So I just read this article stating that Square Enix is bringing the Final Fantasy XIII game engine to the Wii, renaming it "Crystal Tools" (from "White Engine"). Now, it could just be that they're porting the engine for the hell of it, but it sure makes a heck of a lot of more sense that the reason they would do this is that they want to release FFXIII on the Wii. And why not? It's the best selling console since the PS2.

Poor Sony. First they lose Devil May Cry. Now they lose Final Fantasy. All that's left is Metal Gear, which will probably jump ship after Square Enix confirms the multiplat status of Final Fantasy XIII. It really makes you wonder what they're doing at SCEA HQ.

On an unrelated note: doesn't anyone else think that Blu-Ray's victory was actually a BAD thing for the PS3? If Blu-Ray had lost, then Sony would be forced to stop pushing the PS3 as a Blu-Ray DVD player, and start working on it as a games console. Now, they don't even care if the games on it suck, because they can just sit back and say, "Well, at least it plays Blu-Ray, and since Blu-Ray is the only way right now, we're still good."

Well, Sony did a very smart thing, by making the PS3 the cheapest, most efficient Blu-Ray player on the market, thus hitting two markets at the same time: gamers and movie-watchers, which aren't mutually exclusive. It's ironic really, if you go to any major retailer and look at the prices, you'll see that most standalone Blu-Ray players are about $500-$600, while the cheapest PS3 is only $400, which really leads you to wonder what's going on here. Nevertheless, it seemed to work for Sony, since Blu-Ray is the undisputed winner of the format war.

But a large part of it was HD-DVD's half-hearted defense; Toshiba did not fight tooth and nail to beat back Sony, nor did they pressure Microsoft to help them out. Microsoft's Xbox 360 might've been able to make a difference, but what with Xbox LIVE allowing downloads of HD content, it could be supposed that most Xbox 360 gamers were not interested in HD-DVD the way Sony foisted Blu-Ray on it's PS3 users.

Just like the color black, fine wine, and other such things, classics never go out of style. Just because a world-shaking classic game is old doesn't mean it's not still an awesome game. If you're willing to accept the fact that it has literally NO graphics (as in zero, zip, nadda), Zork is still a very fun adventure game for fans of the genre, even 30 years later (don't deny it, you still sneak a play every now and again. Yeah, you know you do).

Ocarina of Time was just an incredibly well put-together game. It really is a once-in-a-decade kind of game, one we're not likely to see again for probably another decade.

So I just started playing Lost Odyssey, and all graphical wows aside, I gotta say it is an excellent JRPG, in the vein of the classic Final Fantasy games that got me into the genre in the first place, only with HD-era graphics. Everything was just perfect for me, it had the core gameplay from the classic JRPG (turn-based combat, realtime worldmap, even ships with a captain named Sed :D), but it combined it silky smooth runtime and gorgeous graphics. I'm just awed and I'm loving the game. Plus the story, while cheesy and bit predictable, was still well-voiced and really, it's what you'd expect from the genre anyway.

So that brings me to Final Fantasy 13, which probably won't be coming anytime soon, but I'm alreadly really upset about. Because we all know what is going to happen; Square will never turn back the clock, and make FF a turn-based game, like VII, VIII, or X were. No, they will make it like XII, a real-time Final Fantasy. Now, I've played XII, and while it was all right, it just didn't have the same magic the VII, VIII, or X had. I think part of the problem was that there was a lack of the tactical combat situations you had when you could only select one action per round, and had to make strategic decisions about what those actions would be.

Lost Odyssey has done everything right in my opinion. In the world of gaming, graphics should go forward, and Lost Odyssey has done that. But far MORE importantly is what the game does NOT do. It does NOT remove important parts of the core JRPG experience that has made it so addictive for millions of fans everywhere. There's an old saying about things that aren't broken, I wish Square knew about that one.

The sad thing is, me and anywhere from a few hundred thousand to maybe even a million gamers are going to buy FF XIII anyway. That's right, I'm getting it anyway, despite the fact that I already feel it'll be inferior to Lost Odyssey. Why? Because I've always loved the Final Fantasy series, and I'm putting out hope that just maybe they might get their spark back someday. But I guess I'm just flabbergasted at Square for not realizing that changing core gameplay features in this beloved series is a horrible idea. Lost Odyssey has clearly shown that turn based combat not only can still work, but can be incredibly deep and fun as well. Here's to hoping Square gets the memo.

I actually agree with this. Sony had name recognition; EVERYONE knew the PS2. And just about everybody had one too. Sony had the upper hand in that regard; the launch of a PS3 would always be much more impressive than the next Xbox, which although the original Xbox was a good system, was nowhere near as popular as the monster that was the PS2.

If Sony had followed Microsoft's plan instead of the one they did follow, they definately wouldn't have had the time to install Blu-Ray on the PS3, which may or many not have hurt/helped it. What's for sure, though, is that the PS3 would've sold very well initially, because it wouldn't have cost $600. Without a Blu-Ray drive (and believe me, if the PS3 had launched as early as the 360, it COULDN'T have had the Blu-Ray) it would be cheaper by at least $150, which was a reasonable amount. That, combined with the name recognition the Playstation brand already enjoyed, would've meant the console would have sold very well.

Part of the 360's problem is that it was developed by Microsoft, which lest we all forget is a software company who really didn't have all that much experience with hardware. Their only big achievement in that field was the original Xbox, which wasn't all that impressive, hardware-wise. Sony, on the other hand, have been making TVs and laptops forever, and so they KNOW their hardware, not to mention they've released a PSOne and a PS2. I don't think that if they released the PS3 early, without Blu-Ray, it would've neccessarily have been a hardware-failure-filled disaster. True, the PS2 had its problems, but nowhere near to the degree that the 360 has with its RROD.

Now, all those factors combined would've meant that this fantasy PS3 would've sold VERY well in its first year. After that, when they realize that it's so hard to program for, and games like Gears of War start coming out for the 360, the sales may start to flag significantly.

Oh and, I doubt ANYTHING Sony could've done would've allowed them to beat the Wii. That thing just prints money.

The problem with that standalone player was just one tiny thing, but it makes a big difference: it's more expensive than a PS3, yet doesn't offer the ability to be future-proof through online updates. Essentially you'd be paying more for less, which doesn't make any sense to me. Not to mention a second PS3 will allow you to play games on the big screen if you should feel like doing so.

I find it rather ironic that Sony can price the PS3 at $400 yet not able to release a standalone at under $300. If there was a standalone Blu-Ray player at $200 (I don't know the conversion rates, I'm guessing the rough estimate of 400 British pounds) I'd suggest the standalone because it'd be so much cheaper. But since there is no such standalone...

That's the one thing I hate about Sony, how they always overcharge, except when they're backs are against the wall. *Sigh* What with the death of HD-DVD there goes our best chance of getting affordable HD content...

The question that you should be asking is why those consoles sold. Were they sold as gaming consoles? Or were they sold as Blu-Ray players? One of the things I never understood was why PS3 owners (including, sadly, myself) were willing to be pawns of Sony, allowing them to use us as tools in their format war. Blu-Ray had no business in a gaming console, because despite its large storage space, it had slow read speed, which is more critical to games. It's admittedly better for movies, but it's also more expensive format, both for the disks and the readers, which futher jacks up the price of the PS3.

And yet, despite the fact that Sony forces this movie format on all their gamers, the PS3 fans seem to embrace it like it's a good thing! Once again digging their own grave here, since not everyone wants to watch movies on their games console. I have a DVD-player, thanks, I don't need or want a Blu-Ray player OR an HD-DVD player. By forcing it on me, Sony made me pay at least $100 or more on my PS3 for something I don't even use.

Sony heavily mismanaged the PS3, partly because of its own hubris. They thought that they could ride the PS2's success into the next generation. When that didn't work out, they didn't humble themselves. Instead, it seems they've told themselves that it would work itself out, which to me is just flabbergasting. Burying your head in the sand won't make it go away.