Interesting, somewhat brief retrospective on Final Fantasy 7

[Ack]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013- ... rospective

Hmm...for those of you who won't take the time to read the article, this retrospective briefly explores what writer Rich Stanton both likes and dislikes about FF7 and how it was marketed by Squaresoft and is viewed by gamers. Stanton's general gist is that Squaresoft marketed the game to be an action film, using CG renders and FMVs to market the game as opposed to focusing on its gameplay. This has resulted in some interesting results: games are heavily marketed based on CG trailers which show nothing of the gameplay, Square ended up pursuing cutscenes (resulting in films like Advent Children and Spirits Within), sometimes so heavily that gameplay is set aside, and the general consumer also now focuses heavily on the cutscenes, in particular the death of Aeris, at the expense of triumphs within the rest of the game.

Frankly, I agree, though I'd argue that some of the gameplay and character interaction he favors had previously been done in other Squaresoft games (for instance, meeting Gau's father in FF6). But FF7 is a watershed for how it affected video games, not only in terms of plot but also in terms of advertising (and it did prove successful to advertise with only CG images which do not really factor into the game, with 10 million copies having sold over the years in various formats). And it led to Squaresoft pursuing its film studio, which in turn led to the merger with Enix and the resulting legacy.

So, thoughts? Criticisms? Is FF7 really the most returned game in history?

[BoneSnapDeez]

Pretty interesting write-up.

I think the cutscenes in FFVII were done pretty tastefully. They're not overly long or distracting. I strongly dislike using cutscenes as a marketing technique though, I would much prefer to see gameplay footage.

I'm still puzzled by why this game is so revered. The gameplay itself is incredibly solid - but the ugly graphics, incoherent story, and lame heroes/villain drag it down quite a bit. The game's predecessor trumps it in every way possible.

[dsheinem]

ugly graphics

[brunoafh]

I don't think I'm really on board with his main point. In the dozen or so times I've played the game all the way it never came off as a cinematic experience. Not even the very first time. The FMV sequences are rather few and far between, really. I don't think it was just the FMVs that brought on a visual shock factor either, it was the game being 3D in general that generated so much buzz. The same can be said about several games of the era though, there was a lot of excitement at the time.

VII isn't unique in having brought forward a strong narrative with heavy character involvement and drama either, II had done that ages ago, with IV and VI taking it a step further each time as well. The Final Fantasy games have always had a large focus on scope and making a huge adventure, it's been there from the start.

Marking the game as "the beginning of the end", if that's what he's getting at, is a stretch. Square was still cranking out gold after FF VII, they didn't hit the snag until years later.

[ninjainspandex]

ugly graphics

Polygons in it's infancy wasn't very pretty, this game hasn't aged well unlike the snes ones.

[Hatta]

I played through it last year. I've got to say I mostly agree with his analysis. Decent game, way overhyped by marketing. It didn't do anything better than previous games. The story is confusing, the characters aren't relatable, but the game itself is mostly fun. I don't even mind the graphics, they're good for the time. All in all, I think this is a highly overrated game, but I'm still glad I played it.

[jfrost]

I think the write up is mostly spot on. The part with which I agree most is this:

Final Fantasy 7 has lots of great stories; it's just that none are in the cutscenes.

Precisely.

[nightrnr]

RPGs and Adventure games are all about atmosphere and exploration. The Cut scenes helped add a lot to the atmosphere and "feel" of the game. I never felt that it was ever misrepresented.

I already knew I liked Final Fantasy Gameplay, so there was no real need to advertise that portion of the game. Specific nuances of the Battle Systems, like Materia, I always like leaving a bit of mystery to fully discover as I play.

Anyways, the game had me hooked until the end. I still haven't replayed it since my original playthrough back in 2001-ish ( Damn, has it been that long?). But I will definitely go back one day to see everything that I missed the 1st time.

--EDIT--
Okay, so I know RPG's are largely about "STORY" too (not "ALL" atmoshphere/exploration). I was just making a different perspective. For a guy that was raised on the original game, FF1, story was not necessarily a required strength for the game. Definitely enjoyed the story too though.

[BoringSupreez]

I agree with most of what he said, in particular that Aeris's death is made out to be way too big a deal. As he said, she's just a flower girl that dies at the end of the first of three discs. It's in no way the game's climax and to be honest,

Cait Sith's death

was more emotional. But whatever. Even if FFVII has become an overrated sacred cow, it's still a great game that deserves to be remembered.

[Valkyrie-Favor]

FFVII is a pretty awesome game, and Staton's praise was right on the money.

I didn't mind the FMVs - there were some really awesome moments with characters moving of FMV backgrounds. There were some really memorable scenes. There weren't that many of them, though, and it's definitely not why I was playing the game. The main plot is absolute nonsense. But there's a lot of it, and it's rather well-presented, right?

The thing I remember most about FFVII is the dungeons. Really well designed, and more interesting to walk around than any modern JRPG I can think of. Each dungeon had its own shape and character, and interacting with the static backgrounds to walk on pipes or climb trees felt a lot better than running around a flat, fully 3D cave.