The Shrine

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>The way the game plays out is almost identical to Final Fantasy 7; you mess around for the first 20% of the game in what looks to be a very promising and diverse adventure, then discover that you spend 60% of the next 80% of the game chasing after a psychopathic villain with long white hair. FF9 has a better written story than 7, as well as more interesting characters; I don't think many would argue on the writing, possibly on the characters there would be argument though since unhappy people prefer unhappy characters. I liked the setting of 7 better than 9, Midgar was more interesting than Alexandria and that Airship town. Treno (the forever night city) is an excellent location, but aside from that, there isn't really any other interesting location in the game. I can only recall one interesting point gameplaywise, and that was travelling through one cave early on which led from Treno to a place near the airship city. Lindblum, that was its name =)

On the topic of which game is the best, I would certainly put Final Fantasy 8 far above 7 and 9 with Final Fantasy Tactics being the second best. I like Final Fantasy 8 as much as I liked Vagrant Story (which in my opinion is one of the best games ever made)</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Better story, better gameplay (by FAR), great tie in to the older games, no "trying to be cool" feeling....just everything was better about it</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>This falls under the movie debate. It doesn't matter if you didn't like FF7, cause it was the best. :P</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>People have tried to argue that any one of the FF games are the best, it's all speculative, all you can do is say which one is your favourite. Objectively speaking, FF10 is the best one, but is it necessarilly your favourite? I personally didn't find it as fun as some of the older ones.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Oh, what the hell. I feel like beating a dead horse. How is FFX objectively the best FF?</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>FFX, being of this latest generation, has a commanding technical edge over all of the preceding FFs. It has the best graphics, best-looking CG, highest quality instrument set, it's the only FF to feature voice acting, and it only has one disc. I think you'll be hard-pressed to argue with me on any of those.

Since everything else about FFX in particular and all FFs in general - story, music, gameplay, characters, etc. - is all SUBjective, Seeker's claim that "objectively speaking, FFX is the best one" is technically correct.

<i>-57</i>


(P.S. Holy shit, I'm actually agreeing with Seeker. Duck and cover everybody, the four horsemen are on their way!)</div>

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Definitely not trying to patronize you, so I'll assume you know that my quibble is largely a semantic one. "Best" implies an order of rank in the sense that something is good, positive, desirable. One could reasonably argue that FFX's graphics are all these things, but someone else could argue just as reasonably that they're not.

Of course, while most things about games are subjective, some are more subjective than others. If some guy told me that he thought Deadly Towers' graphics were superior to FFX's, I'd give him a pretty weird look.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>It's fairly easy to argue with you on all of those points, since "best" is a value judgement.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Goddamnit man, don't, Seeker made the correct statement.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I'll get you all to understand the difference between objective and subjective statements even if it kills me. Objective judgements require some sort of an agreed upon metric, and are then only relevant inside that agreed upon context.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>I'd hate to have a conversation with you about sex, with any other male, it'd be funny and interesting, you'd probley have me dull bored, and ready to shot myself before it's over.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I read this board inbetween coding and reading CS academic papers.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>You managed to prove your point - in this case - by taking the agreed upon metrics and saying "I disagree with them" in a way that few (if any) other people would agree with - heck, you're essentially saying that when it comes to video games, there ARE no agreed upon metrics, even from a purely technical aspect! For example, your reply of "'best' is a value judgement" in this argument is equivalent to saying that you think it's possible for someone to prefer the graphics (for example) of a previous FF game to those of FFX.

But come on - do you honestly think that if you sat someone down, let them play FFIX for ten minutes and then let them play FFX for ten minutes, that they would think that FFIX was the better game, technically? That someone would look at a game with a lower polygon count and lower resolution textures and truly say "I think this one looks better?" Do YOU honestly prefer the graphics of FFI-IX over those of X? Think the instrument set of VII or VIII is better than that of X? Think that anyone would actually prefer having to store, keep track of, and swap out multiple discs during the course of a game as opposed to only having to deal with one?

If so - in which case you've got some fucked up taste and weird priorities as far as I'm concerned - you are completely in the right here. If not, you're disagreeing solely to disagree (and only because it's semantically possible *to* disagree) and being a patronizing asshole at the same time, which I do not appreciate. Hence the vitriol contained in this post.

<i>-57</i></div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>And I have no problem disagreeing with your metrics. Why chose the technical merits of the game? Would, I don't know, how <i>fun</i> it is be just as good of a metric? You're the one who jumped from "objective" to "techical." The two concepts need not be related, which makes most of your points irrelevant.

My entire point is that there's no objective way to evaluate a videogame, if we're going to constraint ourselves to the goal of a videogame. Why? The point of a videogame is to enjoy playing it, which is inherently subjective. It doesn't accoplish any other goal. I can objectively say an algorithm is "best" by some metric because the algorithm tries to achieve some goal that is not subjective. If we don't constraint ourselves to the goal of a videogame, then the conclusion we come to is meaningless.

If you find me patronizing, I'm sorry, but you still seem to be making the same mistake.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>General consensus does not make it objective? A definition of objective: "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers." If you want to nitpick about the "independent of individual thought" part of that definition while we're talking about things like video game graphics, stick coal up your butt and then get diamonds, well, that's your prerogative.

My entire point is that there's no objective way to evaluate a videogame, if we're going to constraint ourselves to the goal of a videogame. Why? The point of a videogame is to enjoy playing it, which is inherently subjective. It doesn't accomplish any other goal.

You are absolutely right and I completely agree with you here. It's on the next point where we disagree.

And I have no problem disagreeing with your metrics. Why choose the technical merits of the game?

I chose the technical merits of a game because, as I tried to stress in my last post, those CAN be judged objectively, and by comparing games <i>solely on their shared aspects which are objective,</i> you can judge games "objectively speaking." Which brings us to the crux of the matter:

You're the one who jumped from "objective" to "technical." The two concepts need not be related, which makes most of your points irrelevant.

Interesting choice of words there. =)

Wanna know what the grin was for? Because "need not" is not equivalent to "can not", and thus whether or not "technically better" is equivalent to "objectively better" is - get this - subjective!

Bwa ha ha ha ha! Oh, the ironing is delicious!

If you find me patronizing, I'm sorry, but you still seem to be making the same mistake.

Because you disagreed with me on a subjective matter, you assumed that I lacked understanding of the basic concept that was at the heart of the argument, and said so to that effect. That's patronizing, Kupek - plain and simple. The bullshit sports/celebrity-style apology won't fly with me.

<i>-57</i></div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>I agree Ironing is delicious. well I don't know how ironing tasted but it does make my pants look sexy</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>I understand them. I just assume that 57 meant "most technologically advanced" (or something similar) when he said "best" and that's good enough for me.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>That is indeed what he meant, but that makes it technically better, not objectively better. Which is my point.</div>

<div style='font: bold 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Objectively, they are technically better. I think we can all agree that we are dealing with a metric in which the more detailed graphics are better than the graphics in previous games.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Sorry, but I was immediately turned off from the SD graphics, and the throwback to the boring medieval bullshit. That was the one FF I never actually played.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>9 was about Super Saiyan Zidane who's supposed to destroy the world but instead decided to chase after girls. I'll take 7's plot which actually make sense.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Vivi.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Medieval setting? FFT used a medieval setting as well, (so will FF12). Final Fantasy 7, Tacitcs, and Xenogears all use SD graphics. I thought you liked these games?</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Nah dude, none of those games used Super Deformed graphics.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>Gameplay, graphics, and the fact that your party could not endlessly doublecast KOTR.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>See for yourself.


<IMG SRC="http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff7/gra ... h/av02.jpg">


<IMG SRC="http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff9/screens/ffix_63.jpg">


<IMG SRC="http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/fft/screens/fft0009.jpg">


<IMG SRC="http://www.rpgamer.com/games/xeno/xg/sc ... jpg"></div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>What, do you have a problem with the logical discussion of the metrical analysis of the human copulatory process?</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>The "independent of individual thought" part of your definition of objective is the most important part; focusing on it is not nitpicking. That's the whole point of an objective judgement; it's can't be subject to a person's biases and prejuidices.

I realize that you can objectively compare, say, the polygon count of one game to the other. But a game that is more technologically advanced does not necessarily have <i>better</i> graphics. While it's not an opinion I share, someone can easily claim they like FF6's graphics over FFX because they prefer FF6's style of presentation. That difference is what prompted my point that "best" is still a value judgement.

Of course the equivalence or non-equivalence of "objective" to "technical" is subject to individual interpretation. Everything is. But the words have different meanings. I don't see why they should be conflated. This is of course subjective, and you can feel free to continue ironing if you enjoy it so much.

The misunderstanding we have here is that you equated "objective" to "technical." I see no reason to do this. You do. I see no problem in assuming you have a basic misunderstanding of a concept if you use the wrong word to describe it. The reason I apologized is I honestly didn't intend to be patronizing, but at this point, I don't care if you think I am.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Plot I can give you, but the gameplay in 9 destroys that in 7</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Um getting an instant lose because you can't possibly resist any status effect unless you know what you're going to be hit by ahead of time isn't my idea of a good game. Beyond the stupid status effect system it plays like every other RPG, and Trance is grossly overpowered on Steiner and Zidane.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Perhaps you're not clear on the definition of Super-Deformed. When the characters look horribley disfigured, short, and just downright weird on purpose THAT'S super deformed. If you look at FFVII's final FMV they weren't attempted deformed, they were attempting realism.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>>Perhaps you're not clear on the definition of Super-Deformed. When the characters look horribley disfigured, short, and just downright weird on purpose THAT'S super deformed. If you look at FFVII's final FMV they weren't attempted deformed, they were attempting realism.

Perhaps you missed that FF7's graphics do indeed fall into the category of super deformed characters; and no one ever said they didn't, certainly not Square. The character models are indeed super deformed. To add, the characters FMV clearly is not realistic, just look at the eyes, the heads, the mouths, and the hair on the characters. Not to mention ridiculously large weapons.


<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... 8:3.jpg</a> THIS is realism



<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... _12.jpg</a>
THIS is not.

<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... ix2.jpg</a>
And even this looks more relaistic.

I don't know why you are even trying to argue a point that is so very obvious. JUST LOOK AT THE GOD DAMN SCREENSHOTS!!!!!!!

Don't make me beat you Eric =)</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Realism isn't the focus Seek, it's the character design! How they look, all the FFIX characters look ugly. Hence super deformed.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>That is NOT the argument, it was that FFT uses a medieval setting, as well as SD graphics, and FF7 and Xenogears use SD graphics as well. Which, (guess what?) is fact.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>What you're saying is because the characters are big and have huge weapons they're "Super Deformed". "Deformed" isn't an attractive thing, it looks weird and it's an artist style. Cloud doesn't even look deformed, YES he carries a big sword, but for the most part he looks NORMAL, he's a white boy with anime style hair and a huge weapon that kicks ass. <a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/ff7/ffviibanne ... er.jpg.</a> There's nothing deformed about cloud, he's not short, he's not ugly, and if put on some normal clothes people wouldn't point and laugh at him for looking weird.

<a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/kh/images/11.j ... /11.jpg</a> This isn't supper deformed either, this is another attempt at realism because there is nothing visually wrong with the characters. Ignore Donald and Goofy, you got the your white boy brown anime style hair with a weapon as usual.

<a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/ff8/ffviiibann ... ner.jpg</a> Squall yet again, another white boy anime style brown hair with a big weapon. He looks normal they're going for realism! The whole concept is to make your character look NORMAL. Not like some freakin a clown brigade.

<a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/ff9/ff9main2.j ... in2.jpg</a> Now we hit FFIX, look at the size of their heads. Garnet Stifer(the guy in the lower left and Zidane all have huge heads. They're also not attractive at all, Garnet(or Dagger as she named herself in the game.) is like one of the least attractive females I've seen in a video game. Tifa was super deformed? THIS is Tifa: <a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/feature3.jpg"> ... re3.jpg</a> She looks damn normal and attractive

THIS is one FFIX character: <a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/ff9/images/01- ... 21b.jpg</a>
THIS is another: <a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/ff9/images/01- ... 24b.jpg</a>
And some more: <a href="http://www.ffextreme.com/ff9/images/03- ... 29b.jpg</a>
One more time!: <a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... 617.jpg</a>

They look freakin weird.

More to prove my point, concept art!

<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... 7-1.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... -10.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... 7-2.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... una.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... hie.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... fer.jpg</a>

<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... ic3.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... ic2.jpg</a>
<a href="http://www.ffonline.com/media/index.php ... ic5.jpg</a>

If you can't see that the character designs were SUPPOSED to look weird, and that the characters in FFIX are super deformed I can't help you. It's obvious to anybody with two eyes.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclo ... p?id=44</a>

RE</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>They didn't USE Super Deformed graphics, the graphics were just bad. THAT is a big difference. If you remade FFVII they'd all look normal, if you remade FFIX the characters are still ugly and *Drum rull* SUPER DEFORMED! It's a style Seek, not an end result of bad programing.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Alright fine, those graphics aren't super deformed, they're just really shitty and look even more deformed than super deformed graphics. You just argued my point to an even greater degree =)</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>But at the time those games came out they were considered next-gen they just didn't age well. FFIX of course came out after FFVIII there was no reason for the throw back graphics or ugly character designs but they did it anyway, hence Sine's disapproval of the game. *whew*</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I think Eric's just trying to say that FF9 was purposefully cute, while for FF7, it was the best representation they could get with the technology they had.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Cute isn't the word.</div>

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>

The "independent of individual thought" part of your definition of objective is the most important part; focusing on it is not nitpicking. That's the whole point of an objective judgement; it's can't be subject to a person's biases and prejuidices.

You've got me there. I can pontificate about tightass-ness all I want, but you're absolutely right. Continuing that train of thought in the next reply...

I realize that you can objectively compare, say, the polygon count of one game to the other. But a game that is more technologically advanced does not necessarily have <i>better</i> graphics. While it's not an opinion I share, someone can easily claim they like FF6's graphics over FFX because they prefer FF6's style of presentation. That difference is what prompted my point that "best" is still a value judgement.

True, I hadn't quite considered that - I was more locked in to the differences between the PSOne era-FFs and FFX, where the polygon count and texture resolution differences are quite stark.

Of course the equivalence or non-equivalence of "objective" to "technical" is subject to individual interpretation. Everything is. But the words have different meanings. I don't see why they should be conflated. This is of course subjective, and you can feel free to continue ironing if you enjoy it so much.

As I mentioned above, I felt that in the realm of video games, technical improvements - especially cross-generational ones - in the areas of graphics, sound quality, and useability could be judged objectively. I'll freely admit that it is a bit of a logical jump, and one that you're not willing to make (nor should you have to).

And jeez, does no one involved in this argument watch the Simpsons? Where's Lox when I need him?

The misunderstanding we have here is that you equated "objective" to "technical." I see no reason to do this. You do. I see no problem in assuming you have a basic misunderstanding of a concept if you use the wrong word to describe it. The reason I apologized is I honestly didn't intend to be patronizing, but at this point, I don't care if you think I am.

The misunderstanding was my cavalier use of the term, which you had every right to object to.

However, since you say you honestly didn't intend to be patronizing (and I believe you), that suggests to me that you should work on your tact. (If, however, your lack of tact is localized to this board and doesn't bleed over into the rest of your life, then I'll learn to live with it.) Anyway, since you suspected misuse, asking me what my interpretation of "objective" meant in this particular argument would have done a better job of defusing the situation instead of assuming I lacked understanding of the concept, which I found insulting.

And you also should learn what is an apology and what isn't. The section of your post that constituted your apology stated, "If you find me patronizing, I'm sorry." Hm...let's look at a section of an <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... article</a> written for ESPN's Page 2 back in June, shall we?

<i><b>The Bill Parcells Method</b>

The Apology: "Today during my news conference I made a very inappropriate reference, and although I prefaced it with the remark, 'no disrespect to anyone intended,' it was still uncalled for and inconsiderate. For that I apologize to anyone who may have been offended."

What He Did Right: By suggesting that he meant "no disrespect to anyone" and apologizing to any (weak-minded sissies) who "may have been offended," Parcells subtly shifts the blame onto the audience for taking offense at his innocent remark.</i>

Looks pretty familiar, doesn't it? By apologizing for what I did instead of for what you did, you actually didn't apologize at all (and is why I called it bullshit). Now, an <i>apology</i> would have been "Wait, you found that patronizing? That's really not what I intended, but sorry anyway."

<i>-57</i></div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Intention is irrelivant, the product is all that matters. I.E. Michael Jackson and Madonna didn't set out to make pop music (as Christina Agulara, and others did), it's just how it was labelled, but the result is still the same style of music, and that'</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Which is irrelivant, the only relevant thing is what the graphics are, not what they're called.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Heh, you're still missing the point that the FFIX characters are ugly disfigured and super deformed while the other FF games and Xenogears games characters are normal.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>That was besides the point, because you have the definition of Super Deformed completely wrong anyway. So it doesn't matter how much you argue. Bad graphics does not = super deformed, period.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, prove to me that it wasn't the intention for the graphics to be anything other than SD.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/sep ... 0.shtml</a>

Here's a link to Gamespy's review which does claim that FF7 uses SD graphics.</div>

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>It's simple Seeker, look at the link you posted, there's a shot of Tifa Barret & Cloud, what exactly is DEFORMED about them, key word DEFORMED. THE CHARACTERS AREN'T DEFORMED THEY'RE NORMAL, Jesus Christ man.</div>

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>They are less realistic than the FF9 characters. Just turn on the damn game, that is easy enough to see. Cloud's head is bigger than his body. Intention doesn't matter, results are what matters.</div>