Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - StickySock

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Completely unrelated / Re: What Leftism Is
« on: 2016-07-01 19:53:42 »
I don't deny that there are genetic differences between all peoples, including the sexes. I just don't believe all behavior can be attributed (some can, obviously) to the way our brains are wired, or even the things we learn through upbringing.

Humans are currently unpredictable through modern scientific methods. The secret to human existence is the secret to life itself, and if scientists could quantify it we would already have fully cognitive androids to replace human beings all together. So the best compromise I can say is that we don't fully know (yet).

To understand my stance on the matter we'd have to get into randomness and how I don't believe it is real. That if one could know all the variables in the universe at every given moment, we could predict everything. It's just our lack of perspective and understanding that gives the illusion of randomness.

Now where science obviously cannot prove and thus I have no evidence to argue, is that I believe humans are the only known creatures in the known universe that ARE truly random. I believe genetics, culture, environment, etc. can influence a person's behavior, but not account for all of it. If you knew all the variables in the universe I believe you could predict human behavior 99.9% of the time or maybe more, but never fully 100% for everyone. I believe that artificial and natural are relevant terms despite the fact that technically humans ARE part of nature and therefore any course of action we take could be considered "natural" (the best argument against environmentalists, really), but in reality it is obvious that there is a difference. Somehow humans CAN manipulate the variables in the universe in ways that other animals simply can't, and whether we evolved to this point, were created to be like this, or some other third unrevealed option, I believe humanity is a unique species of animal and valuable in this way.

It may just be a rationalization for my own existence, that I'm not just some organic machine stuck on a rock floating in a vast endless void, but I reject the notion of fate entirely and have hope that every human being has the potential to be more than the sum of their parts and choose to do what's right, regardless of genetics, culture, or upbringing.

2
Completely unrelated / Re: What Leftism Is
« on: 2016-07-01 19:04:36 »
For someone who "doesn't know if the holocaust actually happened", you seem to "know" a lot about primitive humans before civilization.  :-P

The key difference between you and I seems to be that you believe genetics have the predominant role in human behavior, and I argue that not only are humans spontaneous in their behavior (much more than any animal ever will be), but also that culture and tradition has a much greater impact than genetics do.

For instance, men have more testosterone than women so they tend to be more violent. This would seem to be an observation that would lend credence to your argument. So then what should women do to force men to behave more peacefully?

The problem I have is that I have an abnormal amount of testosterone compared to most men (I looked like a yeti since like 6th grade), and yet I am one of the least violent people I know. Humans still have the cognitive ability to refuse to act on animalistic urges and tendencies (yes, even those with very low IQ's).

I admire the effort you put into your posts, and I commend you for being civil while discussing issues that could easily become heated and emotional. That being said, your viewpoints are definitely racist even if they are not meant to inflict harm on other races, just with the justification that you believe evolution and modern science support you. And in a way they do, but I think you have lost sight of the fact that humans are NOT animals, and so using studies of animals to understand human behavior is insufficient.

Humans have so much more to them than animals do that no scientist alive today or that has ever been alive can fully comprehend. If you keep trying to categorize people by their evolutionary history, your models will always be demonstratively lacking. Humans will always surprise you with their unpredictability. I guarantee it.

3
Completely unrelated / Re: What Leftism Is
« on: 2016-07-01 15:48:52 »
I guess facts are racist, mane.
I was just having a bit of fun.  ;D

It may seem contradictory that I have a problem with Islam and not with other religious groups or or people of another ethnicity, but I have sound reasoning I think. The difference is not only that Islam has such a high murder rate compared to any other religion in modern times, but also because in the teachings of Muhammad himself it is okay to murder others for various reasons. It is a fairly easy root cause analysis of the violence Islam commits on a daily basis.

High murder rates in a particular culture must be linked to something tangible, like a violent doctrine they follow or something. At that point, I can agree that there is an issue with said group. However, the color of your skin has always been and always will be irrelevant to the sane and logical person.

I don't deny that there are high murder rates among black Americans in America (because there definitely is), but I would not say black people are inherently violent like Islam is. There is definitely something in the culture of black people in high crime areas that is causing the behavior (I suspect it has something to do with the government, welfare in particular, in addition to an irrational tradition of not integrating into "white" society stemming from a rational fear of racists pre-civil rights movement).

4
Completely unrelated / Re: What Leftism Is
« on: 2016-06-30 20:13:32 »
I am not a racist and don't think of myself as "anti-black", I'm "counter-black". There's a difference, I promise. (sarcasm)

5
Completely unrelated / Re: What Leftism Is
« on: 2016-06-12 22:33:20 »
I don't even like Trump very much, but I do have a new found respect for him, especially after watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibRNYJmZ-I

Trump might say some strawberries we don't like, and he may hold some views that I don't, but the one thing he does is not back down to this obsessive progressive group-think mental disorder that has run rampant worldwide. In my opinion, the ability to say what we want, think what we want, and to name the enemies we face without fear of irrational persecution is far more important than any other economic or social issues. That is why I find myself siding with Trump more and more often.

For the people who say that Hillary would be better... Are you mental? You wouldn't dare say that another Bush would be better would you? (I sure as hell wouldn't.) I don't understand why people are so easily persuaded and manipulated by these supposedly "moderate", lyring, two-faced career politicians that fall on whatever side of the spectrum suits them the best.

Hillary is a pathological liar. She has been caught on camera many times lying and refusing to admit to the lies she spewing during the SAME election season. The Obama campaign tore her campaign to shreds because of how untrustworthy and horrid of creature she is, and now that she is running against Trump we are going to forget all that happened because Trump said some politically incorrect "insensitive" things about muslims and mexicans?

Every (illegal) Mexican that comes over here is breaking our law. Muslims kill people all around the world every day at rates THOUSANDS of times higher than any other religion. Frankly, I don't give a fern about illegals because they don't care about our laws, and I don't care about the "hurt feelings" of muslims when it is primarily THEIR RELIGION causing all of the mass-murder in the modern age. Trump's reluctance to back down from these issues just makes me respect him more. If he ever cowered to these obsessive progressive morons he would be nothing more than any other of these squirmy, spineless, serpentine frauds that have run America for the last 20-30 years.

6
I will get a lot of hate for posting this, but I mean no ill-will, I am just passionate about these topics and some of it gets a little close to offensive. I've tried to make sure all of the offensive bits aren't directed at anyone in particular, but are more of rant towards ideas that bother me.


Young/naive people fall in love with Bernie Sanders, because his messages apply to people who have not yet been exposed to real life, for one reason or another. It's easy to go into a campaign promising all these great things (free this, free that, etc.) expecting that it will help everyone and not hurt anything. It's borderline idiotic.

"Increase minimum wage to $15 per hour!" One of the dumbest sentiments I've heard in the race, quite possibly stupider than Trump's Muslim immigration ban. People don't seem to understand that areas with low wages tend to have products for sale at lower costs (a lower cost of housing, in particular). Some people make around $15 per hour in those areas now, and have some sort of a living going for themselves, but as soon as minimum wage is increased to $15, the difference between their wage and the bottom is eliminated. Now, suddenly, their $15 per hour has the same value in terms of local purchasing ability as the person who was making $8-$9 per hour minimum wage before, which is nothing. Will the businesses raise the pay of all their employees to reflect the increase in minimum wage? Hell no, business are not going to pay out more from the bottoms of their hearts, they will try to save money any way they can. Even if they did adjust, just follow me here: Say minimum wage is $10, then it is increased to $15, now someone making $20 per hour  had a purchasing power of 200% minimum wage which is now 133%, and if the business raised their wage to $25 per hour it would only be at 166% the minimum wage. You would have to have your wage increased to $30 per hour to have the same type of purchasing power as you used to, and no business is going to do that. The people hurt the most by increasing minimum wage are the people who managed to get a decent job making money over it.

Not only that, but business's are going to start looking to cut lazy workers, because since every worker must be valuable to a business to be employed, all the slack-jaw lazy ass people who are wanting the government to increase their pay will be fired because they aren't worth $15 per hour in terms of productivity. The market will eventually work itself out, but businesses sure as hell are not going to be the ones who take the hit, it will be all the hard working people who tried to get ahead in life, being slowed down by the people demanding they get paid more for nothing.

Then he also wants to tax the rich more, which, I'm not even going to argue against at this point, but you're going to trust a POLITICIAN and the government to do something good with money they stole from people who earned it? There is definitely corruption in corporations and with all the strawberries they pull with lobbyists, but acting like imposing a high tax on high income people is also completely moronic. You're effectively insuring you will never in your lifetime, and possibly the lifetime of your entire lineage, will never become wildly rich and successful. It's easy to take from people who have when you don't, but when you have an opportunity to make money, don't complain when someone comes and takes it all and donates it to charity because they thought you had more than you deserve.

I don't like either the democrats or the republicans as they are both completely and totally corrupt. But everyone (especially college students and the jobless losers from places like Portland Oregon) need to get Bernie's 90-year-old wrinkled knob out of their throat and think about how all of his magical promises might actually come true.

This is so true. So many blatant LIES were spread about the affordable health care act by Republicans that most of my "intelligent" friends are completely against it. However, I know loads more people that only have health insurance now because of it and can actually afford the medicines and supplies they NEED to survive now.
Repubs were also so anti-Obama that they allowed the government to literally stall for days over budget issues rather than come up with some temporary compromise. I can't trust Republicans anymore, but I don't like Democrats either. USA politics really suck. :P

I've also had first-hand experience of people who COULD afford health insurance who now have to wait until November to get health insurance, because the idiocy of Obamacare has it so people can only sign up for Obamacare during open enrollment. (Yes, I understand risk and special enrollment periods, but its still absolutely retarded that there is no way to actually sign up, even with a penalty or something, once you have missed open enrollment). That's just one example. In the area where I live, if you have insurance 100% free, nearly every office in the area will have you waiting from 6-8 months just to see specialist or dentist or just about anything. Not to mention the fact that these places often have the worst customer service, and are pretty awful all around. Some aspects have been "okay" revolving obamacare, but in terms of it being a substantial improvement on what we had before, it is pretty terrible (don't get me started on how hospitals and other health services are being reimbursed by arbitrary "value" measures that don't have clear definitions and are instead in place in a way that leads companies to "game" the system to prop these numbers up as much as possible to get the highest reimbursement). We definitely needed reform, and it could have even been public healthcare, but Obamacare failed to do anything that great. We could have just copied Canada's healthcare system for Christ's sake.






---------------------------------------------------------------
A question everyone forgets when it comes to making sure EVERYONE has health care, is whether or not it is morally ethical to force charity on someone. If there was a world where no one had any taxes, or any obligations, and made money completely independent of each other, is it right to force the successful ones to care for those who are not? Maybe the end justifies the means for some people, but I'm not entirely sold. At the end of the day, the crushing inevitability of death that will engulf EVERY SINGLE HUMAN LIFE EVER means that making sure people have access to healthcare may not be the most important thing in the universe. Maybe making sure we aren't actively hurting some people's lives in order to prop up others with no attempt at fairness or consent might be a bigger issue. Personally, when I eventually end up on the low side of life I don't want to feed off of others like a leech on life-support, I'd rather find use for myself, be self-sufficient, or be dead because death is something we all have to accept at some point. We can't force others to make sure we stay alive, especially because of how futile it is.

7
General discussion / Re: Shameful FFXV Excitement
« on: 2016-02-08 23:33:39 »
Just a guess: You could probably stealth the whole mission, but have to rambo if caught. Different reward or something if you manage to be sneaky about everything.
Even more sinister: force players to redo mission if they get caught in a similar fashion as Assassin's Creed (3 in particular, if you want to bring the pain  :evil:).

8
General discussion / Re: Shameful FFXV Excitement
« on: 2016-02-08 22:54:55 »
Just a comment: Why being sneaky when they know they can just rambo the place? It may be a premature comment but it kinda removes all tension.
Honestly, I have no idea lol. I was mainly talking about the combat after the stealth. The stealth itself seems a little silly, but it might fun to pretend you're being stealthy I suppose. If I buy the game I'll probably just storm every one of these bases though.

9
General discussion / Shameful FFXV Excitement
« on: 2016-02-08 22:43:50 »
I really, really know better than to be excited by this game but for some reason that Niflheim trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO7nyrNBFXA) has done it. It's probably because it is the first time since the announcement that its name has changed from FFVS13 to FFXV that the game has actually resembled FFVS13 (compare the combat scenes to the 2011 trailer seen here: https://youtu.be/YiIx9VJWSl8?t=3m31s).

I'm opening myself up to the same disappointment Square Enix gives me time and time again, but it gives me hope that not much has been cut from the FFVS13 formula. Some of the stuff that has been cut so far has been replaced (supposedly improving the game) and just off the top of my head:

  • Replaced Stella with Luna (Couldn't give a crap less. They nearly look identical and they swear Luna is a better fit for the story.)
  • Replaced party switching with like four different types of team-up attacks (I'm also not as worried about this as I was, since Noctis was so incredibly OP compared to his companions it wouldn't be any fun to be them anyways. They could have had more useful companions but as they are now Noctis can already do everything they do and more).
  • Condensed the planned sequels into one story to span only this game.

But what worries me are the aspects of the tone and atmosphere that seem to have been cut since it was made into a mainline FF game.

Compare the original reveal trailer (https://youtu.be/ACSpgGAjGfM, the first 2 minutes of this video), which was absolutely dripping with atmosphere and melancholy theming from the music to the visuals and actions playing out on screen, with the Dawn 2.0 trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWdUrKlV51A). The Dawn 2.0 trailer is obviously supposed to be conveying some sort of feelings or themes, but I just don't find it as compelling.

All foot soldiers in armor with guns have been replaced with robots, which one could assume to be to avoid any blood shed, which was prominently displayed in the 2006 reveal. Tabata also said that the reaper worship in Lucis (referring to how each nation apparently has a summon that they worship, with the bad guys (Niflheim) having bahamut, Accordo having leviathan, and so forth) was cut. Lucis used to worship death, but since it was taken out it will probably either be "the Goddess" (who was thought to be etro back when the game was still using Fabula Nova Crystallis, but now the game's use of the mythology is ambiguous) or something to do with sleep since Noctis and his father has both been shown at times to be "tired" in a way that implies it is important to their stories. Either way I'm a little disappointed.

Interestingly, the dudebro buddy road-trip vibe has been there since at least 2008 (https://youtu.be/ACSpgGAjGfM?t=4m25s).

All that rambling aside, I really don't know what to think of the game. I had written it off, but with the new trailer I am stupidly hoping that it wasn't altered as much from the original as I thought. IMO, this game absolutely needs something in its plot or character development to set it apart from other recent Final Fantasies (13's friendship crap and all that), preferably a dark or tragic twist. I know a lot of people don't enjoy Nomura's work, but I just hope switching leadership, budget, and focus (not to mention the enormous scale of all the people working on XV) hasn't lead the game to become overly generic in order to appeal to as many people as possible.

10
I didn't really read through the thread but I recently saw the film and thought I'd share my opinion. (EDIT: this was on purpose to see if after posting anyone shared my opinion).


SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





The movie had some good moments, but was ultimately squandered potential.

Spoiler: show
Pros -

Finn & Poe were likable, relatable, and funny.
Han Solo & Chewy had respectably large roles in the movie are were excellent.
The opening sequence was pretty cool.
There were a lot of actual costumes and not a complete reliance on CGI.

Cons -

Blatant feminist girl-power strawberries where they waste several lines of dialogue beating you over the head that Rey is a girl but doesn't need help or saving.

They repeat that strawberries multiple times throughout the movie, all the way up until the "rescue" team is again not "allowed" to rescue the girl, because she got out of it on her own.

Rey randomly learns advanced Jedi powers without any guidance just days after finding out that Jedi's were actually real from Han Solo, while it took Luke Skywalker a trilogy of movies to be on that level.

Rey is overall a generic Mary Sue character who has little difficulty overcoming any hardships that come her way, making her struggle very little if at all during the events of the movie. (She randomly decides to try the Jedi mind-trick and succeeds while captive. She is apparently an amazing pilot, and rarely ever misses with a blaster despite the fact she has little or no training with one. She even chastises Han Solo for offering one to her, stating yet again that she doesn't need it because she's such a badass chick. She bests a sith-in-training who has trained his entire life to one day rival the strength of Darth Vader by remembering that the force is real halfway through the fight, giving her extraordinary lightsaber fighting prowess that overwhelms Kylo Ren.)

Finn, although funny, is made out to be a bumbling idiot way too often. Han Solo and Luke Skywalker both had their strengths and weaknesses, making them and interesting pair. In this movie they are so focused on making you think Rey is a badass that they make Finn basically completely useless. I'm pretty sure Rey is better with a blaster than Finn, although it was what Finn was raised to do his entire life.

Kylo Ren himself was a wasted opportunity. Instead of making a character who is truly torn between his family and his grandfather's legacy, and showing what lead him to believe his grandfather was truly special (they could have shown Snook lying to Kylo to convince him that Luke and Leia somehow betrayed Vader because they were afraid of his power or something), they made Kylo Ren out to be some angsty teen who can't decide if one minute he's super evil or the next if he's gonna go cry and cut himself.

Han Solo's death was wasted, and offered no character development for Kylo Ren. It could have been the moment where he finally stopped being a pansy and became a cold, calculated killer, but that obviously didn't happen. Instead Han died because Harrison Ford didn't want to do any more movies, and Kylo Ren was the same person after killing him that he was before.

The movie in general had a structure ripped straight from episode IV, but done worse in almost every way.

A lot of scenes which could have been more impactful had extra effects, explosions, or artificial tension for no reason. The most remarkable being when Finn thought Poe died by seeing the wrecked tie-fighter, and instead of seeing its burning wreckage and solemnly mourning the loss, the fighter had to sink with CGI effects, and if that weren't enough, it had to explode after, as if to fill an explosion per minute screen time quota.

The movie was too fast-paced, where nearly every scene where people are talking is immediately followed by action. And every task they have to do is a very bombastic, life or death situation, with impossible odds and outcomes, stealing some of the thunder from the climax of the film because they had already been pulling stunts like that every five minutes of the movie.

I applauded them for using real costumes for some of the alien races, but the CGI aliens that were there were awful, especially the alien that gave rations out to Rey in exchange for junk. It looked absolutely awful, and even the worst costume you could find would have worked better.

Did I mention the movie gives you no reason to care about Rey? No details about her family or how she grew up on her planet other than she was a "scavenger" of old parts. She was shown being abandoned as a child, but at that young of age it is hard to believe she grew up independent in a "scavenger" environment. Even the horrid episode I at least made Anakin a slave child and gave you some back story, even if the movie itself was a joke.

I also found the actress portraying Rey, was probably the least impressive actress/actor in the movie (even though the movie was generally well-acted). I couldn't tell any of her expressions apart for the majority of the movie, and the reaction she had after she ran away from the lightsaber legitimately looked as though she was constipated. Before she ran away you had no idea what she was thinking, whether she was happy, sad, confused, sick, dying, had to use the restroom, etc.

Last but not least: "Supreme Emperor" Snook looked like a massive Gollum/Smeagol from The Hobbit/LOTR films with a couple gashes on his head. I'm not even kidding. People say he will look less ridiculous because his size was just a hologram, but I'm not concerned with his size. He just looks utterly ridiculous.

There are more complaints but I'm tired and writing sloppy enough as it is.

Overall, I'd rank this movie even with episode III in terms of quality. The movie is pretty crappy and not very well done, although it did have some cool moments and ideas that could have had potential. But it never capitalized on any of its own ideas or potential, and was too busy reminding you that CGI danger was present, but that Rey was such a badass that you shouldn't worry about her JUST BECAUSE SHE'S A GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!





11
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-15 03:23:24 »
@hian: I think that your version still looks 10x better, and I'd be happier with a less ultra-realistic style.

EDIT: Accidentally posted before I was ready to.


It really is a shame that they are so focused on how light reflects off skin to realize that it looks like strawberries regardless.

Anyways, here's a video I think you all might find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpIlShZ2tEI (It's Jim Sterling's opinion on the remake situation.)

12
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-13 05:50:35 »
@hian, would you mind doing one of those for the shot of Cloud's face after he hops off the train at the end of the trailer? That shot of him bothered me the most, because he looked like a meth-addict, and I want to see if your color tweaks makes him look somewhat normal again.

13
To those still defending Square: UNLESS episode 1 contains AT LEAST as much as the original game and additional episodes have completely new content expanding on the story IN A LOGICAL WAY; Then this is nothing short of greedy and prideful on Square's part.

That said, let's move away from the possibility of it being episodes like we think an anime or manga are episodic. Perhaps these are segmented games the way Pokemon is. You have to have both to get 100% or at least know someone that has the others. This is STILL a cash grab for SE as you aren't getting the full experience with full retail price of a "full game". That's why I never picked up Pokemon and am surprised that ever took off.
I wouldn't say that it has to be the exact scope and content of the original in each entry, but at least each entry needs to feel like a complete experience while at the same time being tied to the others to create a cohesive whole.

But my main point is that if each entry is a "full-sized" game like they have said each one will be, and that the games are actually good, there will be no reason to complain. If they are not good, or are not satisfying on their own, there is no point in owning the remake anyways, whether it is a multi-release or not.

The only way this is greedy on their part is if each "game" in the multi-release is just a fraction of FF7 (with no added content) sold for $60, at which point its easy to not purchase the game and protest with your wallet.

I love how people are fine with the prospect of paying 180 dollars for a game that  should be 60 and for a game that ideally in the past would be and would have been worked on for at least 6 years by square.

I assume this was directed at me, and so I'll respond by saying that just because I think that the prospect of multiple games is not inherently bad does not mean I have any plan of buying the game $60, let alone $180. Your opinion on the quality of the content should have a much bigger influence on what you purchase rather than holding tightly to a price-point like it is holy.

I believe in capitalism, so I'm not against games releasing at whatever ferning price the company wants to. If at some point my interest in the game = the price that it is set at or is eventually on sale for I will get the game.

Each entry in the FF13 series was available for $20 before the release year was over, so if you thought $60 each was too much you could easily have gotten the entire trilogy for $60. I don't see how it wouldn't be the same for FF7. If it is a quality product and people want it the price will remain high, but if it's not worth what they ask the price will inevitably drop.

14
Honestly, I overreacted to FF7 remake being released as multiple parts. They claim each game is a full-sized release, and if there is a save carry-over functionality that keeps my stats, items, and such from game to game I'll be fine with it. If they expand each game into a 25-30 hour story with another 10-15 hours of extras, I'll get all the games when they eventually release together as a physical release.

The multi-release aspect is a very small issue in regard to the game in my opinion. What everyone should be focused on, is whether or not any of these parts are good. If they aren't, it doesn't matter if they are all together or released one a a time. At least this way if they are bad you don't have to buy all of it before you realize it, you can just return the first one you buy and stay away from the "remake".

15
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-09 03:06:03 »
Actually, as sad as it is, I can tell you exactly where you recognize that line. The only time I know of that the line is actually spoken by a voice over is a cringe-worthy scene in Advent Children where Rufus makes a half-assed attempt at teaming up with Cloud. That exchange irritated me so much, mostly because of the weird dialogue attempting to match lip-syncing, that I can't seem to forget about it.

You can hear it at 3:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR-t1UyQ2e0

Edit: He actually says it twice, both in that same scene, the earlier one is just hard to hear because of the weird, aforementioned terrible dialogue exchange that has Rufus talking over him.

16
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-08 21:31:47 »
I don't think they will release anything in 2016 since FFXV is coming in 2016. I am guessing the two year intervals because each game is supposedly the content of a "full release". To me, that means each entry needs to have the content of FFXIII: LR and FFXIII-2, which I don't think they can release any faster. I am guessing each "game" is a 25-30 hour story (padded out in a way similar to the Hobbit Trilogy, with side stories and crap added in), released every two years.

17
General discussion / FFVI Steam Release
« on: 2015-12-08 19:31:30 »
In case you do not know, FFVI is coming to steam on December 16th, 2015. It looks like it is a pc port of the controversial iOS "remaster", however.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/382900/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

18
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-08 18:16:11 »
Does anyone think the first "game" will be out in holiday 2017? I've been looking at FFXIII's trilogy as a reference (FFXIII 2010, FFXIII-2 2012, FFXIII:LR 2014), and I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar here. They have been working on this game since 2014, a while before Nomura was removed as director for FFXV. FFXIII took like what, 4 years to make? And that was building an engine and game from the ground up. FF7 is using Unreal 4 in order to speed up development, so it's not unreasonable to believe the game could be finished in 3 years. Then, reusing assets, they could easily crank out another game every 2 years.

So my guess is that it is going to look like this:

FF7: Midgar (2017)
FF7: Aerith dies and Cloud goes crazy (2019)
FF7: Cloud recovers and they finish off Shinra and Sephiroth. (2021)

19
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-08 00:46:16 »
It seems my prediction that Nomura's ideas for FFVS13 were transferred to FF7 when he was replaced as director was correct. The combat has been described as like KH but a little more strategic (I would assume like FFVS13), character switching is in, and the multi-part release (World of Versus Epic, anyone?) are all present in FF7.

The only way I'd get this now is if each game they release is actually good, each game has save transfer that carries over level, loot, gil, etc. (standard levels and gear for people starting on that game without save data), and once all the games were out they compiled them onto one disc as a "complete trilogy" or whatever. Then, if none of the games were crap, I would buy the trilogy for no more than $60. Writing this now it seems that the best case scenario for me is that these games turn out to not be trash (they are adding new stuff and cutting old stuff, and since Squaresoft > Square Enix, this isn't likely) and I finally get to play them 12+ years down the road when they're all out....

20
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-07 15:04:19 »
I was cautiously optimistic with the announcement, gained a little more hope with Smash Cloud and Dissidia Cloud, then lost a decent amount when the PSX trailer was revealed, and pretty much lost it all now that it is episodic.

The only way they could save it for me now is if they are planning on splitting the game up into three separate parts (three discs like the original at the same story points) for $20 each. That way they aren't over charging and the multi-part release is somewhat a throwback to the original.

Obviously it will be worse than that though, because each time I've given them the benefit of the doubt on this thing they have went and annihilated my good faith in one way or another.

21
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-06 18:10:07 »
After watching the trailer yet again, I've noticed something odd about the ATB bar. A portion of it fills up with each attack, and when it's filled it seems to be when Barrett and Cloud are using their limit breaks, while the limit bar is never shown filling up (but then again, Barrett Cloud aren't shown being hit either).

How much trust should we have in these menus not just being there as a conceptual placeholder? I'm pretty sure some of the early FFVS13 footage was also said to have fake menus or something like that.

22
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-06 17:52:24 »
The reason I'm not too bitter of the remake is because it's easy to understand that this is all we are ever going to get. We still have the original, we have all of the spinoffs (be they good or not), and now we have a remake in the style of the spinoffs (which may or may not be good). I'll play around with the remake for a while and judge it based on its own merits, and if it isn't that great I'll still fondly keep memories of the original and continue to replay it every year or so.

If there is anything to be worried about, its that "Cannon" Cloud will now be Advent Children Cloud, while the original will be repeatedly shat on by people who only know him from the new stuff. But at the end of the day, convincing people that FF7 is great and that Cloud is awesome isn't something I pictured myself doing either way, so I guess it's not that important. For those who are genuinely fans of AC, CC, and the rest, I am happy for them, because all of the content of the original in a style that they seem to like would probably be pretty amazing.

It's just very annoying it's come to this and that after FFX I personally haven't been able enjoy a FF game (and I stopped buying them after XII).
The funny thing is that means you only missed one main entry non-MMO FF, even though FFXII came out 9 years ago (nearly 10).



23
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-06 03:45:52 »
Sooooo... turn based?
I noticed the defend, hence why I edited my first post to say something more along the lines of that it might still be turn based because when I watched it again technically nothing was shown that explicitly showed it being in real time. Nice find with the ATB bar though, I missed it and could give more hope that it might still be turn based.

Edit: On another note - I'm still pissed that he looks nothing like either the new Dissidia Cloud or the Smash Bros Cloud, both of which look much better from a design perspective. The Cloud in this trailer is the worst looking one I've seen yet IMO.

Edit 2: Kitase says that he cannot say that the FF7 remake is completely action-oriented (or something along those lines) here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JYdkLp5XaQ

24
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-05 22:37:00 »
This looks like it might be fun. I'm actually a big fan of the KH gameplay, so it doesn't bother me at all to see them reusing that. I'm less a fan of some of the visual choices they've made, and I never liked this voice cast. Seems like this can probably only be enjoyable taken as an entirely new thing and pretending it's not a remake.
This is probably what I'll end up doing in the end. I'm actually into real time gameplay most of the time. I too am mostly upset with some of the visual choices (mostly Cloud). Too bad they haven't shown Tifa yet, the one thing that they could have distracted me with...


In my opinion, the only misstep made in the compilation was Dirge of Cerberus.  Before Crisis, Crisis Core, the novellas, and even Advent Children were decent/respectable additions to the FF7 universe.  It's probably fair to say that if you liked the compilation, you'll like the remake.  If you hated it and thought everything was blasphemous, you'll hate the remake.

I actually had fun with Dirge of Cerberus when I was younger. I don't think any of them are horrible in their own right, but the original was truly something special that the spinoffs felt like dilutions of. Being mediocre or just a bit better than that is not good enough to be worthy of the original in my opinion, and even though I am going to get this remake and have fun with it, if it isn't pretty spectacular I will be a little disappointed.

It kinda makes sense that cloud is sickly pale. He has been in a tank for five years, and catatonic afterwards. Or am i remembering things wrong?  It has been a while since i even though about the game
If I have to rationalize why something looks dumb it probably could have looked better regardless...

25
General discussion / Re: FF7 Remake Gameplay Reveal
« on: 2015-12-05 19:20:25 »
Definitely disappointed with Cloud's muscle mass.  Hopefully he'll be more along the lines of his smash bros counterpart, otherwise he looks kind of sickly.
Don't forget the way Cloud runs away from the guards after he has one of his trademark mental twitches.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7