More Final Fantasy Bits

tenchiken writes: "First the bad news, Square has announced that they are selling off Square Studios. This is the group that was responsible for the FF Movie and also a forthcoming short for The Matrix. Better News. Final Fantasy X, the first FF for the new PS2, is shipping tommorow (in stores Wed). You can find reviews at GameSpot,Gamers, IGN, etc. The reviews are all positive, and I will be waiting in line on Wed morning to pick up my copy. Square's new online game for the PS2 FF11 is also coming along nicely. Playonline Has a 'webcam' up feeding 24x7 images. The pictures look great. The above pages are Japanese." CowboyNeal and I both have our copies of FFX on reserve and are planning on some time off to watch LotR and play FFX this week.

Comments

Geek Week!

[tsmit]

Man, this just seems like the ultimate geek week. First FFX, then LotR.

{conspiracy}
I wonder why they want us away from the computers?
{/conspiracy}

Re:Does anyone know what summoning's like in FFX?

[tenchiken]

There are less summons then before, but they follow the FFIX summoning scheme where by you get a long sequence the first time you use a summon, and then mostly abrieviated summons.

HOWEVER...

Sommons are now regular battle characters in this game. Summon Ifrit and he sticks around for a while. Some summons (2 of them I think) are multi character summons, and they also stick around. From what I have heard, the main use for summons is "to take one for the team" in FFX (ie, mega powerfull villian, you throw a summon up there to block, and then your characters rotate in).

Just my luck...

[tRoll with Butter]

Not being a fan of the games, I didn't expect much of "The Spirits Within", boy was I wrong. The animation was nothing short of breathtaking and I was actually surprised by the unpredictability of the plot. In short, the movie far outshined my expectations and I eagerly awaited a sequel.

Now I have to explain to everyone I told about this movie (who were also equally impressed by it) that there won't be a sequel. This is really a shame - we can wipe Circuit City out of I-Openers, but we couldn't make movies such as Final Fantasy profitable for the studio.

Video games vs. Movies.

[Matt2000]

I don't know why video game companies think they can go off and make a movie becuase they produced some cut scenes for their last title, in the same way I don't know why Hollywood thinks they can produce video games. These two things, despite sharing characteristics such as motion and sound are completely different.

Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies.

The Final Fantasy movie was pretty bad. It had great hair and lighting effects, true, but who gives a rats ass when the story lopes along and the characters are 2 dimensional and sterile. Hollywood is already very good at delivering this type of garbage, I wouldn't recommend trying to compete.

Re:Video games vs. Movies.

[Baba Abhui]

Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies.

This bogus statistic was widely circulated, and subsequently very quitely debunked. What was actually true was that *worldwide* video game grosses were larger than *U.S.* movie ticket sales, which is much less surprising and much less signifigant.

What's more, when combined with some other numbers, the video game biz looks like a better candidate for the "low yield" club than the movie business. From Wired News:

The [computer and video game] industry created more than 219,000 jobs and paid $7.2 billion in wages in 2000, according to the study. Retail sales of computer and video game hardware and software totaled about $7.8 billion.

So, according to this article, the combined pc/video game business watched very nearly it's entire revenue stream go right back out the door in salaries alone, last year, at least. No wonder PC games are under seige and the more profitable console games are front and center.

The movie business has had some famous flops, but in general, there are more opportunities in the movie business to use sheer marketing firepower to ensure that a crummy product still makes big money.

I'm not saying that I think video game companies can make good movies - heck, 90% of the time, they can't even make good video games - but I can understand the desire to move into a market that has more predictable revenues and great tie-in opportunities.

Re:Video games vs. Movies.

[oGMo]

I don't know why video game companies think they can go off and make a movie becuase they produced some cut scenes for their last title, in the same way I don't know why Hollywood thinks they can produce video games.

If you've ever played a Final Fantasy game (and liked it: plenty of people don't, it's purely a matter of taste), I'm sure you've thought "wouldn't it be cool to see a movie?" From FF4 and on, the epic storylines and character developments just beg for something like a movie. They scream "think of what a movie with all this stuff would be like!"

Unfortunately for Square, they seemed to work on the movie like they did their games: going for technological masterpiece as well as brilliant storytelling. The problem seems to be that since there aren't any real technological bounds but time on a movie (unlike a console, where you're pushing the limits of hardware, but you still have limits), limitless time went into this area. Now, I liked the story, and the characters, and the plot, and the setting, and the themes. I tend to like anime, though, and am very forgiving of problems when there is at least some merit to a film.

Personally I thought the graphics were great, but I would have been very satisfied if they'd done a live-action film of greater length, and brought out their storyline more. One of the real problems with doing a Final Fantasy movie is that while you've got 80 hours of game to develop characters, setting, and plot, even a 3-hour movie doesn't do justice. It's not that Square is bad at these things, they're just not too experienced yet at writing short stories.

Why video game companies are willing to risk large sums on a traditionally low yield business (movie making) when their own video game market is already larger than the revenue stream for movies.

This is really what I wanted to address. Not everything is done solely for money, and it's a sad state of affairs that these things should be determined on how much money it will bring in. Square has shown repeatedly in the past that it is willing to take a risk: just look at Vagrant Story or Legend of Mana. They don't like to lose, of course; sadly the teams that don't produce high-yield titles don't usually do well. But at least they're willing to take the risk.

The Final Fantasy movie was pretty bad. It had great hair and lighting effects, true, but who gives a rats ass when the story lopes along and the characters are 2 dimensional and sterile. Hollywood is already very good at delivering this type of garbage, I wouldn't recommend trying to compete.

I disagree. I think the movie was actually pretty good all things considered. I've seen (and enjoyed) much worse anime and other movies, both TV and big-screen. The movie was too short to go into fleshing out the characters, but it is quite easy to imagine how things would be if this were, say, a trilogy or better. Instead of starting in a nearly-dead world, we could have seen a pre-apocalyptic world, and then have it ravaged. Instead of merely telling about the first six spirits, we could have seen Aki finding them, watch her sadness as the little girl died, etc.

The story wasn't bad, the movie was just a bit too short. Instead of dismissing it as not being perfect the first time, we need to acknowledge its potential. Who would have thought that there could be a decent movie when watching the first cheesy silent movie? Or a truly emotional animated story after seeing the first corny cartoon? Just give it time. Someone has to be the pioneer. In this case, it's Square.

Conspiracy?

[don_carnage]

I wonder why they want us away from the computers?

So they can sneak in and install Magic Latern, of course!

Re:wednesday queues...

[brunes69]

Any self-respecting geek would have bought his/her LOTR tickets long ago, and thus would not have to wait in line.

Re:IGN Review

[ZaMoose]

Free version is up today.

Just go to http://ps2.ign.com and click on the link on the front page.

Re:wednesday queues...

[sam@caveman.org]

i actually did buy my tickets about a week and a half ago (dork alert). i'll have to wait in line again unless i want to sit in the back corners next to the speakers, or in the front row with my neck craning up to see the screen.

oh, and yes i am a geek (obviously), but self-respecting? that's pushing it.

-sam

I don't blame them for selling Square Studios

[iconian]

THE SPIRITS WITHIN
As of 8/9/01

Gross-to-Date: $31,711,932
Production Budget: $115 million

Source:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/data/finalfantasy.h tm

Ruining College Students everywhere.

[Wastedlife.com]

It goes without saying that the release of both Lord of the Rings *and* Final Fantasy 10 during most college final weeks is a plot to undermine the youth of america. Oh well, I was destined to fail the finals anyways.

I, for one. . .

[foo fighter]

. . .look forward to new features from Square Studios from whatever studio buys them. And I'm sure they will be bought.

I view "The Spirits Within" more as another stepping-stone than the culmination of CG. I start to drool when I think of what an innovative, risk-taking studio like Miramax could do with the tools provided by Square Studios.

Now that a lot of the development is done and the tools have been created, directors can finally tell their stories exactly as they imagined them.

This is exciting.

Why did people not like Final Fantasy the movie?

[eris_crow]

I very thoroughly enjoyed it, and bought the DVD (my first DVD, at that). The animation was superb, and the story was decent too. Certainly better that the majority of SF movies. Sure the characters were cut from card stock, but again, they were at least as good as the characters in the majority of movies SF, animated, or otherwise.

Did people not like the movie because of the theological/spiritual concepts involved? That's what a couple of people have told me.

Maybe people just aren't ready for animation that approaches (but not yet reaches) photographic quality. Seeing such life-like images but knowing that were not actual people may have made a lot of people uncomfortable. I know that I've at least seen a few invectives against "digital actors".

For the record I have never played any FF games, but I am an animation fan, and I am also a pagan, so the whole "Gaia" concept was quite familiar and comfortable for me.