Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Rated

Thanks to Planet GameCube for their report on how the newly released Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles is faring in the Japanese press. This GameCube action RPG, which came out on August 7th in Japan, but is now delayed until February 2004 State-side, scored 32/40 and a Gold Award in the often strict Famitsu Weekly, and a Famitsu reviewer commented: "The one player mode feels a bit lonely as the gameplay tends to become routine. However, the game becomes more interesting in the multiplayer mode, where players can execute combination magic and work together to beat the boss. The fun factor is doubled." There's more info via hands-on impressions at IGN Cube, who seem to like the single-player campaign somewhat better.

Comments

Off with his Head!

[Gothic_Walrus]

So...when are they going to let us play that "Decapitate the Chocobo" minigame we were promised?

Captain Obvious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has had a chance to play this game, or even realized how much they're banking on 4-player gameplay (as well as GBA connections) knows this would be the case.

There's no doubt that Square can make a good RPG. However, it is also quite obvious that while FF:CC may be a fun game to play by yourself, a 4-player co-op will be necessary to get the full enjoyment out of the game.

I eagerly await the day when online co-op is finally an option that many console games take advantage of, instead of concentrating on MMORPG or Deathmatch games.

Re:Captain Obvious?

[n0wak]

However, it is also quite obvious that while FF:CC may be a fun game to play by yourself, a 4-player co-op will be necessary to get the full enjoyment out of the game.

Define "full enjoyment", as that is a rather vague term. I found Secret of Mana to be thoroughly enjoyable as a single player game, but more so as a multiplayer co-op one. It's not that the game itself was any better, it was just the social aspects enriched it. So you didn't need two other players to get the "full enjoyment" of the game -- it's just that two extra players brought you the extra enjoyment of friendship and competition. I can't imagine FF:CC being any different.

Re:Captain Obvious?

[HuskerDu]

I think Mr. Anonymous here made a good point. I think that if more games took advantage of online content and connectivity like Phantasy Star Online has, online gaming would be a better place.

Personally I find it much more entertaining to team up with 3 other people to accomplish one goal, instead of trying to bash their brains in.

Then again, I guess that's why I'm a PSO junky. =)

Multiplayer where it's at

[evilhayama]

Nintendo is hoping that this will be the title that makes GBA connectivity popular, so the multi will be the best reason to buy this one. The Final fantasy name should ensure the sales aren't too bad.

Also, Famitsy scores used to be strict, but they're giving out a lot more high scores than they used to. Are games just better now?

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Snowspinner]

No. They're not better.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical cynical attitude where nostalgia clouds judgement. Let me guess, every game on the "insert system here" was great and a "classic," eh? :wishslashdothademoticonssoIcouldusetherolleyesone : =P

Overall I believe there is plenty of evidence showing that games have gotten better over the years, at least if you look at the ratio of crappy games: good games. There are plenty of games that aren't worth spending any time (let alone money) on, but there's also a massive pile of games that should be played (for one reason or another) but aren't. But instead of enjoying the fruits of what gaming has to offer, most "gamers" simply spend their time complaining about how "console A sucks" or "game B sucks," often without firsthand knowledge of said system or game.

Sure, gaming really sucks, which must explain why I seem to be having such a great time playing KOTOR and Viewtiful Joe this week.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Snowspinner]

There's no system with every game being great. But if I take the list of NES games I own and consider worth owning, the list of SNES games, and the list of GC games I consider worth owning, the list gets smaller every console. (I exclude the N64 from this, due to my total hatred of the console)

Maybe if you took all three consoles, instead of just one, I'd find things to be different, but I consider having to pay $800 for the consoles to get as many good games in a generation a problem. But even if you take the PSX and the N64, there are not as many games I want to play as there are NES games in my collection that I still pick up.

I see the same trend in PC gaming. There are far more games I want to play on my 486 than there are on my brand new $3000 Gateway.

So, yeah, I think games have gone downhill.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps that's due to the fact that we do have 3 MAJOR consoles fighting against each other?

What was the competition for the NES, the SEGA Master System? Even the Genesis was overshadowed by the SNES. So now that games are being spread across three systems, as opposed to one or two, could easily be a reasoning behind the lack of X number of good games on a certain system. The games are still there, they're just being spread across multiple and more systems.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Snowspinner]

If you play the fun game we call "reading the post you're replying to", you'll notice the following sentence:

"Maybe if you took all three consoles, instead of just one, I'd find things to be different, but I consider having to pay $800 for the consoles to get as many good games in a generation a problem. But even if you take the PSX and the N64, there are not as many games I want to play as there are NES games in my collection that I still pick up."

You might accuse the PSX and N64 of being the past generation, and no longer applying... then again, with two years left in this generation of consoles, it's tough to judge the number of games that this generation put out as well, so I think either way is probably fare.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you smoking crack? Genesis beat the SNES in the 16-bit console wars.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[I(rispee_I(reme]

Overall I believe there is plenty of evidence showing that games have gotten better over the years, at least if you look at the ratio of crappy games: good games.

I propose that the ratio of good games to suck games remains constant. This explains why Playstation has many, many times the number of crappy games the N64 has, despite their both being sold during roughly the same time frame. (The Playstation's total library is much larger than the N64's.) Someone should do the math and determine what the ratio of good to suck games is, but I further propose that the subjective nature of the calculation would render it valueless to everyone but the calculator.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Divide By Zero]

Someone should do the math and determine what the ratio of good to suck games is

"Ninety percent of anything is crud."
--Sturgeon's Law

Not quite as accurate an assessment as Moore's Law, but not far off, and of a much less limited scope.

Re:Multiplayer where it's at

[Anonymous Coward]

There were some circles where that was the case. However (especially in Japan and most parts of the U.S.), the SNES dominated. I hear the British just adored their Mega Drives, but the European game market was very small back then compared to that of the U.S. and Japan.

So yes, the SNES won that battle, worldwide.

Multiplayer magic...

[Jerf]

Multiplayer is like magic juice; add it to any game and it is instantly more fun.

Personally, I'd find the comment "The one player mode feels a bit lonely as the gameplay tends to become routine." to probably be pretty informative. Given the number of people who will not be able to come up with three other people to play this with... everyone I know has a console or three, but there's no way in hell four of us could consistently book time for this... even in high school four person groupings were often hard to come up with... I suspect this is going to be one of Squares rather-more-frequent-then-fanboys-admit blunders, rather then a success.

There is an empirical measure of this: Will Square do a sequel with this style? If so, I'm wrong; if not, I'm right.

Re:Multiplayer magic...

[August_zero]

I think it will sell well, and I think that it's going to be a solid game. Remember that a lot of people play Diablo 1 and 2 alone offline (not a majority mind you, but a fair number of people) so the lack of 4-player opportunities is not going to be a major disappointment for most people. The Gauntlet ports did fine in sales, Mario Party is a consistent series, and all of these games, by most people's standards, are not good single player games. Yet people buy them so we will just have to see.

Besides, I think square is at it's turkey quota for this year (see Unlimited Saga)

Re:Multiplayer magic...

[Snowspinner]

I think the people who will play this are college students, who will play it with their roommates.

I think it could probably succeed to people's expectations based on that market.

Re:Multiplayer magic...

[Jerf]

I think the people who will play this are college students, who will play it with their roommates.

Mmmmmm.... that's really a rather small market. Sure, there's always the four-some room (not sexually, at least, not to my knowlege) that always seems to have video game sounds coming out of it day or night, but they're the exception, not the rule.

(I lived on seven or eight floors in college, and every single one of them had a group like that, one and only one.)

Moreover, it's always sports sounds coming out of the room, not much of anything else. About as far from the FF type you can get.

I hate to sound down on it because I like to see innovative things succeed; it raises the chance we'll see other innovation. I hope it does work...

Re:Multiplayer magic...

[Snowspinner]

The full four-player may be somewhat rare - but I have little doubt that if my neighbor or I had this game last year, that both of us, and probably my girlfriend too, would have been playing it pretty much constantly.

And that's at least a threesome.

FF

[Anonymous Coward]

"The one player mode feels a bit lonely as the gameplay tends to become routine?"

Isn't that the definition of a Final Fantasy game?

It's not Final Fantasy

[Cyhwuhx]

After playing it, I'd rather compare it to Secret of Mana/Seiken Densetsu 2. Note that the Crystal Candles in the game also need to be recharged by drops from a Mana Tree. I also honestly believe the game was simply meant as a Secret of Mana game (Chronicle of Mana?) at one point, but had it's title swapped to ensure more exposure/hype. That said, the game is a tremendous amount of fun in multiplayer. Pulling off a four-player magic combo gives a real sense of accomplishment.

32/40

[Nukenbar2]

Only in Japan would you have some silly scale out of 40. What is wrong with the everyday scale of 10 or 100? Do we really need another one with units of 2.5?

Re:32/40

[Cyhwuhx]

.::: Maybe you didn't notice; but Famitsu actually rates out of 10. However, each game is rated by four persons. So instead of giving an average score they just add them all together and create an out of 40 score. It's far from sily.

Re:32/40

[Nukenbar2]

I suppose that I am just a metric type of guy.

So True..

[kmak]

I remember Secret of Mana (and 2). That game's storyline and everything was pretty much absolutely horrible, but the fact that you can play 3 players on the SNES on a RPG was so rare that even nowadays, when a few friends and I have nothing better to do at our dorms (who needs studying?), we still grab our SNES and controllers and just hacking!

I really hope it turns out well.. and better than Phantasy Star Online. I liked Phantasy Star Online alot, and I would hope it's at least as good..

Stupid gameplay

[Daetrin]

Clearly the game is meant to be similar to Secret of Mana, which in itself isn't bad. I'd have prefered a more "normal" Final Fantasy, but i've enjoyed the Secret of Mana series, especially Seiken Densetsu 3.

However it seems to have a few "features" that really make me wonder.

What's up with the crystal thing you have to carry that generates a zone of protection from a hostile enviroment? I don't mean the in story reason (although i'm wondering about what a bleak and depressing place the world must be if everyone is traped in little circles around crystals) but the actual gameplay reason?

I can only assume that it's meant to keep the players from spliting up and wandering off screen for very long. However what was wrong with the Secret of Mana system where it's just not possible to walk off screen? Sure, that introduces a certain sense of artificiality to the game, but the crystal method introduces a big element of frustration. Picking up and setting down the crystal repeatedly is annoying. And when i was playing it at E3 the person carrying the crystal would sometimes start walking off without warning anyone else, leaving the people at the end of the group trailing in the death zone. The people getting damaged get pissed off, and it's generally no good. In Secret of Mana you'd get in arguments about which way you should be going, but no one was getting actively damaged in the process so people didn't usually get angry about it.

From what i saw at E3, it seems that if you play as a single player, the other people in the group disapear. What happened to the Secret of Mana system of having the computer take over any players that the humans aren't using? I can understand the gameplay seeming a bit lonely if you're the only person wandering about. Kind of a regression back to Dragon Warrior/Quest I days isn't it?

How does switching people in and out during the middle of the game work? If i play alone for a couple hours using one character, does that mean that when my friends decide to join in again their characters will all be lower level?

I had lots of fun playing Secret of Mana with my sister when i was growing up, but when she didn't feel like playing i had almost as much fun playing on my own. Getting friends to help out was great, but not necessary.

All in all with Crystal Chronicles it seems like they've emphasized the multiplayer aspect too much, to the point where it feels like they're punishing anyone who wants to play it single player. I can't imagine that's going to help sales out much.

Of course maybe i'm wrong, maybe when i actually start playing the game from the begining for significant amounts of time rather than ten minutes at a booth at E3 it will seem a lot more fun. Hopefully.