bringing someone back from the dead using magic, I better damn well also present an explanation for why this is suddenly possible. Not doing so would be BAD WRITING. You're essentially saying that because we're already supposing magic, anything goes, and that I would have no need to explain in such an instance.
That's why most fantasy and sci-fi stories attempt to justify certain elements of their universe, at least in the context of that universe; in Harry Potter, there are specific spells and rules which are introduced, and AFAIK not broken without an explanation. Obviously, certain factors have to be simply taken as a given via suspension of disbelief, but the idea is generally to try and minimize those factors to avoid alienating the reader.
The problem Ulmo is pointing out when it comes to Final Fantasy, is that they make no attempt to justify the prevalence of swords in a universe where guns, generally a superior weapon in most circumstances, are also prevalent. This is an internal inconsistency within the premises of the universe itself. Other games have attempted explanations; for instance, in Knights of the Old Republic, your characters can wield melee weapons throughout the game. Eventually they are lightsabers, but early on they are swords. The explanation given is that these swords have Cortosis (an element which repels the energy used by lightsabers) woven into them, and thus are effective weapons against Jedi/Sith who are wielding lightsabers (Jedi and Sith are both fairly prevalent in this timeline). Further, since characters can have personal shields which protect them from energy weapons, it makes some sense that a character could have a chance to close with an enemy before being fried.
There is no such attempt at an explanation in Final Fantasy, and thus it can be pointed to as a legitimate problem with the universe.
Thank you for a lovely post there. Yes, I can agree with you on the points you made and I understand Ulmo's points. All I was saying is I don't see why it matters that swords are all powerful in the setting of Final Fantasy. It doesn't necessarily have it's reasons nor does it need them.
I'll give you a pretty simple rule really, to give you some background on the swords: they beat people with guns. Now, that sounds stupid, but holds about the same merit as deciding how magic is possible based on observing it's traits in the story.
"Obviously, certain factors have to be simply taken as a given via suspension of disbelief" is what I'm talking about mostly (I know you said you want to minimize that to avoid alienating the reader, which Final Fantasy definitely does not minimize), I see that you say that magic is backed up reasonably in Harry Potter, but swords are not really in Final Fantasy. Okay, cool. I just feel that they have similar merit in their explanations, while Final Fantasy does not attempt to really lay anything out, Harry Potter, for example, lays out little rules and shows you some of the things it does to give you some background (and magic is a widely used fictional thing anyways, they could have told you basically nothing and still been understood).
Therefore, it seems in Final Fantasy as a "legitimate problem with the universe", though not one in Harry Potter. Harry Potter built up some things around magic, yes, and Final Fantasy failed more so in that area. I should stop comparing these though in this situation, because they really are not that comparable in this context. I can see what you mean though. And I agree.