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.
.
So yeah, call me repetitive but I stand by my statement, I consider chap18 to be on a whole other level of damage than any of the inconsistencies you mentioned. No, in fact I think those wouldn't even bother you as much, if the ending wasn't such a mess.
2. Mr.Rasberry's personnel keycard:
...but I don't find it such a serious offense.
3. Goodbye speeches:
Disagree. I understand where you come from...
4. Domino:
...but it's out of discussion that the Remake performs better in terms of credibilty in the whole infiltration ops. So yeah, not exactly genius writing, but an improvement still.
7.
Biggs: "Not fond of kids?"
Cloud: "No..."
*caresses Cloud's head*
Biggs: "But you have... so much in common"
Me: God what an amazing scene.
3: The Sector 7 plate drop. The battle at the pillar itself was actually fine and all, and it even featured a rare IMPROVEMENT over the original plot by showing Tseng and captured Aerith over a monitor rather than in a helicopter on site. That one always bugged me a little bit in the original, Tseng's chopper was still there when the bomb at the pillar exploded, and some of the debris actually got dangerously close, lol! So the approach from the remake with Tseng contacting them from a safe distance seems more reasonable indeed.
We needed that scene this much, huh?
but to say that Tifa wouldn't, for example, because she didn't in the original is hard for me to believe. It's hard for me to believe that the Barret that experience his own hometown burning wouldn't feel anything for the people of sector 7. I think in OG he was wreckless and irresponsible as a leader due to being blinded by hatred for Shinra, but I don't think he was ever heartless.
I agree with this to an extent, but I think this is a bit exaggerated. He is about 95%+ the same in FF7 Remake as he is in FF7 OG. You have to really stretch out the details to say he is very different at all.
Visually, musically, vocally, variety of play,depth of play are all objectively better in remake no matter how you slice it. While story is close enough it really shouldn't be a part of the this is better or that is better, game time is about the same
Narratively it's easier to understand the motivation of almost all characters involved, we also received a better understanding of what type of people the characters are, the story maintains its complexity, there is a clearer understanding of the the different factions involved, major plot points are given more context and gravity, emotions from the character are easier to read and understand, themes covered are more fully explored... So objectively unless it's a horror narrative it's objectively shared better then the original the only real issue is the plot ghosts, a good narrative should give you enough pieces that you should be able to reliably determine how a character should act in a given situation and cover a broad range of emotions.
Art is a subjective medium with objective criteria so yeah you can be objective while discussing art, things that bring an emotional response are subjective in nature so as soon as people start using Nomura as a reason to not like or artistic changes as an issue it become subjective, if you can keep to the actual content and quality thereof then yes you can stay objective.
So if you ignore the specifics of the story changes and focus on the contents and story building then yeah story of remake is as good as original, if not better as it is in world more believable.
By your definition would Super Mario World and Mario 64 be the same genre, what about uncharted and gears of war... Gameplay mechanics are wildly different between the 4 games mentioned and they are all considered different genres, and by definition they are all games in which you play a particular role to see the story... So they are all RPGs, so the real question is how broad or shallow are your genre definitions? Me I'm definitely on the bandwagon of being as specific as possible when defining things cause let's face it people take things the wrong way whenever possible so why not reduce the chances by being specific.
The writer's are the same minus Sakaguchi, the story is just as ridiculous and convoluted, and is still carried by the characters, the dialogue in the cut scenes are close enough to word for word to the originals localisation, all the plot points are hit for the midgar section, then the things that have been added character development wise follow the originals character arcs only making it a smoother change through the stages, the only issues people are having are the plot ghosts because they are fairly ham fisted due to their sporadic nature until they just get dumped on you, cause hey pretty well everyone missed their intentions on the first playthrough, which happens cause there is just so much they have done that is downright amazing to draw your attention away from them in particular.
Freshies are loving the remake while the diehards either love it or hate it based almost entirely on the last 1-3hrs of game time as in that 1-3hrs are the only thing the majority of diehards hate but they hate it with such a passion it ruins an otherwise amazing game, oh these are the diehards that have actually played the game rather then watching someone else play it or just the cutscenes.
The stagger mechanic doesn't really play a part in most of the combat, it's more for the bosses and gimmick fights, mainly cause trash mobs don't need you to be any good at the game to kill.
