Slashdot Mirror
Square, FFXI, and the MMORPG
LukeG writes "Squaresoft's latest instalment in the ubiquitous Final Fantasy series will mark huge departure from previous titles, as they gamble on the popularity of massively multiplayer gaming on consoles. The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2." I'm interested to see the FF world taken to an MMORPG. If anyone can
make the genre not suck, it's Square.
I don't get it. How final is a fantasy when there are dozen of them?
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Final Fantasy has, over the years, become a bit stale. I suppose it can be expected ten or however many sequels later.
;-)
Multiplayer would be great, though. It would really let the game shine. Let's hope they can get it right the first time, though. I'm looking forward to other multiplayer games, though. Being able to hook up my PS2 (which I just bought and love) to a multiplayer version of Sega NFL 2K2. Network playoffs! Awesome! WarCraft III for PS2!
Still.. one problem remains. I can't get cable modem service where I live! So i suppose it's all for nothing. I doubt these games would play all that great over some 56K hookup, and I do NOT put up with lag. It ruins the experience.
We'll see what happens, but for now, I just don't care because the technology isn't accessible anyway.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
It's called Phantasy Star Online. It did (and still does) quite well IIRC.
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
The only way you'll see this doing well, is if Square makes it accessible to everyone, which would mean porting it to competing consoles. So far we know almost for certain that it should be coming out for the X-Box as well, but for the Gamecube it's only a rumor. Due to what Nintendo did just a few months ago when Square tried to apologize... Who knows if Square even got a dev kit yet. Overall, I don't know how Square's first foray into online gaming is going to be. Should be interesting, but the key is to get it to a wide enough audience.
Phantasy Star Online has been a MMORPG on the Dreamcast Console for a long time. Its still pretty popular too, I wouldn't be suprised if its one the more popular Dreamcast Titles out there...
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
I ain't gonna sit there and select letters with the PS2 gamepad to type "Owned"
...is right here.
my hope is that i can add a hard drive to my ps2 and connect to my current broadband connection and everything will be hunky-dory...
any hope of that happening? probably not....
The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2."
What about the DC online games? There is Quake3, Unreal Tournament, hell even Chu Chu rocket. What about Phantasy Star Online?
The DC online games are great. Worms, WSB2K2, there is plenty. It was fun too!
Basically, Squaresoft isn't going to be the first to test this.
--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Be careful, you could be very disappointed by the end result. And too much drooling could damage your keyboard.
I waited impatiently for the movie, and was very disappointed. I've decided not to wait impatiently for this one. Besides, I think I've got plenty of time to finish Nethack before this one is out.
LukeG writes "Squaresoft's latest installment in the ubiquitous Final Fantasy series will mark a huge departure from the previous titles, as they gamble on the popularity of massively multiplayer gaming on consoles. The genre, already successful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on the PS2." I'm interested to see the FF world taken ???to an MMORPG. If anyone can make the genre not suck, it's Square.
Obviously, the submitter has never played Phantasy Star Online, one of the best games for DC
There are a lot of things wrong with this article.
First, FFXI isn't the first MMPORPG for a console... that honor (as far as I know) goes to Phantasy Star Online. As for the first "En Masse" game? I didn't have a NES modem, so I don't know.
Second, FF VIII is generally reviled as the worst of the series, being essentially a rushed out the door half of the two-sides-of-war tale they wanted to tell.
Third, neither this nor Phantasy Star should be considered a true MMPORPG, as this sounds like only groups can venture forth into the wild together. In Everquest you are likely to stumble across people who washed ashore on the small island in the middle of the ocean, but chance encounters like that are not possible if only groups can quest together.
Online games like this lend themselves to character and community-building gaming, whereas all of the recent Final Fantasies have been story driven. While in theory most MMPORPG have a larger story arch, in practice they are basically a world with which gamers can explore, communicate, and form communities and heirarchies. Squaresoft is famous for jaw-dropping moments of twisting plot, and that amazing feeling of convincing the player that he is the second coming of the Messiah (see "Xenogears"). Neither of these is possible in an online game where basically everyone has an equal role. However, with an online game comes a sense of community, the sort of thing that Final Fantasy games have been known to cause people to abandon.
I'm sure Square will pull this off with flare, albeit bumpy flare. FF7 was quite frankly amazing compared to FF6 (FF3 in the states), and the jump to online gaming gives Square the chance to make another massive jump in gameplay. If they don't just copy what is available, and they don't succumb to profiteering to cover for their atrocious losses on The Spirits Within, then this could very well be the greatest MMPORPG released this year. On the other hand, with one look at Square's release calendar (Snatched, apparently, from Eidos's dead hand), we can expect that next years new Final Fantasy release will be every bit as engrossing too. That is, if we bother to pick that one up.
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
For those who aren't interested in reading 9px Arial font with few line breaks, or the fanboy details/speculation (like what kind of magic Red Mages can use, or how desolate the Saltbelt Plains are), here's the meat of the story:
All of that information is taken from the article, not my own a priori knowledge or opinion.
"First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
Looks like a nice game and Online play should be a big draw. My only concern is something my nephew drew to my attention in Ultima Online, that it's extremely difficult to get started unless you play relentlessly and have patience for being robbed frequently. Hopefully they'll have some method of protection for newbies, or robbery more difficult.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2."
It HAS been tested, and this game ISN'T groundbreaking. The game is called "Phantasy Star Online", and it was wildly popular on the Dreamcast. FFXI is interesting, but it's not the first of its kind, it isn't groundbreaking, and it's not an untested genre with the console audience.
"huge departure" it always raises a question mark. Why? What's wrong with the original version? If it was good enough for nine sequels, why change it into something else? Why not a completely new game?
Oh, wait. I forgot. There ARE NO NEW GAMES, only SEQUELS AND CLONES, and if you can make one game into BOTH A SEQUEL AND A CLONE, then you've achieved the ultimate in marketing.
Note to Slashdot admins: The current anti-spam on the e-mail address doesn't work very well, for obvious reasons.
ubiquitous, that word, I do not think you know what that means.
Flame me if I'm wrong, but I thought being ubiquitous meant being everywhere, like telephones. Perhaps you meant pervasive, or perhaps most Final Fantasy followers haven't amassed the necessary grasp of the language with their 10th grade education.
It won't happen right away. Can you say product lock-in with propritory protocols? This ides of speaking a common language will take a while to catch on. It will only happen after sticking to a closed protocol proves to be much more detrimental to your sales more than it does the competition.
MS is of going to require .net and passport trying for the lock-in, while everyone else goes high speed lan protocols not needing a remote server on the internet. Expect something propritory first. (like they already do with memory cards. Why couldn't they use a smart media or compact flash card?) They will have to join forces and use an open standard (TCP/IP or IPX maybe?) to pull an end run past the 800 Lb gorilla. Not everyone is going to buy a console and set of games from each manufacture just to have the correct software/hardware for the lan parties. Hopefully games on consoles will start to be compatible with PC platforms and they can sell the consoles because they are optimised for game play and start to clean up at lan parties with a mix of PC's and consoles. Then we should start to see the adoption common connections and protocols
The truth shall set you free!
Expecting to see, at some time down the road, Final Fantasy accounts/characters/etc. for sale on eBay. i.e.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I've heard it commented many times that the series as a whole is slowly declining and even more whining over Uematsu's musical ability, yet none the less the game continue to be popular enough to warrent a decent fan following. Each release will the first introduction to the series to many gamers. I would venture that many of those gamers do not own a SNES or NES that they could play the older games on, so the only frame of referance they have are the more recent sequals.
:P
Square wouldn't be making another sequal if they didn't think there wasn't a demand for it.
Probably the same reason that almost half of the remixes at Overclocked Remix are from a Final Fantasy game.
Come on, Square hasn't put out a good FF game since 7, and 7 wasn't as good as 6. FF8 was horrible, 9 was mediocre, and so far 10 is almost as bad as 8.
I find I have zero faith in those guys anymore... I guess a gamer can only get his heart broken so many times.
I don't know if I trust this guy's opinion on how good or successful this game will be.
For one, he declares FFVIII "the best game ever made." This is a matter of opinion, but I know that I was so bored and unimpressed with this game that I lost interest after about 20 minutes of playing. Out of the FF games that I've played, VIII was definitely the worst by far.
FFXI will, contrary to this article's line of thought, not be the first MMORPG on a console. PS Online for the dreamcast, anyone?
I for one would like to see some more info on FFXI before passing judgement. From the tone and questionable facts in this article, I think I would take it with a grain of salt.
What is this about Square apologizing to Nintendo? IIRC, Nintendo has always been the one to snub Square.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
let's not get involved in 'ff is stale' or 'your console suX0rs' discussions. the issue here, as much as i love square, is the hardware.
;)
7 syllables to remember for the console industry, and if you don't believe me, ask sega's hardware division: no one buys peripherals.
they'll buy an extra controller. they'll buy a hundred games. they'll pay an isp. but no one drops $100 on anything, once they've spent $300 on a console that plays mgs2, ffx, gta3, gran turismo, and ico just fine already. it's been tried, dozens of times, and it doesn't just fail, it puts companies out of business.
now, sony's not going out of business on its hard drive/ethernet combo. i'm going to buy one. but i'm giant sucker with lots of disposable income who must play ff. but (slashdot aside) there aren't that many like me -- not enough to make this work. there were only 300k phantasy star online players, and that didn't even require hardware. sony will be lucky to get 250k people to buy their $100 hardware, and square may get half of those to PlayOnline. compare that to the millions of units of, say, ffix they've sold.
i know, i know, a usb ethernet adapter -- you can also make your linux machine into a gateway for halo, but how many people are doing *that*? again, not counting me
i want square to do well here. and maybe other consoles will help, although last i read, they're thinking about nintendo and not ms, and the cube also has no connection. but the hardware is the issue here, and for all ff's sweet, chocolatey goodness, it's not going to sell much hardware.
god is just pretend.
Whether or not this MMORPG is successful, it marks the end of Final Fantasy as we know it. The main series (1-10) has always been single-player with predefined characters and a linear story with an end. An MMORPG is none of that.
Problem is, a lot of people probably want yet another traditional Final Fantasy game - I know my fiance does. It boggles the mind why they named this spinoff game Final Fantasy XI. They should have named it "Final Fantasy Online" or something, so they could pick up the main series again, if they wanted to.
Capcom is a good act to follow in this case, especially with the Mega Man franchise. The original series is still intact, with the spinoffs relegated to their own series' (i.e. Mega Man X, Legends, etc). What if Mega Man 9 was a platformer, while 10 was an RPG, and eleven was real-time strategy? Nonsense.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
I'm sorry, but I don't see the charm of Final Fantasy translating well to online play. I've always felt the primary plus to Final Fantasy was that it was not as much of a game, but exploring a story, discovering more and more until you reach a definitive end in which everything comes together, after 40-50 hours of gameplay, played as quickly or as slowly as you want. I really don't see how this sort of experience can translate to an online format.
Aside from that, FFX was a big let down to me. Truly, the graphics are fantastic, and the story is quite good, but in trying to make the world more "realistic", they took a lot of the fun out of it. World map navigation as it was in all previous Final Fantasies was fantastic, and now it is completely gone. The closest you ever come is getting to move a cursor with coordinates around a map to search for destinations, hardly the simple fun of the old-school world map. And before that, there is no free movement, if you want to go back to the beginning half-way through, it is impossible. I wish they didn't deny free movement of the world, makes it somehow less engrossing.
And all this propaganda making it sound like Square is being a pioneer is plain bs. As many others have pointed out, Phantasy Star Online is at least one example of it being done before...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
How can people say Squaresoft is so good at making video games when the very design of their games is terrible? The latest installments in the final fantasy series have been marked by plot holes, lousy character development, poor and annoying combat systems, and too much combat to begin with. Everything that makes an RPG great as far as I'm concerned has been missing from the latest in the Final Fantasy series. The last good Final Fantasy was number IV. They should have just ended the series there. I think everyone is far too distracted by Square's flashy graphics to notice all the shoddy development in the games they've been producing as of late.
This will have a chance only if they can reduce the amount of time the players watch the story. . .
A buddy of mine finished FFX over the course of 2 weeks, but said a good chunk of the time was spent watching the fancy graphics of the story being told, rather than playing/making decisions. In an online environment, this would get annoying and repetitive. I hope "cinema" in this MMORPG takes a small role. After all, a MMORPG should be a persistent world without a set quest - something that FF has never really been at all. . .
I'm interested to see the FF world taken to an MMORPG. If anyone can make the genre not suck, it's Square. Hey, MMORPGs are great ! :)
Moreover, I honestly can't figure out playing an MMORPG on my console ... bandwidth ? keyboard (ok but you'll have to buy it) ? patches on the HD ?
This could be fun however, but personally I'm really looking forward to StarWars Galaxies [www.starwarsgalaxies.com], World of Warcraft [www.blizzard.com/wow], Neocron [www.neocron.com] and, of course, Milcis [www.milcis.net] ;)
The market is going to be satured soon, let's see what will come out of it :)
At least it's not the case for the console players...
theefer
Well, I just got a great idea. I think I would MUCH rather have an MMORPG set in the Chrono Trigger/Cross world, than in the FF world. Why? Well, I still think these are the best RPG's to ever come out of Square. Most people think that at least Chrono Trigger is one of the best RPG's ever made. Who can blame them... great music, good graphics for it's time, innovative battle system, amazing storyline and multiple endings. The way it would transmute into a good MMORPG would be as such: Since one of the main elements of the Chrono games was time travel, the world could be limited to like one specific region or such, but you could travel to multiple times. Why have "made up" races for different regions when you can have races/beings from different time periods. A storyline could easily be made which would lend itself to an MMORPG universe as well. What would be even cooler, but I don't know how well it could be implemented, would be that things in the games could be dynamically updated due to things people in different time periods would do. For instance.. you destroy a certain monster (possibly with help from like a hundred people in that time period or such) and there's an open cave entrance in the time period after that one... I think it would work well and I know for damn sure at least one person (me) would play the hell out of it. I would kill (almost literally) for a game like this. Hmm, maybe I should make something myself :).
The success of FFXI will depend more on the continued support and continued subscription of their game rather than the one time purchase price which most console games offer. $9.95 / month to play something I already purchased is possible, but it's going to strip a lot of their audience away, especially the younger age groups of whom a credit card is still a few years off.
PlayOnline.com claims they'll be opening up much of their other services which previously required a monthly fee, but will still charge for select, premire attractions. I think EverQuest made this a possible marketing opportunity. Square's just hoping one of the largest videogame fan bases will let them cash in.
-Barkeep, a draft of your most hazardous brew, for the world is slowly stepping into focus, and I don't like what I see.
i predict FFXI will not sell well
just study the history of pc mmorpg games. only the early birds sell well (everquest, counter strike). latecomer dont.
TTTTTT&TTTTT
Can you solve it?
Clue : The 1st and 10th T is Troll
http://www.playonline.com/ff11/download/02.html
"The final fantasy world". Final Fantasy is one of the most commercially successful separations of franchise from content. Other than Cid the Airship mechanic, only the concept stays relatively the same between games. (Note: Japanese FFs that never made it over here seem to recycle engines with no more than minor tweaks)
...WTF who said it sucks? I never played RPGs before I bought FF VII and I only bought it for my girlfriend as I am usually an FPS only guy. After playing FF VII for about an hour I was hooked and bought and played FF VIII, FF IX and now FF X( which I have 60 hours into and just beat ). Great games ( with the exception of 8 which didn't really do much for me ). My recent RPG experience is limited however, and other titles might suck. The FF series is good. For those that don't know in FF X there are talking charactors which are cool but the dialog is a bit cheesy at times and sometimes things are best left for your imagination to interpret instead of some cheesy voice-over actor.
Gary
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Note that this is my opinion only.
If you think I'm on crack for liking FF4,
that is up to you.
FF1: Wander around aimlessly for hours on end
getting poisoned, paralyzed, and ultimately killed
by monsters. Surprisingly enough I beat it eventually after getting lots of help from my
Nintendo Power player's guide. Of course, I
was in 5th. grade at the time, so you can't blame
me.
FF2 & 3: Never released here at all, and I'm
too lazy to play them on an emulator right now.
FF4: The story and script are both cheezy, but
for some reason I still have more fun playing
this game over and over again than playing
any other game, period. Difficult if
you play the "original" version (not the
hacked up version known as FF2 here in the US)
or the Playstation version. IMO this is the
greatest game ever made, and probably always will
be.
FF5: Also really fun. Not as good as 4, sorta
better than 6... or at least a tad more difficult.
Job System is kinda fun.
FF6: Lotsa characters, lots of cool powers.
Probably the first game in the series where
it is too easy to create over powered chracters
that can kill the last boss in a turn.
FF7: Huge change of scenery for the first time.
The first disc is lots of fun, 2 and 3 aren't
quite as much fun. The first game that Square
put graphics above story, unfortunately.
FF Tactics: This game is challenging until
about halfway through. Then it becomes easy
when your guys are more powerful and you get
all these special unique characters with
overpowered abilities. Oh well, it is a LOT
of fun, and is better than 7 or 8 for sure.
FF8: Take one Leonardo di Caprio clone, throw
in a bunch of other pretty looking guys and
a crappy story. Then add some chocobos and
pretend it is Final Fantasy. I still have
nightmares about this game. Heck, the FF movie
is better than this.
FF9: Square caught a clue at how horrible FF8
was and made this game much more like the SNES
ones. The result is a kickass game that is
almost as enjoyable as FF4 for me.
FF10: I haven't started playing this game yet
thanks to Super Smash Bros. Melee.
FF11: I'm in agreement with those that think
this should have been just called FF Online.
IMO it shouldn't be part of the main series,
but rather be a side game like FFT was.
Mind you that I'm not against an FF online
game at all. I hope I get to make my own custom
black mage (complete with pointy hat). That'd
be cool. However, I think the games in the main
series should focus on the single player
story based RPG.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
What is MMORPG (i know what it stands for.. but what does it mean.. )
Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.
Anyone know where I can get PS2 hardware specs? Like how to build my own controller?
email sager@andrew.cmu.edu
God spoke to me
They made the worlds crappiest game (and made nine more)
and now they are trying to make an EVEN crappier game!
RPGS suck, you waste severel months listening to LAME STORIES
and PRESSING buttons and looking at CRAP GRAPHICS!
THIS IS THE TRUTH
RPGS SUCK, only LAME (and only the LAMEst) bastards
play such GOATSE.CX HOLES OF A GAME
apparently ff IS stale, or they wouldn't be making a new adaption to MMORPG. the thing is, before, the newer final fantasy games drove sales, but hopefully (for them) not like this one. since multiplayer doesnt exist on console without making yuor screen a fraction of its already small size, which made multiplayer NOT very enticing. now...yuo can use the web going capability of the PS/2 to play REAL multiplayer...YAY!
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
How is this massively multi-player? It's barely even multi-player. Like Phanasy Star on-line, FFXI looks like it will only let you have a limited number of players (those on your "team") on the screen at any given time. This, in effect, is just letting you play with three buddies on-line rather than forcing you to have a multi-tap and three extra controllers. Any comparison between this type of ORPG and a MMPORPG like everquest or ultima on-line (where EVERYBODY who's playing can interact and fight and not just the few on your team) seems ignorant to me.
--
Here is a link to some info regarding Final Fantasy XII, supposedly to be a return to single player format, not much info as it is still early in development, and I know some screen shots/promos that were presumed to be leaked were actually faked, so please take this info with a grain of salt. The GIA I wanted to link to Gamespot.com info, but that site is blocked from works proxy, dah, someone else please search and post :o)
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
All of its predecessors were excellent, Final Fantasy VIII was, and still is, one of the best games ever made.
That's VIII- as in decimal 8?? As in the WORST FF game ever made? I have serious questions about this guy's sanity, to say nothing of his opinions on gaming.
I am starting to think that I'm the only one who seriously dislikes modern square games. My 4 favourite games of all time are square: FF3, Secret of Mana, FF2, Chrono Trigger. I love all their old games on the SNES, but lately, they're games are shit. I haven't played FFX, so i can't include that, but FF7,8,9 and Chrono Cross were terrible (FFT was good though). Does anyone agree with me on this one? i'd like to know, because I think Square is getting WAY too much praise for the work that they are doing.
-Shawn [ge6.org]
Make your multiplayer game NOT REQUIRE your companies servers to work.. The entire doom and Quake series is a testament to this.. and The best examples of how not to do it is anything that works with WON online. (SOF is a great game, and I finished it in single player mode. but then the game becomes a throw away.)
If I cant pop up the game, and select "play online" and then be presented with a list of games running from a list server (Open source so it's not that company hogging it) and play then it wont work.. WON games require you to sell your soul to them in personal information and then you have to go through their horribly slow servers. No I'm not going to create a login, no I'm not gonna watch your pepsi ad whil the game starts.
If Squarsoft screws up their Multiplayer with stupid "lock IN" devices then they will fail. and they will fail horribly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
... because I play Counter-Strike all the time but I have never signed up for a Won ID.
I have never seen one banner ad. Maybe it is just Half Life.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
That's just an urban myth. Square didn't have financial problems when creating Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy is just a name, much like anything else. The Japanese LOVE cool-sounding American names, "Final Fantasy", although meaningless to someone who understands English sounds very cool to someone who doesn't.
I wish I had some facts to back this up but I'm too lazy to find some right now.
First, selling additional hardware for a console (especially unrequired and very expensive hardware) is doomed to fail. Look at any such "upgrade" offered in the past (such as the Sega CD)... it sold to the hardcore and that's it. FF XI will require that hdd/ethernet/keyboard/kitchen-sink add on kit. No-one will buy it.
Unless the game can be played without it.
How many Dreamcast keyboards do you think PSO sold? Damn near one per copy of the game, I'd imagine. I never ran into anyone without a keyboard while playing. Everyone I knew who bought the game bought the KB afterwards, to improve the play expierience. The 20$ pricetag helped.
The DC had everything you needed out of the box - including the modem. You bought extra hardware because the game was well worth the expense, and it made life easier. I don't see FF XI as being the "killer app" that sells this expensive hardware package that few other developers will take advantage of.
-Mofer
reads slashdot:
"Our geeks have faith in us! Give it all you've got, devs!"
http://consolewire.com/news/item.asp?nid=2293
That is my biggest concern about games like this on consoles. If anyone who played PSO knows, cheating is almost as bad as the original Diablo.
I was a die-hard PSO player until I got PK'd for the first time, and turned off the game forever.
Hell, I bought v2 but I didnt go online with it. I havent payed much attention to the PSO v2 scene but I heard there is cheating, and if I was playing $$$ to play these games I would be very pissed off due to the cheating.
I want to ride Chocobos.
I wonder with the release of ffxi they would be announcing the their boradband service for ps2 users through AOL.
Me and lunchbox here are going to kick your ass.
But that's not the case. They are not doing too well actually.
(Most of this relates to the PC world)
After Ultima Online and Everquest being respectively the first (large) and the most successful MMORPGs, we've had a bunch of losers.
Anarchy Online hasn't gone belly up completely yet, but they are mostly without a user base.
WWII Online is a joke, they're barely staying afloat.
Dark Age of Camelot is heading to hell in a hand basket. After the initial rage players soon found out they are largely selling you the same old crap. Endless levelling tedium and a game riddled with bugs. Coupled with a dev team that creates two bugs for every one it squashes and you can see it loses against established games like Ultima Online or Everquest, simply because they have more content by now.
It's funny how coding incompetence is a trademark of these games. Mythic Entertainment, the company behind "Dark Age of Camelot", hired MMORPG-community figureheads like Scott "Lum the Mad" Jennings or Sanya "Tweety" Thomas, but it didn't help them in the long run.
The only MMORPG really going strong after all this time is Everquest. Not because it's that good, but because it requires excessive amounts of time invested into it. It makes it near impossible for people to quit after they have invested a very large amount of time into it. (To get into the higher echolons of Everquest you need play-times in excess of 60 days. That's time online, not total days played.)It's called Evercrack for a reason (I was hooked for 8+ hours a day myself for almost 2 years.) Most players don't even enjoy the game anymore they just keep hanging on.
If you want to look into the abyss you might want to surf over to ebay and do a search for 'Everquest'.
I really can't see why this should be any different in the console world.
The genre is broken.
At least until a company comes along with a dev team that can code their way out of a wet paper bag.
PS: This does not apply to games with a decentralized server structure like Counter-Strike.
PPS: If you think you have to check out the genre, don't. If that doesn't deter you, then go for Everquest. I've spent significant amounts of time in all of the above listed games and I think it's safe to say that it's the lesser evil of the pack.
I have heard many contradictin gstories about the next "real" FF 1-player game. I've heard that XII, coming out in 2003, is the next standard 1-player game. Does anyone know the facts about the forthcoming games?
I play MMORPG's on my PC, and have greatly enjoyed some of them. I have nothing against the genre itself. However, I do have to say that plot is generally quite lacking in these games. Normally plot in a MMORPG comes from the players, not any pre-written script or storyline. This is why I also play CRPG's.
CRPG's such as Wizardry, Dragon Warrior, and Final Fantasy involve the player in a massive story that somehow revolves around them. That's the fun part. You don't have to listen to other players talking out of character, you don't have to find a group...it's just you vs. the badguys. Both genres have their pros and cons, but they are two seperate and distinct genres.
Am I the only one who viewed this announcement with pure, unadulterated dread? Final Fantasy going MMORPG? For years now, Final Fantasy has been one of the few remaining CRPG's available. Every year there are fewer and fewer of them, and more MMORPG's.
Oh, I'm sure Square can come up with a good game, and I'm sure it'll sell well - heck, it's the next Final Fantasy. I'm just not looking forward to giving up my plot-driven and self-centered universe to play with a dozen people I don't even know.
yrs,
Ephemeriis
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
How big is the world? Is there really a detailed 3D world in which you can just keep going for days without running out of terrain? Is it seamless, or are there annoying "portals"?
Just wait for Eternal Arcadia II from Sega/Overworks. The original easily crushed any of Square's FF offerings at the time and I'm sure the sequel will do the same.
After reading about the combat system my fears that FFXI will be another ass-tacular everquest clone have come true.
check out http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n01a.html for the complete article.
"Rather, as the player wanders the fields of Final Fantasy XI, he or she will see many enemies doing the same. A press of the "target" button will allow the player to enter an "auto-attack" real-time battle with the monster or monsters in question. In this battle, much like in a real-time strategy game, the player character will continually attack the enemy unless told to do otherwise."
*sigh*
Nothing groundbreaking here folks, move along.
I'm curious to know if Square can make a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer game and will be interested to see how they handle player to player communication. Even if you put a keyboard on your PS2, TV resolutions will kind of limit your dialog. For a font to be readible on your TV screen, you'll need to use big fat play-doh fonts.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
My take on it is that each game has a theme that if the hero (you) doesn't go on this massive quest/adventure that the world will be torn to pieces or destroyed in some fashion.
In the old games it was normally just some powerful enemy who tries to collect [special item here - crytals, etc] to take over the world and ends up plunging it into chaos. The new games are a little more out there with alternate worlds merging with our world and other crazy stuff...
I read a while back that Square was a confirmed developer for the XBox. Does anyone know if they are developing "unique" games for the XBox, or if are they going to release any FF games for it (the page says FFXI for XBox as well)?
proton != antielectron
1. Revenue Model I'd love to know how Square intends to charge for the game. Generally, MMORPG games for the PC use a two-part revenue model: $9-$50 for the game software, then an additional $5-$13 per month for a game subscription.
Given the massively multi-player nature of the games, they require enormous support including servers, game masters, billing and account support and on and on. For a decent analysis of these costs, check this out. The bottom line is that it's expensive, way more expensive than your normal game. Square has two sets of considerations here: They probably don't want to become the company to try charging a monthy fee to Console folks who tend to skew younger and have less experience with this genre. This would lead them to either jack up the software price and minimze the monthly fee, or design a game that runs more like Diablo and less like a true MMORPG. On the other hand, these games have network effects, the more people playing them, the more fun they are. That would encourage square to come to market with a low price and use the subscription model to make it up on the backend. It will be interesting to see which way they go.
2. Audience and appeal Despite the buzz, the existing market for MMORPG games is very small, maybe 3.5-4 Million worldwide, and arguably only 1-2 million in the US. They are a unique bunch of people. Given the hardware issues its relatively clear that a console isn't the best platform for these types of games. To overcome that, a console game will need to broaden it's appeal and lower the complexity and learning curve considerably in order to succeed. It will be interesting to see what things square removes from the genre to do this. Based on the coverage in the article, it seems as though trade skills will go completely. So will (I guess) much of the politics and diplomacy with respect to clans and factions. What they have left will be something very different than todays MMORPGs. It sounds like MMORPG lite. Not a bad thing, just very very differnt.
In the mean time, people like LucasArts are working on Star Wars Galaxies to try to popularize the genre a bit by using a huge and popular license. It will be interesting to see which way is more effective.
3. Cost These things are big budget to develop. Given Square's failed film and new management, it will be interesting to see how much cash they are willing to risk on something this new. Square has never been known to go cheap, and I bet they risk a bundle on it. It had the potential to be another very high profile flop for them.
But then again, nothing risked, nothing gained.
It should be fun to see what happens. -rg
The genre is not broken. Anarchy Online and WWII Online are broken.
A persistent online world full of real people is, and will continue to be much more interesting than a static and linear one.
Those companies were in for quick cash, and they probably got it. They simply do NOT have the resources or the capital to make and maintain an interesting online game.
Now its time for the big players to move in. Square knows how to tell stories, and they know how to create content (they just made a movie!). Also, being a console company, they know how to make accessible games.
I say this will be huge.
Cheers.
'has yet to be tested on a console audience'
I beg to differ. Last year, Phantasy Star Online was the first console game to be a MMORPG: it might have been a little weak in the RPG department, but it was definitely massively multiplayer.
And PSO received enormous amounts of praise. Gamespot and IGN both gave PSO excellent reviews, despite the fact that the game was relatively simple and the plot was, while interesting the first time, relatively boring: the game lacked the replayability of the Diablo series or the detail of the more mature PC MMORPGs and was nothing more then near-mindless hack and shoot, but it was still a tremendous hit, because of its multiplayer competitive elements.
If Square does things right, with similar quality found in X's graphics and storyline, and its MMORPG elements are kept either free or relatively cheap, it will probably be the highest-selling game to date: Final Fantasy is probably the most popular video game line of all time, and when you combine that with the high sales MMORPGs usually get, you have the potential to do something really special.
Final Fantasy XI: Online
Even Square's been bitten by the massive online RPG bug; and they're taking the PS2 with them.
This is one game that will have a lot to deal with. All of its predecessors were excellent, Final Fantasy VIII was, and still is, one of the best games ever made. So how can you possibly improve upon perfection? Well, this is Squaresoft we are talking about; they have decided to create a massively multiplayer RPG for the PS2. Cripes. Talk about taking the bull by the horns...
This game, no matter how you look at it, will be groundbreaking. It will be astounding. This game should, in theory, take over your life. Why? Gather round kids, I will try to explain... This, ladies and gentlemen is the very first en-masse multiplayer game to ever grace a console. You will be able to join up with your friends from across the globe and go on an adventure through your PS2.We are talking Everquest with bells on, Phantasy Star Online with knobs and whistles, this should be the game of 2002. Well, for the PS2 anyhow.
Final Fantasy XI is set on the planet Vana Diel, a paradise apparently, as are most Final Fantasy settings. However, things are not as they seem, Vana Diel has a rotten core and monsters and demons are rife. Ah. Right, yeah, as I said, a common Final Fantasy setting. That's more or less where the similarities end though. This is not your common RPG. This is special. Really special. Anyhow, more on the planet itself. Vana Diel is split into several kingdoms or areas, giving a potentially huge area to explore, at this time they are:
The Republic of Bastok
This area is where is humanoid races reside (more on classes/races later). Its an advanced nation with plenty of technology and valuable resources, including the classic Final Fantasy mineral, Mithril.
United federation of Windurst
This area is inhabited by the Tarutaru. The cities in this area have an almost organic feel, a perfect setting for the Tarutaru to work on their magic.
Kingdom of San D'oria
The Elvarn race resides here. There is constant threat of civil war, only a fragile alliance between the ruling Monarchy and the other parties stands between peace and complete destruction.
Gustaberg deadlands
A barren, dead space surrounding Bastock. No Flora survives here, only the withered remains of the past.
Sarutabaruta Plains
A vast, wide open plain near Windurst. Plenty of plants grow here, these attract monsters great and small to the area.
Ronfaure Forest
A lush, beautiful forest near San D'oria, a strange presence appears to reside here.
Final Fantasy XI: Online
Even Square's been bitten by the massive online RPG bug; and they're taking the PS2 with them.
If all of these areas are as large as one would expect, the game shall be absolutely huge. However, will Square be capable of making a huge world without making it too sparse? The early images, though of poor quality (our apologies), do suggest an impressive attention to detail in terms of architecture and scenery. Which is encouraging. We will have to wait and see. I expect hidden cities and whatnot as well; do you hear me Square?
In a general way (very general) this game works like Phantasy Star Online (or Everquest for you PC people), in the way that you create your character (I honestly will explain later) and are free to wander the vast world on your own or you can join a team, the really keen will start their own team. By choosing the 'looking to join team' from the sub menu your character will have a symbol by his head, informing others that you would like to join their team. You can also choose another option that informs others than you are creating a team, therefore allowing people to come over and ask if they can join. It seems easy enough to master. There does not, however, appear to be a multi-language chat facility like the one seen in Phantasy Star Online, this may be down to the fact that the early Beta version is intended for Japanese use only, when the NTSC and PAL versions are released, there should hopefully be one in place. From the early information available it appears that you can create alliances with other teams. Up to three teams can form an alliance between them, making it easier to vanquish those really hard foes between the eighteen of you. That's right, Eighteen players on screen at once, all attacking freely. It should be a slight improvement over the normal five or six! However, for an alliance to be possible, a leader must be chosen, he or she is then designated with a white marker (just the ticket for assassinations). This should lead to online arguments aplenty! Hopefully, in time, Square will find a way to allow even more players at one time in a battle, I for one would like to see a full scale war raging between two rival factions.... deadly.
Final Fantasy XI: Online
Even Square's been bitten by the massive online RPG bug; and they're taking the PS2 with them.
The combat itself appears to be incredibly simple, yet effective. When you explore the world you can see monsters walking around, looking for trouble (a first as well, no more being sucked into unwanted battles!). You can either avoid them, or lock on and give them a kicking. I feel that a kicking would be in order most of the time. Anyhow, after a stylish switch from normal view to battle view, the fighting starts. All damage and vital statistics are reported via a colour coded window that is in view at all times. Classic Final Fantasy menus are still in place, with attack, defend and magic and whatnot still in place. However, it is not clear at this point if limit breaks are included, as they could be difficult to work out in the real-time environment. I hope that they are included as they are an important feature of any Final Fantasy game (FF8's Squall's 'Lion Heart' still looks awesome).
Onto the Characters. For the first time in a Final Fantasy game, you create your own character. You start by choosing your character's race, they are as follows:
Tarutaru
Strange little magical creatures from the Windurst region, they have a strong magical field and make good mages. They remind me of Moogles.
Hume
A humanoid race, as close as you are going to get to human. Well balanced, technologically advanced all rounders. From the Bastock region.
Elvarn
Strong, tall and very proud race of elves. They make excellent warriors and are incredibly headstrong by nature but their pomposity leads to trouble. Found in their Kingdom of San D'oria.
Mithra
A slender, cat-like race who inhabit a small corner of Windurst. They are against all technology and rely solely on nature. Only the Females of the species are brave enough to venture into the outside world.
Galka
Huge, heavy set creatures, they are incredibly strong and troll-like. Only the males are allowed to leave the home towns.
The races themselves are pretty standard fare, with warrior races and slender mages. This should allow most people to choose a race that suits their fighting style best, we shall have to wait and see how they all balance out, I have a feeling that the Humes will be a popular choice, everyone loves a mix of sword play and magic!
There was speak of additional classes being available, on top of the race you have chosen (extra abilities and such) allowing you to customise even further. I might as well explain them, even though they may not make an appearance (I will update the comments page later with the news on them once it has been verified). Right. They are:
Fighter
Fairly simple. All of your stats will lean towards fighting with hardly any magical skills
Monk
Capable of a little white magic and a little red magic, also proficient at fighting.
Thief
Will be able to steal items off of the enemy, use a little red magic and be fairly good fighting.
White Mage
Will be able to cast protective magic, such as heal, cure, protect and such. Will be weak at fighting.
Red Mage
Will be capable of casting destructive magic such as fire, aqua, Ultima and others. Will be weak at fighting.
This class system is very similar to the one seen in the early Final Fantasy games on the NES and is quite different to anything seen in the newer titles. As stated earlier, these classes and their system may not be included in the game, but here at Ferrago.co.uk we like to give you the fuller picture. After all, knowledge is power.
So then, will this game be any good? I think it should be. It maybe a departure from the norm for Sqauresoft, but if anyone can pull this kind of project off it's them. They have constantly provided us with the most incredible video games (even a film), they have a pedigree and a back catalogue that is hard to ignore. This may well turn out to be the only game you will ever need. We all wait, fingers crossed, until summer. Or 2003 for us Brits. Damn.
I'll bet Square offers free modems and possibly harddrives to subscribers of their PlayOnline service, just as Sega once gave away free Dreamcasts with a three-year SegaNet subscription. Square knows as well as everyone else that the real money is in monthly subscription fees, not hardware sales.
Now I may not be hip on all the true meanings of the fancy acronyms being thrown out daily, but wasn't phantasy star online an mmorpg?
Shift happens. Fire it up.
Square has already decided that their PlayOnline service will be subscription-based. Most gaming sites carried this news last week:
7 0, 2836013,00.html
http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n04a.html
http://www.planetps2.com/news/#PQN343753
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/news/0,108
"The genre(MMORPG), already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience..." Wow, thats amazing that FF is so amazing that it transcends the laws of order moving from second to first, because if my memory serves me well, PSO on dreamcast was the first console MMORPG.
There is a difference between Phantasy Star Online and Final Fantasy XI. Let's compare two similar games, Diablo II and EverQuest.
In PSO and Diablo II, you have a chat lobby, create a team, and go into a special game that just belongs to you and your team.
In EverQuest and (supposedly) FFXI, you're in the same world with everyone else. You create a team and go off to fight monsters, and will see the OTHER teams fighting monsters as well.
That's the line that seperates Multiplayer Online RPG's and Massively Multiplayer Online RPG's. In PSO, you couldn't interact with everybody playing the game at once, in FFXI, you (supposedly) can.
"The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience"
um. don't suppose any of you guys have heard of Phantasy Star Online? guess not.
The Dreamcast has Phantasy Star Online for a while now. I think they released an expansion to it not too long ago either. I don't have a DC nor played the game though.
I'll just play it on the PC with a real keyboard, thanks. Their sales will dominate on the PC. You wont see much console side.
Huh? What about Phantasy Star Online then?
"If anyone can make the genre not suck, it's Square."
Ah, the call of the fanboy. Square have no prior experience in MMORPGs, so this is idealistic thinking at best. Unless they can find a use for interminable non-interactive FMV sequences in an online multiplayer game, of course.
Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck
A persistent online world full of real people is, and will continue to be much more interesting than a static and linear one.
r escripted-dialogue. But then again, I'm a console man.
Not for me. It's all about the one-person-three-friends-go-save-the-world-with-p
I, evidently, am the only human on the planet who does NOT want his gameplaying experience to be sandwiched between 133t h7x0rz talking fractured, misspelled english at each other while wondering "any girlz out there?".
I happen to enjoy sitting by myself, undeterred by lag times or server outages, enjoying the content as provided. I may be the only one, but I hope not.
FF allows you to get into a movie, and play a role. I don't want to have to rely on anyone else to provide content, nor do I want to have to find people to go adventuring with.
If it's MMORPG only, I, for one, will not purchase it. Period.
end of rant.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
...Chip n' Dales MMORPG (http://www.solarisdx.net/features/1CD_mmorpg.html )
this article at the gia ( http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n01a.html ) points out some bad signs from Japan
* 65% of the game retailers said it will not be a hit, citing such examples as the failure of the Saturn Netlink, the overwhelming price of the PS2 HDD peripheral and modem, and the Dreamcast's inability to sell its networking despite the modem's inclusion with the system.
* "It looks too American," says to one fan
Squaresoft has been having problems getting online content in it's games (ffx was to have a significant online play which was scraped) and the fact that the have already decided that FF 12 will NOT be online shows that they are getting cold feet over the online move.
Not again!!!
I find it dissappointing that companies will just go and copy what everybody else has already done. Square is a decent company, I seriously hope the XI installment is grand. A better game idea would be to make a longer story. I think people complained about games being so long in the past that companies just caved in and made them shorter. I recall people complaining a few years ago. Then again they could be shorter becaused they are rushed to retail. Remember back in the day when it took 3 years for a title to come to beta testing. Quality! Now in 6 months companies have titles ready to go. Whatever Square decides on I hope they take their time.
my opinions...
Development on FFXII is well underway and it is just like the earlier games - a single player, story-driven plot. I also wish they had called 'Final Fantasy Online'... but the reason they're calling it XI is so that people who have played 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 10 will buy this one just like I buy my new issue of Detective Comics every month, even if the current issue is drawn badly or has a story with The Human Calculator in it.
If they kept w/ the production of DC sets and broadband adapters, they might have still had a viable advantage over all the systems, being that it would have still have been the only online console. However, they realized that making and selling the hardware was a money pit, and that the real profit is in just selling the software.
Hopefully, PSO will be ported onto PC. Otherwise, it's gonna suck paying $XXX.XX for another console addon.
Square started neglecting their plot development with FF3US. Chrono Trigger was leaps and bounds better than FF3US.
I just got Skies of Arcadia, though, and I'm ready to waste another 40+ of my life in front of the CRT (already wasted 40 playing Grandia II).
"The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, "
Um, can anyone say "Phantasy Star Online."
don't know what they're missing when they play FF >= 7. The older games were some of the best RPG games created (along w/ the Dragon Warrior series and Phantasy Star on the Sega consoles). But then again, I'm sure any new FF fan has gone out and purchased the anthologies...
BTW, I always like the story lines to PStar series - it had more of a sci-fi plot than a medival one (ala Square).
One of my coworkers tried it out over New Year's break. He said it's almost exactly like Everquest. It has a level system, and is pretty much just a hack&slash game.
He says he's bored with it, and is going back to UltimaOnline.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I've had this discussion repeatedly with my Japanese coworkers. I think there really is a major cultural difference here.
Frankly I can't stand the types of games that are made and sold in Japan. Basically, you can only play them once and there is no concept of "replay value". And the stories are very linear. My friends say they like them because they get engrossed in the story. The combat, levels, and other "gameplay" features are seen as superfluous.
My friends also said that they tried "American" style games like the Ultima series, but the world was so big and they had so many options that they didn't know what they were "supposed to do" all the time. I tried to tell them that it's an adventure; you go explore and find the towns, dungeons, quests, etc. They thought that was to troublesome and "not fun."
At least the Final Fantasy series makes an attempt to update the interface and graphics every version. There is a whole slew of RPG's that sell for 8000 yen a pop that have used the same boxy 2D engine and graphics literally since 1991 (think of the first Legend of Zelda.) These games are only kept fresh by slightly altering the story and adding new female characters to seduce.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It seems like FFXI will be a "Generic MMORPG" if The GIA's review is any indication. The Japanese gamers even complained about it seeming "too American!" I do not have real high hopes for this one. FFXII is supposed to go back to being offline, yippee :)
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Wouldn't that defeat the point of the FF games? Maybe, but I'm open to new ideas, but this one I don't like. And I don't want to have to buy the game and then pay for a seperate connection (other than the $40 a month cable) just to play the damn game, espesialy if I also have to pay to use the servers too.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
OK, so Square's gonna release FFXI on the PS2, and it's gonna be MMP. How is this gonna work? An MMORPG obviously needs some kind of connection to the Internet, and unless I'm mistaken, the PS2 currently has NO broadband/narrowband connectivity options at this time. (If I _am_ mistaken, PLEASE let me know... being a new PS2 owner, I'd love to hear about all the goodies that I can hook up to my monolith.)
Hopefully, if connectivity doesn't exist for the PS2 right now, Square will, with FFXI, provide an impetus for Sony or other third party to create connection options. *crosses fingers*
Yomigaeru Aiyan Geek!!!
I really wonder how many people are going to fork over an extra X amount of dollars just to play FF11 online. Granted these are probably similar to people that bought a 250$ GeForce2 just to get an extra handful of frames in Quake3 but will they be willing to spend that sort of mula on their PS2? If you don't already have a PS2 will you be willing to spend 2X amount of money to get everything needed to play FF11 on top of the cost of the game's subscription? I'm not so sure. I'm half tempted to go buy a PS2 just to play FF10 since I've played and beat all the FF games up to 10.
Personally MMO games don't appeal to me, the only halfway appealing aspect of FF11 is the FF part of it. The problem I've found with them is that despite all the hype about interaction and community, they are static worlds. You can't change the game by playing day after day. You can't get a bunch of characters together to break up some big boss guy's kegger and actually make a dent in the world. If you could I would be more receptive to them. Playing AD&D you can kill some evil leader of the Red Wizards or a Lichlord and blamo you brought peace and harmony to the land, you can do so whilst being a butcher turned adventurer walking around with a magical meat cleaver. Maybe I'm a small percentage of the MMO target audience but I wan't REALLY involving stories. I don't want to get really involved in building up my level so I can use a masterwork sword of +1 bashing. That and paper is relatively cheap which means I can play AD&D for about 50 years for the cost of all the stuff needed just to play FF11. Added bonus to using dice is you can actually raise money to further the period of game play by gambling in back alleys.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
(1) The US economy is in the crapper for most, making purchase of a $300 video game console less appealing, as having food on the table and rent paid appeals more to the average base instinct... Similarly for the rest of the world economy, not many are going to find paying $300 to play a $60-$80 game appealing...
(2)No PC ports foreseen... Even though they kind of sucked as far as real support was concerned, those of us who picked a Geforce2 upgrade for the computer in lieu of a PS1 would prefer to play it on the PC, rather than attempt to run it on Bleem!... Despite in theory the modern PC's ability to run the games capably, it makes me wonder if Squaresoft signed a contract with Sony to prevent any possibility of parallel PC releases...
(3) Squaresoft, due to the usual ineptitude of sales analysts that exist within all game companies will assume that any reduced sales are a red light regarding a games success, and will assume the same regarding sales of FFX, thus delaying if not shelving future production on FFXI...
(4) As their ads claim, 'Millions have played FFX', while they fail to note, however, is that millions of Japanese players (or a hundred or so American players who can translate Japanese on the fly) played the original version over a year prior to the release of the US version, which was out while the world economy was in considerably stronger shape...
I'm not an expert on these things, but this seems a reasonable scenario... Any input?
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
How surprising.
You didn't even have to be able to read to be able to beat FF7. (Don't snear, I know a kid who couldn't read when he beat FF7.)
Oh well
I wonder if all that chars in FFX will still get Quad Attack items? Eh? hehe.
For alot of Final Fantasy players who got into the series on the Playstation, this game may very well be the first time that they die in a Squaresoft FF game!!! LOL! (minus those optional 'uber-bosses' that Square shoves into some games, bleh, wimpy ass way to make a 'challenge' if you ask me. Making them optional, pleh.)
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
It seems that many people forget that FFXI is also going to be released on the PC.
Square put a considerable amount of effort in the PC version of this game, unlike previous incarnations of the FF series on the PC.
The buisness modelfor the PC version will be similar to the EverQuest and Dark Age of Camelot.
They are looking to get 300,000 to 500,000 subscribers to the Playonline service from the PC and PS2 version.
That is likely feasible considering that even Phantasy Star online got a considerable amount of subscribers
MMORPGs and the name "Final Fantasy" have _nothing_ in common.
Final Fantasy games have a _reputation_ for being menu-driven, first-person one player games.
To dramatically change the content of the game, but try to enforce the same namesake is ungodly stupid.
You might as well release a new racing game and call it Final Fantasy 13. I'm sure this new MMORPG FF has enraged many true diehard fans, as it has me.
Magius_AR
PSO Is *NOT* A god dam MMORPG, it's just a 4player online game with graphical lobbies which are the same as normal in-game chatrooms, but in 3d. Why is there 430people posting about PSO here, when it is so obvious that PSO is much more like Diablo than Everquest?