Final Fantasy VII Remake

[Leo656]

By "intent", I mean "Most people just wanted the same game but with nicer graphics and some voice acting." If you ask them, they'll very plainly tell you that's what they wanted from a FF7 "remake".

Me, I'm not a guy where graphics are a huge draw. I certainly APPRECIATE them but I'm still to this day perfectly fine playing the original FF7, warts and all. It's the game that single-handedly made me care about RPGs, a genre I'd never cared about or bothered with before. But when I heard about a "remake", with nicer graphics and some new bells and whistles, I had certain assumptions and expectations in mind. "Literally an entire new game that actually deviates very strongly from the story of the original game" was not what I, or most people, had in mind.

For some of my friends, the story being heavily changed was what finally pushed them away, even if they liked the gameplay and the graphics. I empathize, that game means a lot to some people (I like the game but I'm admittedly more casual about it, for example I've only finished it once). They would have been fine with the plot being expanded upon, but not flat-out changed or overwritten.

Maybe they shouldn't have called it a "remake", or even a "reimagining". Maybe something like "Final Fantasy VII: Gaiden" or something, making it perfectly clear that it's not "actually" a remake but rather a brand new thing that simply uses the original game as a springboard. It still wouldn't be exactly what people wanted, but there may be less annoyance and feelings of betrayal. "They said it was a remake, but it's barely got anything to do with the original" means they Zigged when they should have Zagged.

I can't fault anyone for ambition, certainly. It just seems really clear to me that Square-Enix was more concerned with what they wanted to do than what the fans wanted them to do.

As for FF15, I don't follow it closely (I have one of the more "complete" versions but haven't bothered with it yet). It may very well have sold well but anecdotally, everyone I know who played it hated it. I know it was one of the most-bitched about games in the entire series before the DLC "fixed" it, and even then a lot of people were furious that something like 80% of the game was missing upon release and never bothered getting the updates just on principle. I can't really blame them for feeling that way.

The biggest gripe people tell me about 15 is, "It's NOT Final Fantasy, not even a little." Past that, opinions vary when I ask my follow-up question of "But is it still good as its own thing, ignoring the game's title?" Some say Yes, some say No. It's a curious thing.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Maybe they shouldn't have called it a "remake", or even a "reimagining". Maybe something like "Final Fantasy VII: Gaiden" or something, making it perfectly clear that it's not "actually" a remake but rather a brand new thing that simply uses the original game as a springboard. It still wouldn't be exactly what people wanted, but there may be less annoyance and feelings of betrayal. "They said it was a remake, but it's barely got anything to do with the original" means they Zigged when they should have Zagged.

I can't fault anyone for ambition, certainly. It just seems really clear to me that Square-Enix was more concerned with what they wanted to do than what the fans wanted them to do.

True, and you're not wrong, but guess what? Nobody would want that. If they announced FFVII: Gaiden as a thing, the internet would either explode into a rage over it, or there'd be some quiet hype but most would be apathetic. The easy cash comes with the FFVII R(emake) title, of course. It's trickery that works. SqueEnix knows this, obviously.

As a creator myself, I get the notion of wanting to 'do your own thing' with a franchise. Thing is, there is a very fine line you must walk between doing something that will please yourself and tell the story you want, and something that will please millions of fans. It's tough, it takes a lot of work, and there's some hoops that must be jumped. Most creators take an attitude of "oh well, who cares what those f*ckers want".....and that tends to taint the waters, so to speak, because you're basically flipping off your audience, and audiences don't like to be taunted/insulted.

On the other hand, fans tend to be pretty rigid. Most of the time, people want to be spoonfed a scene for scene, 100% recreation of everything they know and love from a movie, comic, game, etc. This happens a lot with comic book adaptations. I still think the closest we've ever gotten is probably Watchmen, and even that changed some stuff up (for the better, if you asked me, I suppose). There should be some leeway given to adaptations, remakes, etc... Some leeway, let me emphasize. Again, it's a fine line that creators need to walk.

I mean, for instance, the current rumor that they'll kill off Tifa instead of Aerith this time. I'm of the mind that anything can be done well with the proper writing to back it up. Will that be the case here? I...don't think so. The problem with this specific twist is that it gives off the vibes that it's a shock value 'tweest' meant to 'create buzz on Twitter' and outrage fans. That often doesn't come from a place of wanting to tell a compelling story. If they wanted to pull this off, I think they needed to do a lot more with Tifa's character, and change a lot more of the original FF7 story to justify her death. Otherwise, it'll come off as very, very cheap. In fact, if they wanted to show us what the story would be like if Aerith never died, then why must Tifa or any other character need to die in her stead? As a writer, you need to ask yourself those sorts of questions... However, I doubt whoever is writing the script for this game is asking anything of that sort. Nope, there's deadlines they need to meet, shareholders to please, suits with guidelines, and...maybe a part of them also wants to fling mud at the fans, and 'troll' them to create chaos on social media. Maybe I'm wrong, of course. It's just that this has been the current game a lot of modern entertainment has been playing, no? From Picard to the Star Wars sequels to the superhero movies to Square Enix's other slate of games in the last decade+.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by superstaff

True, and you're not wrong, but guess what? Nobody would want that. If they announced FFVII: Gaiden as a thing, the internet would either explode into a rage over it, or there'd be some quiet hype but most would be apathetic.

Yeah, people would go, "Eh, fine, but where's the remake?"

Originally Posted by Leo656

The biggest gripe people tell me about 15 is, "It's NOT Final Fantasy, not even a little." Past that, opinions vary when I ask my follow-up question of "But is it still good as its own thing, ignoring the game's title?" Some say Yes, some say No. It's a curious thing.

I was able to grin and bear some of the more cringey stuff in FF XV like all the hipster talk and the dude constantly taking cell phone pics... but man, what a horrible back half. All of that time wasted playing the game and it turns into a Japanese emo suicide drama. I was angry when I got to the end. I couldn't even muster up enough interest to play any of the DLC afterward.

And yeah. It's basically a grown-up Kingdom Hearts. Walk around and use a jump button while slashing enemies like an action game.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I was able to grin and bear some of the more cringey stuff in FF XV like all the hipster talk and the dude constantly taking cell phone pics... but man, what a horrible back half. All of that time wasted playing the game and it turns into a Japanese emo suicide drama. I was angry when I got to the end. I couldn't even muster up enough interest to play any of the DLC afterward.

This is a result of Square trying to 'appeal to the kiddos' by having hipster d-bag crap in it, but they also want to tell a 'dark, mature story' as well to give it 'depth' so therefore they added all that stuff into the back half instead of either easing the audience into darker subject matter as it went along, or sprinkling it in from the beginning. Sloppy, crappy writing and direction. It doesn't help that their 'mature storyline' wasn't very mature at all either, and is just shallow melodrama.

[Turo602]

Since when did the rules on remakes become so strict? Games like Resident Evil and Metroid: Zero Mission take extreme liberties with the original content and are still considered faithful remakes that outclass their originals. Even with movies, remakes don't necessarily have to be shot by shot remakes, and in Psycho's case, was considered awful and defeated the purpose of remaking the film. Yet a movie like Little Shop of Horrors became a full on musical and is more revered than the original.

I think the point of remaking Final Fantasy VII, much like with Resident Evil 2, 3, and 4, is not to please those who just want the same experience but prettier and refined, but to update and modernize a classic for a new generation that maybe hasn't been able to experience the originals or won't touch them because they're so outdated. I've definitely had my gripes with the recent Resident Evil remakes despite how perfectly they've modernized the classic formula. But in Resident Evil 4's case, I would definitely welcome as much change as possible seeing as the original killed the franchise and distanced itself from survival horror, something the remake seems it wants to fix.

I've personally never played a Final Fantasy game, but I know VII is supposed to be this huge deal and so if I'm ever gonna play one, it's gonna be the remake. But their release plan has definitely put me off of it as I just want to experience it all in a single package than have to buy three copies years apart from eachother.

[Leo656]

For me that's a huge part of it. I don't want to play it in chunks with 5-year gaps in between. And I don't want to qualify for the Denny's Senior Menu by the time the thing is "complete" and I can sit down to play it in one shot.

I'm aware that that's more of a Me Problem, it's just baffling to me why they chose to do it like this, specifically. Because I know I'm not the only one put off by it.

[Andrew NDB]

It's not even clear the story will go anywhere remotely where the original game went. It's entirely possible that the game they already released contains the entirety of the remake elements we'll get, and Rebirth and Game #3 will be going in a totally different direction than the original FF VII. Not just with Aerith.

[CyberCubed]

The actual gameplay in the remake is fantastic, I love the real-time fighting and switching between all 4 characters simultaneously, it's the best combat I've ever played in an RPG. It's probably the most fun I've had especially when you have every characters special moves unlocked.

So far the story hasn't been changed too much, it just seem Sephrioth (and maybe Aerith?) are aware of their fates, and may change them in the next game. But we haven't gotten there yet as the first game only covers till Cloud leaves Midgar which is only like the first 5 hours of the original game.

So who knows.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Turo602

But in Resident Evil 4's case, I would definitely welcome as much change as possible seeing as the original killed the franchise and distanced itself from survival horror, something the remake seems it wants to fix.

Wut?
One of the best-selling and celebrated games of all time, not only in the franchise, but in general, had "killed" franchise?
Talking about being overdramatic.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

By "intent", I mean "Most people just wanted the same game but with nicer graphics and some voice acting." If you ask them, they'll very plainly tell you that's what they wanted from a FF7 "remake".

You have Remasters for that and now an Ever Crisis.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Me, I'm not a guy where graphics are a huge draw. I certainly APPRECIATE them but I'm still to this day perfectly fine playing the original FF7, warts and all. It's the game that single-handedly made me care about RPGs, a genre I'd never cared about or bothered with before. But when I heard about a "remake", with nicer graphics and some new bells and whistles, I had certain assumptions and expectations in mind. "Literally an entire new game that actually deviates very strongly from the story of the original game" was not what I, or most people, had in mind.

And in case of FF7 Remake, Remake is not a definition of what it is, it is a subtitle of the game.

Also, even following initial definition, Remake can be anything creators want. There are no set definitions or rules of what remake should be.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Maybe they shouldn't have called it a "remake", or even a "reimagining". Maybe something like "Final Fantasy VII: Gaiden" or something, making it perfectly clear that it's not "actually" a remake but rather a brand new thing that simply uses the original game as a springboard. It still wouldn't be exactly what people wanted, but there may be less annoyance and feelings of betrayal. "They said it was a remake, but it's barely got anything to do with the original" means they Zigged when they should have Zagged.

Once again, it is not defined what remake is.
You'd had a case, if they said they were doing a remaster.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I can't fault anyone for ambition, certainly. It just seems really clear to me that Square-Enix was more concerned with what they wanted to do than what the fans wanted them to do.

As it should be: writers should write what pleases them, first, not what fans want.
Ideally writers want to find a good balance, but in some cases, I think desires of writers should take priority.

Originally Posted by Leo656

The biggest gripe people tell me about 15 is, "It's NOT Final Fantasy, not even a little." Past that, opinions vary when I ask my follow-up question of "But is it still good as its own thing, ignoring the game's title?" Some say Yes, some say No. It's a curious thing.

Given how the franchise works, there is no strict guidelines what counts as FF game.

More than that, FF brand curator, Kitase, had said in a recent interview, that (paraphrasing) "we slap FF name on our best game at the time".

And that always was the case - a lot of Final Fantasy games were supposed to be something different: Xenogears was supposed to be original FF7 and then become a thing on its own, FF9 had nothing to do with FF series in the begnining.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Wut?
One of the best-selling and celebrated games of all time, not only in the franchise, but in general, had "killed" franchise?
Talking about being overdramatic.

If you knew anything about Resident Evil outside of what games sold well, you'd understand why that's in no way an overdramatic statement.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Given how the franchise works, there is no strict guidelines what counts as FF game.

There kind of is, as part of the numerical series. There has to be a Cid and there has to be either Moogles or Chocobos or both. There has to be "a group of heroes going on an adventure" and a singular main bad guy behind it all that has to be fought and defeated.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Turo602

If you knew anything about Resident Evil outside of what games sold well, you'd understand why that's in no way an overdramatic statement.

If you was less overdramatic queen, you'd understood that things change and maintaining the same formula had become unfeasible for the Resident Evil series.
And it's not like RE had stopped producing more horror oriented games.
So all this "RE4 killed RE series" is dumb type of autistic ********.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

There kind of is, as part of the numerical series. There has to be a Cid and there has to be either Moogles or Chocobos or both. There has to be "a group of heroes going on an adventure" and a singular main bad guy behind it all that has to be fought and defeated.

Originally Posted by Sumac

FF brand curator, Kitase, had said in a recent interview, that (paraphrasing) "we slap FF name on our best game at the time".

And Cid and Chocobos can be added later, after the core concept had been established.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Sumac

If you was less overdramatic queen, you'd understood that things change and maintaining the same formula had become unfeasible for the Resident Evil series.
And it's not like RE had stopped producing more horror oriented games.
So all this "RE4 killed RE series" is dumb type of autistic ********.

If you weren't such a corporate c*ck sucker, you would know using the empty "things change" argument is pointless and retarded. Especially in regards to Resident Evil which you know nothing about. Resident Evil 4 isn't even anywhere near the best selling game in the series nor did it even sell all that much better than REmake. It just had the benefit of being ported to a much more popular console. Spewing bullsh*t corporate lies doesn't make you look informed, especially when Resident Evil 4 literally wipes the story clean and rebooted Resident Evil into a trend chaser.

[Leo656]

By "ruined the franchise" or whatever, I'd assumed you meant that it took the brand away from "survival horror" into full-blown Action Movie Cartoon Land. Which I hear a lot of people say, frankly.

I don't doubt for one moment that RE4 is maybe the best-playing and "most fun" game in the series, but I can understand the frustration some people have felt in moving away from the survival horror formula into something totally different.

It's just kinda funny to me how a lot of the people who are all "Things evolve or die" are very selective about it, like when a band they like tinkers with the formula it's all "That's it, they're dead to me." Whether it was just to sell more records or an actual and sincere interest in artistic growth and experimentation, fans are generally like "Stick with what brought you to the dance, assholes". Whether the new music is good or not, people will hate it for "Not being exactly the same as the old stuff".

So it's just weird to me, the discrepancy. Like, you're not allowed to like "Load" or "ReLoad" because "That sh*t ain't Metallica". BUT, a "Final Fantasy" or "Resident Evil" game can be almost NOTHING like the earlier stuff, and those same people will say, "As long as it's good, who cares? The same old thing forever is boring. Evolve or die!"

I admit, I spend a lot of time studying people, as well as myself, so these kinds of things might jump out at me more than the next guy. But it's not a new thing and it's always fascinated me.

[Turo602]

It's not even as dramatic as numbnuts here is even making it out to be either. It's simply a matter of fact. Resident Evil 4 and onwards could have been an entirely new IP, even 7 and 8. He thinks he sounds smart by saying things need to evolve like that means what they did was somehow the only way it could have evolved when the recent remakes prove that to be false anyway.

When a franchise is stripped of its identity, its story, and is molded to become whatever is popular at the time, it is no longer the series it once was and is therefore dead, and Capcom knows this, which is why they keep trying to lure back old fans with remakes while experimenting with the main titles because they'll get by on name alone to the casual gamers.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I don't doubt for one moment that RE4 is maybe the best-playing and "most fun" game in the series, but I can understand the frustration some people have felt in moving away from the survival horror formula into something totally different.

If this were 2005, sure, Resident Evil 4 could be considered the most "fun" and best playing. But that game is seriously dated in a lot ways most people don't want to admit. I recently tried it again and man, it's pretty rough, and I had to try RE5 again just to see if it felt the same and RE5 honestly holds up flawlessly still compared to RE4.

[Leo656]

I'm more of a Silent Hill guy, and I remember how people pitched a fit in "Homecoming" because you could beat the sh*t out of the monsters, now.

I can see how RE4 would upset some people by being a much greater departure for that series than "Homecoming" was for Silent Hill.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Turo602

If you weren't such a corporate c*ck sucker, you would know using the empty "things change" argument is pointless and retarded. Especially in regards to Resident Evil which you know nothing about. Resident Evil 4 isn't even anywhere near the best selling game in the series nor did it even sell all that much better than REmake. It just had the benefit of being ported to a much more popular console. Spewing bullsh*t corporate lies doesn't make you look informed, especially when Resident Evil 4 literally wipes the story clean and rebooted Resident Evil into a trend chaser.

Of course, I am on Capcom payroll, just to piss tiny bitchy fanatics like you.
I wish, I was. It would have been even more fun to do it for money, than just, because, I find riling zealots amusing.

I will amend my statement that RE4 was the best selling RE game in history. It was not, but nevertheless it was enormously influential on the industry.

Saying that RE4 was the popular just, because, it was ported on popular console is dumb as ****. Most of RE game were released almost on every platform, yet not every single one of them sold as much or had such enormous influence as RE4.
Conclusion?
You're wrong again.

Originally Posted by Leo656

By "ruined the franchise" or whatever, I'd assumed you meant that it took the brand away from "survival horror" into full-blown Action Movie Cartoon Land. Which I hear a lot of people say, frankly.

Well, they just need to deal with it.
Like people who wanted to see their FFs as turn-based classic JRPGs.

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's just kinda funny to me how a lot of the people who are all "Things evolve or die" are very selective about it, like when a band they like tinkers with the formula it's all "That's it, they're dead to me." Whether it was just to sell more records or an actual and sincere interest in artistic growth and experimentation, fans are generally like "Stick with what brought you to the dance, assholes". Whether the new music is good or not, people will hate it for "Not being exactly the same as the old stuff".

So it's just weird to me, the discrepancy. Like, you're not allowed to like "Load" or "ReLoad" because "That sh*t ain't Metallica". BUT, a "Final Fantasy" or "Resident Evil" game can be almost NOTHING like the earlier stuff, and those same people will say, "As long as it's good, who cares? The same old thing forever is boring. Evolve or die!"

You need to know a bit about RE4 development: it had lasted 6 years and during those years, developers tried out almost everything under the sun - putting more focus on fantasy elements (which give us DMC series), trying out different styles and concepts - from a zeppelin to a haunted castle infested with hallucinations, nothing worked out, up until they arrived to the final RE4.

It was not the case, where developers just threw everything out and remade it from scratch, because, they felt like - it was a product of years of testing different ideas until developers found out what pleased them the most.

And surprisingly for all brainless monkeys who are screaming that RE4 went with trends, it was not. RE4 had SET those trends and a lot of modern games carry out its influence. Even recent God of War, I think, was influenced by it. Not to mention REmakes.

So, RE4 was neither a fluke, created by a whimsical desire to do something different just, because, neither it was a case of a trend chasing.

Originally Posted by Turo602

It's not even as dramatic as numbnuts here is even making it out to be either. It's simply a matter of fact. Resident Evil 4 and onwards could have been an entirely new IP, even 7 and 8. He thinks he sounds smart by saying things need to evolve like that means what they did was somehow the only way it could have evolved when the recent remakes prove that to be false anyway.

REmakes don't play anywhere near close to originals, bozo.

Originally Posted by Turo602

When a franchise is stripped of its identity, its story, and is molded to become whatever is popular at the time, it is no longer the series it once was and is therefore dead, and Capcom knows this, which is why they keep trying to lure back old fans with remakes while experimenting with the main titles because they'll get by on name alone to the casual gamers.

Except RE4 didn't lose anything. Its story is connected to the rest of the series. It lends itself to the horror in less capacity than previous titles, but nowhere near as action as RE5 or 6. And it was molded into the game, because, Capcom didn't want to make use of a tired formula which worked only in the middle of 90s.

Originally Posted by Turo602

If this were 2005, sure, Resident Evil 4 could be considered the most "fun" and best playing. But that game is seriously dated in a lot ways most people don't want to admit. I recently tried it again and man, it's pretty rough, and I had to try RE5 again just to see if it felt the same and RE5 honestly holds up flawlessly still compared to RE4.

Gee, man, game from 2005 feels dated! You don't say!
I wonder, how RE1-3 hold up, lol.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Saying that RE4 was the popular just, because, it was ported on popular console is dumb as ****. Most of RE game were released almost on every platform, yet not every single one of them sold as much or had such enormous influence as RE4.
Conclusion?
You're wrong again.

Know what you're talking about before blindly talking out of your ass. Of course Resident Evil 4 sold well due to more exposure. That's just a f*ckin fact. Was REmake or Zero on the PS2? Considering Resident Evil found its fanbase primarily on the Playstation, most of its audience was on the PS2 and didn't find the Gamecube a worthwhile enough investment for some Resident Evil games. The Gamecube was a flop and the PS2 is the greatest selling console of all time. Do the math.

Originally Posted by Sumac

You need to know a bit about RE4 development: it had lasted 6 years and during those years, developers tried out almost everything under the sun - putting more focus on fantasy elements (which give us DMC series), trying out different styles and concepts - from a zeppelin to a haunted castle infested with hallucinations, nothing worked out, up until they arrived to the final RE4.

It was not the case, where developers just threw everything out and remade it from scratch, because, they felt like - it was a product of years of testing different ideas until developers found out what pleased them the most.

Once again, full of sh*t. Shinji Mikami himself said Resident Evil 4's direction was the result of REmake's poor sales. He even insisted the developers take it easier on the player and make the game more "fun." Being revolutionary doesn't take away from the fact that it became something it wasn't to garner a casual audience after Capcom f*cked up by making the series exclusive to the Gamecube. All Resident Evil 4 did was set a bad precedent for the rest of the series to follow.

Originally Posted by Sumac

REmakes don't play anywhere near close to originals, bozo.

They don't exactly play anything like Resident Evil 4 either, idiot. Unless you mean because you're staring at the character's ass then you clearly don't know anything about video games. Resident Evil 2 has way more in common with its original than it does Resident Evil 4.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Except RE4 didn't lose anything. Its story is connected to the rest of the series. It lends itself to the horror in less capacity than previous titles, but nowhere near as action as RE5 or 6. And it was molded into the game, because, Capcom didn't want to make use of a tired formula which worked only in the middle of 90s.

Now I know you haven't played these games. Resident Evil 4 literally kills its original narrative that all the previous games were building to in an opening monologue and then becomes a rescue the princess type story so it's easier for newcomers to follow along. It's also just as full blown an action game as RE5 was, so I don't really understand where you get that it's not, unless you're one of those idiots who thinks a night time setting and gothic architecture somehow transforms the gameplay experience into something scarier just because it's not set in the broad daylight like RE5, even though you're literally doing the same sh*t in both games.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Gee, man, game from 2005 feels dated! You don't say!
I wonder, how RE1-3 hold up, lol.

If you're gonna make a snide remark, at least try to understand what you're responding to. You just sound f*cking retarded seeing as I clearly said the game is far more dated than people would like to admit. Once again, if you had any idea about what you were talking about, you wouldn't have felt compelled to say something stupid seeing as there's currently tons of resistance from stupid RE4 fanboys like you who think RE4 shouldn't be remade because it holds up so perfectly fine...

[Leo656]

Man, survival horror is serious business.