[My Profile] [My Settings] [Exit]  

Home Blog My Games Reviews Friends Exit
Suskie Susquatch

Title: Console Fanboyism Is Stupid, Vol. 18,735
Posted: March 12, 2010 (11:28 PM)


WAAAAAAAAAH

THAT'S NOT THE FREE CONSOLE WE WANTED

WAAAAAAAAAH

FINAL FANTASY IS A SONY FRANCHISE EXCEPT NO IT'S NOT BECAUSE ACTUALLY IT WAS ON NINTENDO CONSOLES FIRST

WAAAAAAAAAH
[reply]

zippdementiaUser: zippdementia
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (01:08 AM)
I just think of all the games to port to the Xbox 360, why pick one which is specifically designed to make use of PS3 hardware? Forget fanboyism. That just doesn't make sense to me.
[reply]

pickhutUser: pickhut
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (02:45 AM)
It's Final Fantasy. It makes money.

I don't see what doesn't make sense. >_>
[reply]

darketernalUser: darketernal
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (06:07 AM)
That's why real manly men get a good PC which in most cases gets all the games that matter except and odd jrpg here and there.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (07:52 AM)
Games that specifically make use of one system are ported to another system all the time. It makes sense because it's something that people wanted and are willing to pay for.

//Zig
[reply]

zippdementiaUser: zippdementia
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (10:58 AM)
Of course it makes sense from a business stand point, but as a consumer of video games, I would have trouble playing a game that's all about graphics on a system which couldn't handle its level of graphics.

Which no one should take as a knock against the Xbox. I'm just talking facts, here.

Similarly, I've hesitated to buy Bayonetta for the PS3 because I know it runs much better on the Xbox360.
[reply]

GenjUser: Genj
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (11:12 AM)
I would have trouble playing a game that's all about graphics on a system which couldn't handle its level of graphics.

The 360 version isn't exactly gimped. The visuals are slightly worse, but the graphics are still some of the best on the console, the framerate is stable, there's no screen tearing, and loading is minimal. Considering the biggest issues for the game were swapping discs and compressed videos, I wasn't too troubled when playing the game. Square obviously put effort into porting it. Bayonetta wasn't even ported by the people who made it (remember that there were similar issues when someone else ported Okami & The Orange Box).

edit - incidentally Bayonetta PS3 runs better now thanks to a patch from Sony
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (11:22 AM)
We also all know that FF13 isn't actually all about graphics. Neither is Bayonetta.

//Zig
[reply]

HalonUser: Halon
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (12:39 PM)
I'm not interested in these games at all so correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand the only (graphical) difference between the PS3 and 360 versions is the former runs at a higher resolution. I'd rather have a game run at a lower resolution than run at the same resolution with low FPS.
[reply]

SuskieUser: Suskie
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (01:01 PM)
That's a decision I make all the time, when I install a PC game that's just a little too much for my delicate system to handle. So I have to choose between a game that looks gorgeous but doesn't run very well, or vice versa. And I always go with the latter.

People on both sides of this fight tend to exaggerate the strengths of their console, though. Bayonetta is indeed a rare case, but at the same time, how many multi-platform games look noticeably better on the "superior" PS3? By and large, multi-platform games are identical on either console, and the biggest decision comes down to which controller you'd prefer to use. As I believe someone said here, games are at their best when they're optimized for each specific console.
[reply]

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (02:34 PM)
You're wrong, sportsman. Others have done extensive comparison work and apparently the PS3 version has more shadow and lighting effects and other such details than the Xbox 360 vesion does. It's not just a matter of resolution differences. There's also a lot more compression on the Xbox 360 version. It really is a significant difference... in a series that truly has been loved by a lot of people for pushing visuals (since practically the first title in the series). I don't mind that there's an Xbox 360 bundle available for the game, or that a gimped version--sorry, Genj, but it really is--has been released on that platform. I do find it stupid that the system the game was first designed for doesn't have a bundle available, though. It won't keep me up at night or anything, but I definitely see where PS3 fanboys are coming from in this particular instance.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (03:00 PM)
The bundle thing is Square and Microsoft's way of saying that FF13 is first and foremost an Xbox 360 game.

It just happens to also be available for the PS3.

//Zig
[reply]

GenjUser: Genj
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (05:39 PM)
Others have done extensive comparison work and apparently the PS3 version has more shadow and lighting effects and other such details than the Xbox 360 vesion does. It's not just a matter of resolution differences. There's also a lot more compression on the Xbox 360 version.

Gimped is a pretty strong word to describe what is essentially the current "prettiest" JRPG not looking as pretty on another console. The port is amazing considering it was intended for a stronger console just as the PS2 port of RE4 was.

If you really want to go back to why the 360 version exists as Zipp said it's quite simple. FF13 took a lot of time and money to make. Enough that it needs to do well internationally, and there are a lot people outside of Japan who only have a 360 who would want to play the game (like me!). I don't get why so many Sony fans don't want me to enjoy FF13 with them (I don't mean you Zipp, just people in general)!
[reply]

SuskieUser: Suskie
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (07:08 PM)
There's also the fact that the people in this video are booing a free console.
[reply]

GenjUser: Genj
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (09:43 PM)
It's not that surprising. You'd have to be a bit weird to dress up as a Final Fantasy character in the first place.
[reply]

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (11:13 PM)
I'll never turn down a free (working) consle. I would happily accept a few extra Xbox 360 ones, in fact, for when mine breaks again. That would be very, very convenient.

The Final Fantasy XIII bundle does seem to be a flop, though. We got four in stock at the store where I work and we've sold none. This is an area where Xbox 360 consoles sell fairly regularly, mind you. There's just not a lot of interest in the bundle among the local population that is interested in playing the Xbox 360 version. They either already have the console, or they're holding out for when they pick up a PS3.

I wouldn't normally call a game "gimped" because of graphical differences, Genj, but this is Final Fantasy that we're talking about. Square-Enix always makes a huge point of making the games in the series as absolutely beautiful as possible. That was the reason behind the switch from Nintendo platforms to Sony platforms and it's the reason that the Xbox 360 bundle is so unusual.

Of course, we don't have to speculate as to why the game was ported to the platform, or why the bundle Square-Enix went with was an Xbox 360 bundle. The answer to that "question" is blatantly obvious.
[reply]

HalonUser: Halon
Title:
Posted: March 13, 2010 (11:26 PM)
Maybe it's just me but today I view games completely different than I did, say, 5-6 years ago. Graphics really don't matter much to me anymore as long as the game doesn't look ugly. I'd rather have something playable than something pretty and in fact turn most of my settings down to low/medium when I play. I'd much rather play a game with lower settings than higher settings with low FPS. Of course both top notch graphics and high FPS would be nice, but I have no problem cranking graphical settings down for playability.

Of course if I owned both consoles I would get the PS3 version, but booing a slightly inferior product that costs $60 less is absurd.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (08:57 AM)
If Square only cared about making the best-looking game possible, then they'd have switched from Nintendo to the Sega Saturn when making FF7.

//Zig
[reply]

zippdementiaUser: zippdementia
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (12:55 PM)
I need to clarify something that was apparently not understood in my statement. I never said Bayonetta is all about graphics. I see how you could have thought I meant that, but what I meant was that Bayonetta doesn't run as smoothly on the PS3, it's a fact.

As for FFXIII being just about graphics, it's not of course, but the graphics are a huge part of the game. Similar with God of War III, where the developers have said the main reason they didn't want to make the game on the Xbox was because the PS3 does better lighting and can handle more movement on the screen. FFXIII was the same kind of development decision, but then because they wanted more money, they ported it anyway as an inferior product.

Whatever, that doesn't offend me or anything, but it's not something I would personally pick up on the Xbox.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (02:12 PM)
I thought that the God of War developers were still a branch of Sony -- and that God of War was a Sony trademark? If so, they would hype the PS3 regardless of truth or falsehood, since there was no possibility of porting it to other systems in the first place. If not, then that's news to me and I'm intrigued. Are they still part of Sony?

//Zig
[reply]

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (02:32 PM)
Zig: For RPGs at the very least, from a technical standpoint, the SNES hardware was better suited toward making a beautiful game. The Genesis had more limited specs in many areas there and I'm sure that's not news to you.

Sportsman: I'm not championing graphics as the most important element in the RPG in general, but it's one of the top elements in a Final Fantasy game. There's a difference and it's a key difference. If you're looking for gameplay over flash, Final Fantasy has never, never, NEVER been the right RPG series to follow. Dragon Quest always held that distinction and still does. That's part of why the move to the DS platform for the ninth installment was hardly a massive, world-changing surprise. So with that long history of going for the best visual look possible, the Final Fantasy series bundle only being available with the Xbox 360 is a big deal. It's not all blind fanboyism if a PS3 fan acts upset.

Of course, it's quite possible that the people in the video were booing it for all of the wrong reasons. Most Final Fantasy freaks I've had the displeasure to meet in person aren't the brightest bulbs in the shed, to say the least. There are right reasons to jeer readily available, though.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (03:28 PM)
I didn't mention the SNES or Genesis. The Saturn had higher capabilities than the Playstation, but was harder to program for. It's similar to what we hear about the Xbox and PS3.

Square went towards the money with FF7, and they're still going towards the money with FF13. Also of note -- Square released FF9 on the Playstation even though the Dreamcast was already out. High-quality visuals are important to Square, but history shows that does not determine what system they release their games on.

That's why the bundle does not surprise me. Booing a free system is goofy, even if someone does mistakenly believe that Square has always preferred the system with the highest visual potential.

//Zig
[reply]

zippdementiaUser: zippdementia
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (03:39 PM)
I'll do some research, Zig, and get back to you. All I know is the interview I saw where one of the head guys said that God of War III was only possible on the PS3. I'll see if I can find the interview, too.

It would be pretty funny if they are still owned by Sony and he's saying stuff like that ^_^
[reply]

HalonUser: Halon
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (08:36 PM)
Jason: to me stuff like visuals, audio, etc is what initially impresses me with the game. After an hour or so I barely notice it anymore and I'm only focusing on the game. So the 360 version might not impress me as much for the first few hours, but in the long run I would be just as happy. Of course if I had the choice I would go with the PS3 version, but for free it seems like a fair sacrifice. If the actual game plays worse, then that's a different story.

Then again I'm not big on these type of games and play mostly online multiplayer so maybe I am missing out on the point. It just seems absurd to boo a free 360 and game. If it's really a big problem you can easily sell it and pick up the PS3 version and a couple other games.
[reply]

GenjUser: Genj
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (10:09 PM)
Strangely the kind of people that would mainly play a 30 hour JRPG for flash and pretty visuals would hate FF13 because the most compelling thing about it is its challenging, fast-paced battle system, while the story quickly becomes complete garbage.
[reply]

randxianUser: randxian
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (10:28 PM)
Most Final Fantasy freaks I've had the displeasure to meet in person aren't the brightest bulbs in the shed, to say the least. There are right reasons to jeer readily available, though.

This is exactly why I started getting involved in this community and stopped caring about GameFAQs.

That place breeds Final Fantasy idiots.

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against people who love the series. Hell, I think the original for the NES, FF4, and FF6 are awesome games. I even think FF7 is pretty good, just not the best game of all time. I just hate people like in the video who boo. Good grief. Find something constructive to do.
[reply]

SuskieUser: Suskie
Title:
Posted: March 14, 2010 (11:02 PM)
Zipp and Zig: Here you go.

As the article states, (a) it's Sony saying that, (b) they say that about every PS3 exclusive in existence, and (c) they aren't making a good case anyway.
[reply]

joseph_valenciaUser: joseph_valencia
Title:
Posted: March 15, 2010 (04:37 PM)
Fools could just sell the new, sealed Xbox 360 and get a PS3. Like, duh.
[reply]

eXTReMe Tracker
2005-2012 HonestGamers
Opinions expressed in this blog represent the opinions of those expressing them and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of site staff, users and/or sponsors. Unless otherwise stated, content above belongs to its copyright holders and may not be reproduced without express written permission.