-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jason Schreier: "Final Fantasy VII Remake's Box Art Sure Is Misleading"
- Thread starter Deleted member 8196
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, I think that's the case with a lot of people in here. They just wanted the original with prettied up graphics, like one of those model change hacks using you see with emulated versions.
Would people have been fine if re2make ended when leon goes down the stairs to the sewer after leaving marvin?
Bad word of mouth after the average person plays it and finds out will be much worse
No matter how many times you post this, its still a stupid comparison.
Having to research the game titled Final Fantasy 7 Remake to figure out it's not the entirety of the original game instead of being able to base that on the title of the product itself seems like the literal definition of being misleading.
Do we really need to go over this again, especially when it's been addressed about 20 times in this thread alone? It was a stupid comparison when it was first brought up and it's still a stupid comparison now.
Yet there are people on this forum with their head so far up Sqaure's butt they can't even admit to this. How sad is that?
These arguments can just go in circles forever, but basically, all the arguments in this thread will certainly boil down to a few points:
The comparisons to The Last of Us are dumb though, right? TLOU was envisioned as a complete story and then they decided to expand it, and part 2 as the name is most likely chosen to be evocative of a certain type of sequel. (I wouldn't be surprised if TLOU2 has the 'Godfather structure', and I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Same for the brain-dead "how dare Fellowship of the Ring not be labeled as part one" take. Silly. Tolkein wrote and conceived the story in that form, and that's the key - this story was originally conceived as a whole.
But to stick with Tolkien, what this is more like is how they split the Hobbit into two and then three films. It's more like that, in terms of how you break a narrative up and try to turn one three-act structure into three sets of stand-alone structure. This is where The Hobbit fell flat, and why The Lord of the Rings worked in this sense: LOTR was conceived as three different three-act stories that just happened to be linked; the Hobbit was conceived as one and then broken up and forced to conform to that structure. With FF7, hopefully it goes better than that did for the Hobbit.
But the point is, if you blind-buy a game called 'Final Fantasy VII Remake', you'd expect it to have the same narrative content as the original game, right? This is what makes this situation different: 'Final Fantasy VII' has a meaning to people in terms of what it is and what it represents. Even if a sequel was planned, nobody knew what The Last of Us was when it released, so nobody had an expectation for where that story would begin, go or end. The relation to the existing product carries heavy context with it, and acknowledging that doesn't disservice or underplay all the additions being made to make this into a 'full game'. That is the point people are making, and I'm really confused as to if the people who don't seem to get this by screaming "it's a complete new game!!" are being facetious or really, truly don't understand that.
In the end, SE isn't putting a designation on this for obvious reasons - a part one or chapter one on the box could deter some people who might choose to wait for a 'complete package'. It's about the money, and full size game or not, they want to shift as many copies of this as possible and they'll worry about selling the sequel in a couple of years. They're a company, and a company is going to service the bottom line, which is fair enough -- but I think the fans who can't at least acknowledge why this name might mean the game shocks or disappoints some are absolutely nuts. SE clearly were aware of this, too, because they were very careful to get right out in front of this - within ten minutes of introducing the game to the world, Kitase laid out exact parameters of where it would start and end. That, as an act, is telling that they know. But they also know that putting it on the box could push some sales away. So here we are.
- Argument: Those who don't follow closely who love FF7 nevertheless could get to the end of the game thinking the rest is still there and be disappointed (True)
- Counter-argument: This is still a 'full size game' according to SE, so they will get their money's worth anyway (True, if SE is being truly representative of the game)
The comparisons to The Last of Us are dumb though, right? TLOU was envisioned as a complete story and then they decided to expand it, and part 2 as the name is most likely chosen to be evocative of a certain type of sequel. (I wouldn't be surprised if TLOU2 has the 'Godfather structure', and I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Same for the brain-dead "how dare Fellowship of the Ring not be labeled as part one" take. Silly. Tolkein wrote and conceived the story in that form, and that's the key - this story was originally conceived as a whole.
But to stick with Tolkien, what this is more like is how they split the Hobbit into two and then three films. It's more like that, in terms of how you break a narrative up and try to turn one three-act structure into three sets of stand-alone structure. This is where The Hobbit fell flat, and why The Lord of the Rings worked in this sense: LOTR was conceived as three different three-act stories that just happened to be linked; the Hobbit was conceived as one and then broken up and forced to conform to that structure. With FF7, hopefully it goes better than that did for the Hobbit.
But the point is, if you blind-buy a game called 'Final Fantasy VII Remake', you'd expect it to have the same narrative content as the original game, right? This is what makes this situation different: 'Final Fantasy VII' has a meaning to people in terms of what it is and what it represents. Even if a sequel was planned, nobody knew what The Last of Us was when it released, so nobody had an expectation for where that story would begin, go or end. The relation to the existing product carries heavy context with it, and acknowledging that doesn't disservice or underplay all the additions being made to make this into a 'full game'. That is the point people are making, and I'm really confused as to if the people who don't seem to get this by screaming "it's a complete new game!!" are being facetious or really, truly don't understand that.
In the end, SE isn't putting a designation on this for obvious reasons - a part one or chapter one on the box could deter some people who might choose to wait for a 'complete package'. It's about the money, and full size game or not, they want to shift as many copies of this as possible and they'll worry about selling the sequel in a couple of years. They're a company, and a company is going to service the bottom line, which is fair enough -- but I think the fans who can't at least acknowledge why this name might mean the game shocks or disappoints some are absolutely nuts. SE clearly were aware of this, too, because they were very careful to get right out in front of this - within ten minutes of introducing the game to the world, Kitase laid out exact parameters of where it would start and end. That, as an act, is telling that they know. But they also know that putting it on the box could push some sales away. So here we are.
I agree 100%. They should add something like Episode One below the logo. It's a cool boxart but very misleading for those not in the know.
Seeing the comments, this no matter what is gonna sprung controversy, especially among veteran players. I know A LOT of people will have their introduction to game with this remake. For them, who know nothing about it, maybe will be fine to leave in a cliffhanger and wait for the next game, but not so sure for those who loved the original and waited for years to play this.
One could make the argument that if we want a full remake we should wait another five years, and they're right, but wouldn't hurt a single bit being absolutely clear in all marketing that this is just a fraction of the adventure.
One could make the argument that if we want a full remake we should wait another five years, and they're right, but wouldn't hurt a single bit being absolutely clear in all marketing that this is just a fraction of the adventure.
Because they fell that what is being offered is gonna be worth of a 60 bucks game, not the full story, but yes a full game (with all the extra content it'll offer). I don't know man, seems like sacrilege having an episodic game at 60 bucks, when this is clearly the case? I don't get people sometimes.
It is absolutely misleading to the general populace, as has been much of their messaging around the game.
That's not to say this product isn't a full game in and of itself and that it isn't worth $60 - far from it - but "remake" has a very specific connotation to it, and it should be made clear that this is the first release in a multi-part project.
EDIT: The "It" comparison is weird considering it's not called "It Remake".
That's not to say this product isn't a full game in and of itself and that it isn't worth $60 - far from it - but "remake" has a very specific connotation to it, and it should be made clear that this is the first release in a multi-part project.
EDIT: The "It" comparison is weird considering it's not called "It Remake".
Because the original movie was already split into two parts. FFVII wasn't. It had the entire story contained in one game. The remake doesn't. It's not remotely a 1:1 comparison.
Call me cynical but I think they did not put any indication that this is a partial game in comparison to the 1997 version, is to avoid any detrimental effects on both pre-orders and sales figures by the notion of it being 'Episodic'.
I obviously haven't played the game so can't comment yet. When making the decision to go multipart and make consumers pay probably $180+ to see the whole of the original Final Fantasy 7 story they need to be clear with their marketing.
Disappointed they haven't officially titled it Final Fantasy 7.0: You Can (Not) Hear the Cries of the Planet.
Who cares?
Fine lets call it misleading. What does this prove? It's okay because a work in a totally different medium did it?
Box art: Not really. I mean it does show Midgar. As an interesting parallel, the Japanese FFVII PS1 was just the logo on a white background. This time it's a logo on a black background.
Name: Absolutely. I'm surprised they didn't put a subtitle, but then again I shouldn't be. It may have a full game worth of content but it seems less like a remake and instead a reboot.
Name: Absolutely. I'm surprised they didn't put a subtitle, but then again I shouldn't be. It may have a full game worth of content but it seems less like a remake and instead a reboot.
I would have called it Final Fantasy 7R : chapter 1.
Something about 'remake', 'remastered' or 'definitive edition' in a title bothers me.
Also, if FF7R can be beaten in as long as it took to get through Midgar (5-10 hours) there will be riots. People have become so accustomed to long JRPGs, I really do wonder just how much content is in FF7R. Personally I'd love a shorter RPG that's more refined, but fans will be crying bloody murder if this game is shorter than expectations.
Something about 'remake', 'remastered' or 'definitive edition' in a title bothers me.
Also, if FF7R can be beaten in as long as it took to get through Midgar (5-10 hours) there will be riots. People have become so accustomed to long JRPGs, I really do wonder just how much content is in FF7R. Personally I'd love a shorter RPG that's more refined, but fans will be crying bloody murder if this game is shorter than expectations.
The thing that concerns me with multiple parts is how many of the story elements can actually have a satisfying conclusion? The game is both Part 1 of a remake and something that needs to stand on its own, and I fail to see how they can adequately juggle those two. The Hobbit failed in that regard despite only having 8.5 hours of story, FFVIIr will likely end up having at least 50 hours of story content by the time it's done.
I have to wonder if other parts will be as expanded as Midgar because then how do you name them?
I can see why the title is causing debate, but in what way has their messaging been misleading? We've known since 2015 that it's set to be episodic and they've said at much multiple times since the marketing cycle kicked in again this year.
Nope, and I don't blame them for leaving Part 1 off the box. They've said this is going to have the experience and content of a full game. Putting part 1 on the box gives the impression to consumers that this doesn't have the amount of content a full game would.
We've already got geniuses saying crap like "I'll wait for the full game to be out" so I'm sure Square is trying to avoid people like that making their false declarations.
We've already got geniuses saying crap like "I'll wait for the full game to be out" so I'm sure Square is trying to avoid people like that making their false declarations.
It's a single book.
Sort of like how FF7 was a single game, and now the remake is expanding into multiple full length games.
The "original" movie is irrelevant. It's an adaptation of the book.
Kind of disingenuous to suggest it's only "one tenth" of the story, lol. We have no idea how things have been reimagined, what's changed, and how things will change going forward. There was a lot of filler in FFVII, so a lot of that might be streamlined, or even removed full stop. A lot of judgements being made int he article that are entirely based on assumptions, which is effectively: click bait.
C'mon Jason. Do better.
C'mon Jason. Do better.
This isn't an episodic game. At least not in the sense that it is understood in gaming industry.
If it was suposed to be a reboot, then they had to remove the "Remake" from the title. As it stands, is misleading. Its actually false advertising.
This literally made me coughing spit-take. Bravo. Now I need to clean tea off my chin and keyboard.
$10 ticket vs. $60 game tho. And it's a movie with a full story, unlike FF VII.
The thing is, who gives a shit about how long it is? The story, the most important part of an RPG, is incomplete. It's basically walking away at the beginning of the prologue.
That is Sqare-Enix's headache not the consumers, they are making the game the least they can do is labeling them in a proper fashion.
1) It doesn't cost $60 to watch a film
2) IT is only 2.5 hours long instead of 30+
3) IT has already had a highly-popular adaption in two parts, and that was what IT 2017 was primarily based on
4) IT has a definitive conclusion even if you never watch IT: Part 2
Should be called part 1 or something, we aren't gonna see the second part for years, it's incredibly misleading
In no way that's enough lol
In no way that's enough lol
- Status