Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles Rated

Posted by simoniker on from the mario-meets-moogles dept.

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.

11 of 27 comments (clear)

  1. Captain Obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Captain Obvious? by n0wak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Captain Obvious? by HuskerDu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. =)

  2. Multiplayer where it's at by evilhayama · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Multiplayer where it's at by Snowspinner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Philip Sandifer's academic website
    2. Re:Multiplayer where it's at by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.
  3. Multiplayer magic... by Jerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Multiplayer magic... by August_zero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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)

      --
      On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
  4. FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "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?

  5. It's not Final Fantasy by Cyhwuhx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:32/40 by Cyhwuhx · · Score: 2, Informative

    .::: 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.