Final Fantasy 7 should be required gaming for anybody serious about rpgs or who like all games. FFVII gets alot of hate from some people and its not even hate they just don't want to be seen as being part of this fanboy club. Most people who have played it will say it its a good game just not agree its worthy of being praised as much as it is, a sentiment I somewhat agree with but I still think its an amazing game. Yes it has flaws, this coming from a person who still has my copy from 1997 but the game as a whole gets 90% of what it does right(I know this is sysetm wars and someone will comment on this number so I'll go ahead and just point out I'm using it as a figure of speech Its not a breakdown of the actuall pros/cons number just a way to describe how the game performs in reaching its gameplay goals). I've played the game love still play it occasionally. It a close tie between 6 and 7 for favorite FF games both are great for some many reasons.

But to stay on topic of why FF7 is so great it come down to the core gameplay which are the battles they are fun and rarely gets tedious which is a plus for a game with random battles. The characters are well developed each have a small segment of sidequests and/or segments of the main story to flesh out their backstory. The setting is great the differences between midgar, junon, cosmo canyon, wutui etc... help create the atmosphere of a diverse world(the goldon saucer and chocobo breeding are definately part of the charm in creating that although some people didn't care for that part of the game even if its optional) along with a solid plot and dialog(minus some weak translating here and there and taking into account the japanese humour in some parts). THe materia system was simple but could lead to some serious character customizing. Final fantasy 7 was truly a landmark in gaming history especially when it comes to presentation and although the graphics are dated they still hold some beauty from an artistic standpoint especially some of the FMV hybrid 2d backgrounds.I understand some peoples desire to not talk about the game because they see some people's hype for it and don't agree but doesn't change the fact the game had a huge impact at the time of release and at the same time is still very playable today unless you really hate random battles or are a total graphics whore.

I'm in the beta its pretty fun but obviously there are some technical issues that need to be worked out but thats expected in a beta. The only complaint is the beta only has one map and it is pretty small but has 2 game types rescue princess and capture other team's base(or kill all the enemy). Will most definately be a purchase for me.

meh. Vagrant Story on the other hand...

InfinityMugen

yes I agree(at the same time I still have my original copy of FF7 in working condidtion and I bought it a week after the game originally launched) only played a small bit of Vagrant Story before my second psx stopped working never owned the game so I really would love to play it and actually finish it. Also why isn't square working on a psn version of Xenogears, I mean they are guarenteed to make money off both Vagrent Story and Xenogears why not realese them plus it would show new gamers why square has such a loyal following those two games have huge cult followings and some of squares finest work.

your friends should spend more time on school if they cant do simple math and convert points to money currency Dante2710

It has nothing to do with the converting which is simple enough I was making the argument that the point system is the one segment of live that everyone pretty much agrees is inefficient and annoying and like one poster said is a MS scam to slowly but surely make you spend more money than you intend. Left over points leave you with a few options.

1)buy more points to actually get more content you want

2)leave your leftover points essentially overpaying for content you wanted

3)spend the points on themes, etc.. that you don't really want but get just to not "waste you points"(don't get me wrong people will obviously find content they want to spend the points on but would have not felt inclined to get unless they had already purchased points for something else.

Also I find it annoying you took the time to insult my friends' intelligence indirectly insulting my own intelliegence(I never said they complained about the conversion but the system itself the converting was one issue with the system I brought up). Stop being childish I know its sw but insinuating about people you don't know to prop up your own ego or for brand loyalty is sad.

point system is lame, but i noticed stuff on xblm is slightly cheaper then psn store e.g. i think cod waw maps are 8 quids on psn store while they are 800 points on xbox, you get 1000 points for £8.50

sikanderahmed

well slightly cheaper prices probably has to do with the subscriber issue, recently it was announced that sony charges publisers bandwidth fees so the slightly higher prices are a result of no subscription charge for online. Live fees pay for the servers so there are no bandwidth fees for the publisher so the subscribers are subsidizing the costs of DLC in a small way maybe.

I say again MS should let gold members earn extra points for gamerscore and certain acheievments you can only earn so much from each game so to keep earning your "bonus" points you would still have to spend money on games so MS would benefit with higher game sales and hardcore gamers who spend money on gaming would be essentially earning discounts for gaming alot. Silver accounts would not get the bonus points as they can still DL content from the servers that the gold members are paying for.

I'm a ps3 owner but alot of my friends have 360's and one thing they constantly complain about is microsofts point system. Why dick around with a useless point system when it comes to purchases just tell me the dollar amount so I can decide if its worth it or not. Naming the currency, "points", doesn't make any sense either "points" are traditionally something you earn(think any other context where points are used like sports they are awards for effort or acheivement) these are essentially credits or "MS money" you pay for. thats one thing psn has over live even if its a minor issue its annoying at least on psn you know what you are paying for each piece of content whereas with the point system you have to calculate and convert how much or little its going to cost you in actual money. On top of that the points are in set bundled amounts you can't just purchase the points you want for one item you have to buy a minimum number of points often time more than the point amount needed for a piece of software.

Calling it "points" is highly inaccurate you don't earn them you buy them. If gold members could earn small amounts of extra points(25-50 point increments) for certain milestones in gamer points(like when you hit certain numbers 1000, 5000, 10,000 etc) or certain hard to get achievements thereby rewarding subscribers and hard core gamers, would certainly increase the logic for a points system.

Yes this is nitpicking but its one thing about live that has always had me scratching my head, especially when everything else is so well done.

So I'm doing a research presentation on interactive entertainment, need some feedback to put presentation in perspective

1. What is the biggest change/revolution in videogames in the last 20 years.

a. surround sound

b. touch or motion sensing input

c. 3-d graphics engines/physics calculations

d. online gaming

2. How do you feel about the current merging of other media with videogames(in game ads, social networking, etc.)

a. Negative, other media is bad for the industry

b. Indifferent as long as the other media doesn't detract from the game experience

c. Good, oppertunity for companies to expand outside the gaming audience and increase market and income.

3. Do you feel some technology used in videogames has applications outside the entertainment sector(yes or no).

4. Do you feel videogame technology developments in the past have helped other industries. (yes or no)

The other topic asking questions was locked...muthsera666

So I'm doing a research presentation on interactive entertainment, need some feedback to put presentation in perspective

1. What is the biggest change/revolution in videogames in the last 20 years.

a. surround sound

b. touch or motion sensing input

c. 3-d graphics engines

d. online gaming

2. How do you feel about the current merging of other media with videogames(in game ads, social networking, etc.)

a. Negative, other media is bad for the industry

b. Indifferent as long as the other media doesn't detract from the game experience

c. Good, oppertunity for companies to expand outside the gaming audience and increase market and income.

3. Do you feel some technology used in videogames has applications outside the entertainment sector(yes or no).

4. Do you feel videogame technology developments in the past have helped other industries. (yes or no)

If you mean some perspective as in "let's all look at it with rose-tinted huge fugly glasses", sure please go ahead. Not that I see a point to it. :roll:taker42