Don't buy this expecting an epic RPG, and consider keeping someone under the age of 12 at hand to help you justify the twee nature of the game as a whole. But there's something here which is notably absent in any number of lushly produced and scintillatingly scripted games: a real sense of fun and discovery.
Greg Joachim writes: "The internet is full of sites, blogs, and news services where Square Enix is being called all kinds of names simply because they’re not content to publish their titles on one single platform. In particular, it’s the Sony breed of fanboy that appears to be the most emotionally distraught over Square Enix and their recent releases."
well sony buys studios instead of 3rd party exclusives..which is more smarter in the long run
i think the only reason some people are is beause alot of people bought the ps3 for ff13 and ffv13. Now they are going multi, i bet you some people feel cheated, especially back then with the high ps3 price.
Yeah, a lot of people are mad that FF13 isn't exclusive. You know what, that's just an excuse and misplaced anger; those people shouldn't be that mad that it isn't exclusive, they should be that mad cause the game sucked. The most lifeless FF13, and lo and behold, BOTH consoles get to bask in it's crappiness.
Hmm, maybe the PS3 guys wanted to be the ONLY ones to bask in it's crappiness.
It's not that they can't afford it. There just not stupid enough to. They won't make nearly enough for what they would pay to keep something exclusive.
I dont think Sony paid for Agent, R* probably begged Sony to take it in way of apology over GTAIV
Agent is Sony getting their money back from LA Noire, considering they paid for its development and still don't have a game.
Why would R* beg sony for anything? If anything sony should beg R* Sonys ps2 was more successful due to R* not sony's own doing. the notion that a 3rd party would beg is hilarious
It isn't about them not being able to afford it, they just don't want to because there is a sugar daddy around the corner. Companies smaller than Square Enix is still making exclusives like Level 5, XSeed, Atlus, and even companies bigger than them like Sega, Bioware, and Ubisoft.
Paying a 3rd party dev to develop a game exclusively for a platform is actually is the same thing as paying for exclusivity.
Sony paid for Agent exclusivity by paying for LA Noire exclusivity.
Funny thing about LA Noire. It was funded by Sony, made by a former Sony developer who set up a new studio (Team Bondi) with a publishing agreement with Rockstar. Not so much "paid for exclusivity", which implies they paid to keep it off another system, more like "paid the development" so exclusivity was assured.
Really, it should have been SCE published... like Heavy Rain or LittleBigPlanet, but they opted to let Rockstar publish and the game ended up as nothing. Rockstar bought out the IP rights and had to give Sony "Agent" to pay it off.
Links for what? News from 2005?
Team Bondi being founded by the Brendan McNamara? The money Sony sunk into it? Rockstar picking up publishing?
Look, in terms of this game it's never open and shut and mostly rumour, but there's a lot of really basic information people don't seem to get with it.
Phil Harrison and Brendan McNamara did not get along, McNamara left Sony because of this, but was happy to make the game as long as SCEE weren't involved in any capacity. It's no secret. In 2004, in an interview, McNamara said "the project is wholly funded by Sony Computer Entertainment America. We have a long-term exclusive arrangement with SCEA." This was before the game was revealed, as a Rockstar published game, in 2005.... hey, the year Phil Harrison became president of Sony's newly formed "Worldwide Studios", the guy who rubber stamps game development and where funds go. Any decision to drop the game fell to a guy who did not see eye to eye with the guy developing said game. Of course it was dropped after wholly covering development costs and seeing no return. Rockstar picked it up from Sony, the first time Rockstar were mentioned was 2005 at E3.
Wow why would Sony buy Square games when they owns some of Square Enix stock?
I don't know why some people disagreed with you but it IS true.
Sony owns 8.25% of Square Enix ( http://www.square-enix.com/... )
Yup. Sony pretty much bailed Square out when they were on the verge of bankruptcy from that horrid movie know as The Spirits Within. It's funny how SE has literally bitten the hand that used to feed them.
what a poor article. i agree with you, in my opinion if i owned a company i would never want to dig deep in my pokets to get a game on my consol. think about it, if microsoft has to "PAY" developers to put it on their console, its really sad.
Can't afford exclusives
VS
Just bought Media Molecule
Hmm....
PS: Would they really have to buy SE when their latest game sold 4 million on their console? Not to forget, it was already an exclusive in Japan, which was able to sell Limited Edition Slims, as well. They made money off of that semi-multiplatform game without doing much at all! Talk about financial trickery!
Square is being called names because their last game was sh*t. Greg Joachim is a hack. I know die hard FF fans who couldn't get through the first 20 hrs. Greg Joachim is a hack.
The game wasn't great but it's nowhere near as bad as some people try and make it out, but sadly, it's one of the best games they have released this generation that wasn't on a handheld. Just shows how much Squaresoft/Enix have fallen in the last 5 or so years.
To say Sony can't afford to buy exclusives is just stupid. Does this guy have any idea how much Sony spends in developing first party games?
watch, by the time this console generation ends, Sony probably won't even need that much 3rd party support anymore considering the fact that they're army of first party developers keep on accumulating.
just think about how much excellent first party games that are gonna be released for the pS4 launch 7-8 years from now!
Flamebait article made by a FANBOY from the Ironical site goFanboy.com
Sony don't pay For Exclusives any more, cos they Have Their Own First Party studios and that's the most smartest thing ever...
Why Pay to others for Multiplatform games that can be gimped and such cos eventually those games go multiplat and Devs already take other Architectures in mind, before the Deal is Done
Sony make with that money Awesome Exclusives and that's the Best Thing for Gamers
It's just a disgusting site that gets its hits by poking at fanboy hot spots.
It's about time that we ban Gofanboy, hiphopgamershow, planetxbox360, etc. from N4G.
Yep, Sony is REEEEEEAL poor. That's why they buy so many studios.
''Don't Blame Square Enix Because Sony Can't Afford Exclusives''
''well sony buys studios instead of 3rd party exclusives..which is more smarter in the long run''
Lol! and with Factual Evidence! good one Nyc_Gamer and 1 Bubble. No one can beat that phrase.
They all pay for exclusives. Sony is just hurting right now because of the economy. Once business picks up, you'll see FF securely exclusive on Playstation again and BETTER FOR IT!
sales are down across the board for all the big 3, not just Sony. Check out April's NPD. Xbox 360 outsold ps3 in AMERICA by on 4k, which makes it irrelevant because of japan. Sony doesn't need to buy exclusives because it makes them. Microsoft internal studio is almost none existent with the exception on RARE. They need to buy exclusives and even then it's only timed exclusives. They paid Rockstar 75.million just to bring the gta series to xbox360 and the dlc. Liberty City stories still ended up on the ps3 and you didn't need to have GTA to play it.
Is not For the Economy, it was clear for the Beginning, No more Third Party Exclusivity Deals for all, Of course Sony will Secure some Games, but those deals can only be Applied with Big Titles, like GTA series or such
The Thing is, Build Your Own Games and handle the Situation by your Own, not relying on Third Party Companies, this is the Best Way to Do it cos:
1·Sony Exclusives are Only on Playstation Gaming Devices
2·Growing Line-up of Exclusives can Bring more Consumers
3·The money Spent on their own Games will bring them Real Money and Not just Royalties
Sony can't afford exclusives AND yet they have 16 first party studios, Countless exclusives and quality testing of the highest standard.
Their first party titles are great! But the 3rd-party support for exclusive has dried up.
"That's only because the PS3 is no PS2 with 100million+ sold. It's all about sales. "
And the PS3 isn't providing those numbers.
Or because it now cost $25 million to make a game, releasing on as many platforms make sense without money from companies.
I'd rather have a Sony first party game on average over a 360 third party game on average.
I know gears is great but there's quite a bit of shovelware on disk on the 360.
No but you get my point, no? The sales were MUCH better than gamecube and Xbox combined, even with the weakest hardware of three.
Developers didn't go for graphics but for sales, same was with the N64 vs PS1 era.
no sony chose to put money into first party, they could have easily threw money at third party but they feel timed exclusivity is pointless
3rd party support has dried up? Really? I could have sworn Yakuza 3 and 4 was third party...
This gen Sony have just been alot smarter - yes they have let some 3rd party exclusives go but they have a strong 2nd party base and an even stronger bunch of 1st party studios, producing arguably the best games we have seen this gen across all platforms
when sony loses a 3rd party exclusive, its not losing it completely, it just means its coming out multiplat so sony doesn't really lose, so long as it keeps its strong 1st party base they know they will be fine
Brandon Thompson writes: "Gamers have seen few franchises with histories as impressively deep and memorable as the Final Fantasy series. Besides being known for great story lines lovable heroes, Square/Enix's uber-popular franchise is also known for having some of the meanest and most evil baddies in the history of video games.
What does it take to make a successful bad guy who makes a real impact on gamers? The character's costume certainly plays a part. Maybe it's how dramatic of an introduction the character has? Maybe it's all about how insanely crazy, strong, and determined the antagonist is. We still think the costume plays some part. You be the judge."
Kefka been there before and surpassed him. As I love Sephiroth, he's my favourite villain, Kefka is much more than him. Makes Sephy look like a wannabe.
Sephiroth is more bad ass than Kefka, but no one will be crazier than Kefka. The guy is a definition of 'evil'. He should be tops in that list, not Sephiroth.
from the article - "While we’re not allowed to number our top five lists anymore, there’s little doubt that Sephiroth would top the list if it were titled "popular" bad guys. Even though he's not the most evil, his hatred puts him in the top five."
Why can't you number a top 5?
lol, Sephiroths a little mommas boy always crying for mother. Kefka actually destroyed the world unlike the rest of them.
Sephiroth is a big wet p(an)sy. I'd rate Kuja over him, and Kuja is basically a schoolgirl.
Hands down: Sephiroth. What other villian has a symphony orchestra perform his theme song to live audiences? huh huh? That's right, Sephiroth PWNS!!!
was that a chick dressed as him in the pic. I would have to say the one I hated the most was seymor from FFX. Turned his mom into a summons and kept her in the basement all chained up.
Sephiroth has more rich character development, and a more obvious motivation for destruction. While Kefka is insane, Sephiroth was once psychology (seemly) normal, and even a great hero at one point.
He also didn't think what he was doing was wrong at all. Sephiroth honestly thought he was saving the world by becoming it's God.
"Sephiroth is more bad ass than Kefka, but no one will be crazier than Kefka. The guy is a definition of 'evil'. He should be tops in that list, not Sephiroth."
I kinda agree with that, though they did say they aren't allowed to number them. :p
Granted Sephiroth is another likeable villian from the FF series, I'd have to give the Bat**** crazy overall title to Kefka. The amount of stuff Sephiroth did in FF7 is kinda pale in comparison to the amount of grief, death, and overall things Kefka did in FF6.
However Sephiroth did make it seem more personal to what he did, which still makes him on the top lists.
why would sefi top the list the list said most evil bad guys technically speaking compared to what some of the other FF have done and what some of them actually are like the embodiment of malice itself sefi isn't really all that evil just someone who went insane
its just a popularity thing in the end anyways
I define evil as someone for no remorse or compassion for no living being on this planet. A pure malicious conscious from beggining to end. Someone that not even his/her mother would love. For this, Kefka takes the specifications perfectly. A pathetic weakling from the start of the game, towards becoming something like the devil itself. But regardless of his power, he was always an evil twat.
Barthandelus in XIII was pretty lame, even if it wasn't hermaphrodite lame like almost all other FF villains, he was pretty lame.
Most evil had to be Kefka... sorry Sephiroth fans, he was just a lonely kid who missed mommy.
dear god, main villain of ff13 was probably the worst villian in any game since xenosaga 2....probably cuz they r both popes.....but UGhhh, i think ff13 wuda been better if guy cid, or guy with silver hair or even jihl (chick with huge rack) was the main villain.
i loved the whole cast except for main villain. uggh i hate him so boring
GFB writes: "Final Fantasy is one of the most famous franchises in gaming history and for good reason. The gameplay has evolved over the years and pleased gamers on everything from the original NES to the WonderSwan and still entrances gamers on the PS3 and 360. But there's another appeal factor about this series.
The women of Final Fantasy are considered among most gamers as some of the hottest around. Sure the fact that they're in an RPG series probably contributes. So with such a rich pool of talent in terms of hotness, who are the top babes in this category? We've compiled the list of what we think are the sexiest female characters in the history of the Final Fantasy franchise."
:( No Aerith? Not too bad of a list though.
MY top 5 are:
5. Celes Chere (VI)
4. Rinoa Heartilly (VIII)
3. Rosa Farrell (IV)
2. Oerba Yun Fang (XIII)
1. Aerith Gainsborough (VII)
DAYEM! Beatrix is a VERY close second to Tifa. I forgot all about her. The odd character proportions from IX worked on Beatrix, lol.
How is Fran not on there?
What are they smoking?!?!?!?
http://img255.imageshack.us...
What about Lulu? Am I the only one that thinks Lulu is smoking HOT!!!?
I agree Fran should be in there too i like her. (it's the ears) maybe I have a fetish :)
Lulu, was always my favorite, i never though yuna was hot for a second, same with rikku.
Actually, it was always Fran's accent that really got me, as far as attractiveness goes. Penelo, physically and socially, is more my type, though.
I find myself ashamed that I even commented on this thread. But... anything Final Fantasy grabs my interest!
-Arvis
I think Lulu should've been on there... :P
She's definitely my #2. (After Tifa of course :P)
