Life time acheivement awards..

[Living-In-Clip]

Did we argue that FVII showed the people a lot of great cinema\'s and what not? No. We just argued that Crash was more of a boost for Sony than anything. Hell, Crash at one time was considered the un-offical mascot for Sony and Sony did nothing to dispell the feeling that he was.

Sony was aiming towards the teenage market when FVII had came out - word spread that it was a great game. More people got it, etc. It brought RPG\'s to a mass public and lead the RPG surge we under went durin\' the 32 bit era, but never was Cloud considered to be a Mascot for Sony. That was unfathomable.

Not to mention, due to Crash, platformers starting finding a home on the PSone and it gained Sony the younger crowd which at the time Nintendo did have a hold on, even with the cartridge based "fun machine". That  "swirling platformer" gained Sony another part of the market share that they wasn\'t even aiming for at first.

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Did we argue that FVII showed the people a lot of great cinema\'s and what not? No. We just argued that Crash was more of a boost for Sony than anything. Hell, Crash at one time was considered the un-offical mascot for Sony and Sony did nothing to dispell the feeling that he was.

Sony was aiming towards the teenage market when FVII had came out - word spread that it was a great game. More people got it, etc. It brought RPG\'s to a mass public and lead the RPG surge we under went durin\' the 32 bit era, but never was Cloud considered to be a Mascot for Sony. That was unfathomable.

Not to mention, due to Crash, platformers starting finding a home on the PSone and it gained Sony the younger crowd which at the time Nintendo did have a hold on, even with the cartridge based "fun machine". That  "swirling platformer" gained Sony another part of the market share that they wasn\'t even aiming for at first.

Did we argue that FVII showed the people a lot of great cinema\'s and what not? No.

No but I mentioned them to express the reasons why FF7 was revolutionary for PS1.

Crash was the first platform game published from Sony,PS owners needed a mascot,Sony saw people liked him ,mentioned him an unnofficial mascot and he became one.You should have seen  Sony\'s Crash Bandicood presentations in Video Game exhibitions.Yes Sony tried to make Crash an un-nofficial mascot.
Crash\'s sales have been huge but FFVII showed more the importance of the PS.

Sony tried to market PS for all ages since PS1 early days especially after seeing WipEout attracting mature gamers to the Playstation.Besides FF7 is a game very young gamers wouldnt have chosen,and very japaneese(super deformed characters anyone).17 years ware more likely(and previous FF fans) to buy it.


Cloud no way he could have become a mascot.He is a character made by Squaresoft for a genre not as easily acceptable as platform games.The most famous mascots are Mario and Sonic.Simple story,main good guy and the usual bad guy.And a platform game.
 
(btw:All characters in FF had the same importance.He wasnt a born  hero afterall).

I dont think a mascot mean anything here.Cloud has been a better character in a much better game.He wasnt ment to become a mascot anyways.


Yes Crash offered so much for PS1 but FF7 gained not the younger crowd.But crowd from various ages.And most importantly mature gamers.Crash was an easy seller and sold more due to its simplicity and FFVII sold great due to its perfection.It showed PS1\'s true capabilities and what developers could achieve from it.It was a true next gen PS game.It ment a lot for the future PS1 games while Crash\'s appearance made the PS name more common known and famous.

FFVII was the most revolutionary game in 1997 for the console.This kind of greatness mean a lot more and have different importance for consoles than easy selling simple games.Which game do u think is more important?An easy seller like GT3 and Fifa(to make things worse:Tomb Raider 3,4,cronicles?) or games like ICO,Pro Evo and Shenmue?(The difference from the last 3 titles I mentioned is that FF7 got the reputation,credit and sales it deserved.So it influenced).

Its like saying a mediocre game is more important than a revolutionary game of a different genre just because it\'s sold more.Sales are also determined from the kind of genre a tilte belongs to.

FFVII was the most revolutionary game in 1997 for the console.

Revolutionary?  I don\'t know about you, but I felt the tip of respect towards FFVI seeing as how the games are so incredibly similar in gameplay.  Maybe you missed it, but FFVII is more of the same gameplay wise to previous RPG\'s then you\'ll ever realize.  A revolution with console RPG\'s is FFVIII, a game that sold more than FFVII and was regarded as a much worse title, but trayed incredibly far from their typical formula.  Phantasy Star Online is a more revolutionary title because it introduced online play to console RPG\'s for the first time.

I\'m not saying that FFVII was bad, I actually loved it a great deal, enough to go through it twice, but my reasons are completely different than yours.  You see FFVII as revolutionary, but have you deled into FFVI?  Have you ever tried Chrono Trigger?  Revolutionary, only if you\'ve never played previous titles in the series.

Which game do u think is more important?

I think the game that is important are the ones that set standards in the genre.  FFVI is still the RPG standard if you ever played it just like Street Fighter is the 2D fighter standard that all others are compared to and just like GT is the racing simulation standard.  Each of those games are revolutions on the genre... FFVII is evolution at its best.

[Living-In-Clip]

Here is how important Crash was to Sony. Crash was Sony\'s answer to Mario and that is common knowledge, he even came out around the same time and the commercials was him torturing Nintendo, etc.  Sony realized they needed that marketshare and used Crash for it and he was and probably will always be the un-offical mascot for Sony. He launched the PSone success not only to older gamers but to people who had kids and was paying out of the ass for more  "kiddy" games on the N64.

Then I guess FF7 was just another great game?I cant see it that way.From all the 32-bit titles in 1997 it was the one that wowed the most.And not just graphically.
It had more variety in gameplay than any other game in 1997 and before on PS.Huge not just in lenght.But on content as well.

A revolution with console RPG\'s is FFVIII, a game that sold more than FFVII and was regarded as a much worse title, but trayed incredibly far from their typical formula.

I think the game that is important are the ones that set standards in the genre. FFVI is still the RPG standard if you ever played it just like Street Fighter is the 2D fighter standard that all others are compared to and just like GT is the racing simulation standard. Each of those games are revolutions on the genre... FFVII is evolution at its best.

Seeing your first paragraph and the second at first you mention FF8 a revolutionary better selling game than FF7 and then you mention that the games that are important are the ones that set standards in a genre.Crash hasnt.Sold more than FFVIII.No way its revolutionary.And neither has FFVIII set new standards in the RPG genre.Even if it has sold more.
FF7 influenced a lot more the RPG genre.

GT was a very influencial title for the next racing games to come.GT3 though hasnt influenced at all.Why?Because it wasnt much improved gameplay wise.But FF7 has been influencial when older Final Fantasies existed before it.Why?

I dont think FF7 got some critics like "could be the best game ever" accidentally.
The first PS1 title to be called like that and the second after the N64\'s Super Mario64.

Here is how important Crash was to Sony. Crash was Sony\'s answer to Mario and that is common knowledge, he even came out around the same time and the commercials was him torturing Nintendo, etc. Sony realized they needed that marketshare and used Crash for it and he was and probably will always be the un-offical mascot for Sony. He launched the PSone success not only to older gamers but to people who had kids and was paying out of the ass for more "kiddy" games on the N64.

I never said Crash had insignificant importance for Playstation\'s success.I said that FF7 and crash had different importance.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Final Fantasy 7 was critical to Sony being a massive success in Japan.  That is all.

I am not talking exclusively about sales here.

Seeing your first paragraph and the second at first you mention FF8 a revolutionary better selling game than FF7 and then you mention that the games that are important are the ones that set standards in a genre.Crash hasnt.Sold more than FFVIII.No way its revolutionary.And neither has FFVIII set new standards in the RPG genre.Even if it has sold more.
FF7 influenced a lot more the RPG genre.

You\'re mixing two arguements together as if they were one.  I never mentioned crash in relation to final fantasy.  I don\'t care about crash and that\'s why I didn\'t mention them.  Leave crash to your arguements with LiC and Altered Beast, but don\'t respond to me as if I care about such frivilous things.  My point was to show you that although FF7 may have been a good game, the only thing that changed about it were its graphics, but it\'s otherwise a rehashed FFVI.  You didn\'t comment on whether you\'ve played FFVI before... have you, or perhaps did you play it *After* you played FFVII?

But FF7 has been influencial when older Final Fantasies existed before it.Why?

FFVII is not an influential title on other RPG\'s.  That\'s your own imagination talking.  Square showed us that they can take the formula of FFVI, rename it, rewrite it, and then upgrade its graphics and pass it off as completely new when in fact, it\'s not really new at all, but you\'d know this if you\'ve played FFVI.  Just face it, FFVII made RPG\'s mainstream, but as far as improving the overall genre, they did NOTHING that hasn\'t been done before with that game.  At least FFVIII actually strayed from the typical formula that square was rehashing.

I dont think FF7 got some critics like "could be the best game ever" accidentally.
The first PS1 title to be called like that and the second after the N64\'s Super Mario64.

What does that have to do with revolutionizing the genre?  FFVI got the same acclaim as did Chrono Trigger when they were released and some critics said the same about FFX.  So because they liked the game a lot, it automatically means that the game was revolutionary?  Please, come out from under a rock and play some other RPG\'s post FFVII and Pre FFVII and you\'ll see that a lot of the same crap they use today in games is no different than the stuff they used so many years ago.  The genre now has more fans because of these games, nothing more.  The gameplay is still 2D no matter how you look at it.

[Living-In-Clip]

My opinion on this is that FVII was simply an evolution of the RPG, an evolution which took place on the PSone, a 32-bit console...The first RPG to really do this. Then you add Sony\'s hype and you have what made FVII such a critical success. Let\'s face it, if Sony had not of hyped it, FVII would of went unknown the American gamers, much like all the great SNES RPG\'s did. Instead, Sony saw what FVII was and how the new improved graphics, great cinema\'s and story would sell and they hyped it. Therefor, FVII brought RPG\'s to the masses because of one main thing...HYPE.

Is that revolutionary? No. Could Sony of survived without FVII? Yep. Did it help them? Yes.

As for FVII influencing the RPG genre, I truly doubt that. Honestly what did it do? All it did was take the genre and throw some fresh paint on it, making it look a lot prettier than it was in the 16-bit days. Yes , the story was more mature than American and Uk gamers were use to , but Japanese gamers had seen that before.
 
I understand your love for FVII and the need to see it as a revolutionary game. I had the same problem with Resident Evil - a game which I thought was revolutionary, but it wasn\'t. If anything, Alone in the Dark was. Resident Evil just threw a fresh coat of paint on it and tried to improve on the previous formula.  My point? Sometimes your love for a game can blind you. I know I have been there.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Well L-I-C.. with Resident Evil, what is it that doesn\'t make it revolutionary? (unless that term is too broad).

Alone in the Dark may have been the first real Survival Horror, but Resident Evil was the one that popularised the genre.  Resident Evil was the one that revolutionised the Survival Horror genre.  AitD may have innovated, and created, but it wasn\'t (directly) responsible for the mainstream popularity of the genre.  RE was.

I also think that\'s what Unicron is trying to get across, in his own... sadistic way.  FF7 popularised RPG\'s to a western audience.

[Living-In-Clip]

I think we have different opinions of revolutionary. I see revolutionary as a new genre or something done that has never been done. Basically, I don\'t see much as revolutionary. I don\'t count popularizing a genre revolutionary....

I see Resident Evil a evolution of survival horror and AitD has the revoluationary title...Same with FVII...it was evolutionary.

Originally posted by Ryu


You\'re mixing two arguements together as if they were one.  I never mentioned crash in relation to final fantasy.  I don\'t care about crash and that\'s why I didn\'t mention them.  Leave crash to your arguements with LiC and Altered Beast, but don\'t respond to me as if I care about such frivilous things.  My point was to show you that although FF7 may have been a good game, the only thing that changed about it were its graphics, but it\'s otherwise a rehashed FFVI.  You didn\'t comment on whether you\'ve played FFVI before... have you, or perhaps did you play it *After* you played FFVII?

My confusion and my mistake.Yes I ve mixed 2 argumenst together.I apologise, and I know you are the last person to care about that kind of subjects.But lets say I havent mentioned crash or I ve mentioned it as an example of a great selling game what prooves FFVIII a revolution?The sales?I am only saying this because you mentioned FF8 sold more than 7.

FFVII is not an influential title on other RPG\'s.  That\'s your own imagination talking.  Square showed us that they can take the formula of FFVI, rename it, rewrite it, and then upgrade its graphics and pass it off as completely new when in fact, it\'s not really new at all, but you\'d know this if you\'ve played FFVI.  Just face it, FFVII made RPG\'s mainstream, but as far as improving the overall genre, they did NOTHING that hasn\'t been done before with that game.  At least FFVIII actually strayed from the typical formula that square was rehashing.

Developers out of japan have been trying to compete the success and greatness of FF7.RPG interest and development spread even more outside Japan.FF7 may not have been revolutionary for the genre.For a PS1 title it was.No other game has showed so much for the PS1 then.I didnt say anywhere that FF revolutionised the genre.

BTW:FFVIII was the first westernised FF.I cant see anything especially new beyond that.

What does that have to do with revolutionizing the genre?  FFVI got the same acclaim as did Chrono Trigger when they were released and some critics said the same about FFX.  So because they liked the game a lot, it automatically means that the game was revolutionary?  Please, come out from under a rock and play some other RPG\'s post FFVII and Pre FFVII and you\'ll see that a lot of the same crap they use today in games is no different than the stuff they used so many years ago.  The genre now has more fans because of these games, nothing more.  The gameplay is still 2D no matter how you look at it. [/B]

It has nothing to do with it because it is not what I ve been  trying to say all the time.I am not saying it revolutionised the genre. It was a revolution as a PS1 game.Thats what I ve been trying to say.

BTW: I do play other RPG\'s.
They ve said the same thing about FFX?That surprises me.

[Bobs_Hardware]

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I think we have different opinions of revolutionary. I see revolutionary as a new genre or something done that has never been done. Basically, I don\'t see much as revolutionary. I don\'t count popularizing a genre revolutionary....

I see Resident Evil a evolution of survival horror and AitD has the revoluationary title...Same with FVII...it was evolutionary.

Well, I was thinking along the lines of a revolutionary title is one that causes a revolution.

You were obviously thinking of one that breaks the mould.

I had the same problem with Resident Evil - a game which I thought was revolutionary, but it wasn\'t. If anything, Alone in the Dark was. Resident Evil just threw a fresh coat of paint on it and tried to improve on the previous formula. My point? Sometimes your love for a game can blind you. - L.I.C

*Sigh* Finally someone could take their blinders off and see what I\'ve been yelling about all this time... and a Capcom fanboy no less. Seriously, the only things scary about those two games is just how similar they are to each other. I\'m almost surprised Infogames didn\'t slap Capcom with a lawsuit when RE1 released.

Considering just how much RE obviously draws from AitD, it makes you wonder if there even WOULD be an RE if it wasn\'t for AitD. Wouldn\'t that make AitD revolutionary Bob.. since it sparked the game which you consider the revolution?

[Bobs_Hardware]

Indirectly it is.

Had Resident Evil not been made, the survival horror genre would not have taken off for years, if ever.  Alone in the Dark may have been the inspiration for RE, but it was RE that caused all the hub-bub.

Meh.. who cares