Message from Yoshinori Kitase

leadmyskeptic

Pro Adventurer
To me, involving Compilation fucknuttery in the remake would be like having Obi-Wan mention midichlorians to Luke in a remake of "A New Hope". When you're 'remaking' something, you're going back to the original, and its thoughts, spirit, etc. And when the original came out, it didn't have any of those things...even the spirit and tone are quite different from those Comp games, which are admittedly fun distractions. I also, just personally, would be quite upset if they had an ending that explained ANYTHING, instead of that brilliant "Wait...was humanity wiped out?? Depends on if you're a glass half empty or half full typea dude" ending
 

Theozilla

Kaiju Member
I was hoping that the content from the Compilation titles would be placed into the remake to make the remake story more connected and hoping for a new secret ending similiar to DOC secret ending to give everyone hope(and Square Enix to desire) for at least one last title to the FFVII franchise to reveal what happened 500 years after the original game's(and the remake's) ending to complete the final gap, which also resolved Genesis's delimma with Weiss.

But as Nomura said, he has titles of many games(FFVIIR, KH3, ect.) to keep him "Busy until 2019", so meaning that he'll either quit Square Enix to do something else or he'll retire, meaning that he possibly doesn't want to continue working for the company anymore. Not to mention that the Compilation (possibly but very most likely) ends in less than two years now.


But there is still nothing indicating that some Compilation material will not be included/added in some respect to the Remake. Like Flare said it seems very unlikely that they will throw out the entirety of the Compilation material after having spent so much time working on it. And multi-part or not I can't see how the Remake's existence would not make more Compilation material/entries more likely in the future.
And Nomura saying that he has stuff to keep him busy until 2019 doesn't mean he is going to retire or leave SE, it just means that is what he has on his plate for now.
 

paleofan

Pro Adventurer
If there is one thing I would like from the compilation it's some alternative costumes you could unlock. That would be fun for a second playthrough (and I really like Cloud's AC outfit).
 

Tetsujin

he/they
AKA
Tets
I knew it. This a reboot. They're not continuing the Compilation at all, despite what they said. They're leaving the reason of Genesis's return in the dark and a cliff hanger.:'(

Worse, this is like a new story trilogy that won't even lead up to Advent Children or have any connections with the other titles.

But that's just me not liking this at all.

2wAz8I4.png


Not to mention that the Compilation (possibly but very most likely) ends in less than two years now.

I'm pretty sure this has been addressed a few times in response to you now but I will quote myself again:

Me said:
Yeah, it was never said the series would "end in 2017". They said they could see the FFVII Compilation as something that could last two decades. That was not a hard set goal, it was just a way of saying they thought this could potentially go on for a long time.

It didn't mean they're necessarily making games for FFVII continously until 2017 nor did it mean that they couldn't go past that if they so desired.

No one's sitting at Square Enix stopping them from making more games for a series just because an arbitrary date has passed.

Especially if that statement is almost ten years old and came from a man who is no longer with Square Enix and also responsible for the company's worst period of bullshit.
 
Last edited:

hian

Purist
I still think that if it's less than five parts the first game should not entirely be Midgar. Kalm was the right size in DoC, we don't need a massive town considering story-wise the only noteworthy thing that happens there is the party assembling at the Inn to hear about Cloud's past.

Given that Midgar is far and away the absolute largest location in the entire world of FFVII, I expect part one to be completely dominated by Midgar, but I would definitely like to leave it before the end of the game..

That's really the problem with FFVII's world though. Midgar is the only "huge" place. The second equivalent is Junon, and the rest are small towns. Wutai I suppose could be made far larger (and probably should, considering it's supposed to be a "nation").

The rest I'm not so sure about. Chocobo Farm is just a ranch, Fort Condor is a tower, Costa Del Sol is a resort, Corel is deprived and basically deserted... Cosmo Canyon could be made really big I suppose, that wouldn't be terrible. The thing is, even if all of the "small" locations were made DoC Kalm sized, none of them would even come close to Midgar.

A thing to consider about size though, and echoing what I've said earlier about the absurdity of the world building of the original FFVII -
it is completely possible that they'll be extending all of these locations to look like actual towns etc. in the real world.

The original Kalm probably couldn't even have housed all the NPCs in it, that's how small it is.
Again, where are these people growing their food, and how do they transport stuff etc.?

If the intent behind the remake is to give the world of FFVII an actual working infrastructure, it would seem that each of these locations would have to be expanded greatly, and with that comes opportunities for new content.

Even as "just a town", Kalm could easily be made into quite the decent sized place housing some at least a couple of hundred people, or maybe even thousand or so (seriously how many towns do you know of that only have 20 or so people living in them?), and if that's the kinda place you design, you're not gonna just leave it desolate of content and have the party tell a story at the inn and then wander through it.
It could contain lots of side-quests, everything from NPCs asking you to solve mundane problems within the town, to hunting and gathering quests a la FFXV or other more recent RPGs.

Personally, that's the vibe I'm getting from the interviews. So if every town in this game is going to be an actual town with actual content, I don't think we should assume that most of the stuff after Midgar is going to be this quick breeze of game-play that it was in the original.

Also, while it's true that non of the other locations would come close to Midgar, we shouldn't assume that we'll get to explore ALL of Midgar either. So it's quite imaginable to me that the size of Midgar you get to explore could still be relatively similar to what you would get to explore in a fully realized and fully open Kalm.

There really just isn't any way of telling how size/scale is going to play out in the remake at this point.
 

Jason Tandro

Banned
AKA
Jason Tandro, Doc Brown, Santa Christ, FearAddict, Thibault Stormrunner, RN: Micah Rodney
One of the things Dirge of Cerberus did right was give Kalm an appropriate scale. As awesome as Midgar will be I am looking forward to seeing how it handles the more rural locations.

And let's face it, with the exception of North Corel which is mostly rubble at this point, we know that all the locations are going to have to expand. The section of Cosmo Canyon we see, for instance, will probably just be the top of a plateau in the midst of a much larger adobe village.
 

paleofan

Pro Adventurer
It could contain lots of side-quests, everything from NPCs asking you to solve mundane problems within the town, to hunting and gathering quests a la FFXV or other more recent RPGs.

I sure hope it doesn't. If there is one thing I can't stand with most recent RPGs it's their plethora of useless, non-related to the story, MMORPG-like side-quests. I seriously can't see how someone can have fun with these, it's just being the NPC's stooge. Why would you help people you don't even know with their daily problems when you have a way more important task at hand?
FF7 was 40-50 hours long, but it was 40 hours of the story actually advancing. It had some side-quests but a lot of them were relevant to the story (Wutai, getting Vincent... ect) and they were fun, for example the fort condort side-quest proposed something fresh that played differently. Anyway, there was a reasonable amount of side-quests and the story was still the most important part of the game.
Now we have games like Xenoblade Chronicles, that takes nearly 100 hours to beat but it's like 80% side-quests and 20% story.
What you're talking about is MMORPG-like side-quests, they bring nothing but xp and money and every game that has them has a ridiculous amount of them and you're forced to do a bunch of them to have the sufficient level for continuing. That's not good at all for FF7.
FF7 was about keeping the player at the edge of his seat during the entire game, there is nothing like MMO quests to break down the rhythm and artificially increase the duration of the game with boring stuff.
 
Last edited:

JBedford

Pro Adventurer
AKA
JBed
Now it's been a long time since I played DoC, but I would imagine I'm right in this thinking: The thing about the size of Kalm in DoC is it made more sense in that kind of game. Its a story shooter where you spend most of the game getting from point A to point B. More like dungeon layout in RPGs. In towns in RPGs there's less of that.

There's a small number of things you'll want to do in a town and it helps if they are easily accessible. That's why these single-screen towns in FFVII work. They have buildings for shops, a building for an inn, and a few residential places/miscellaneous places, with some other NPCs scattered about for storytelling. That's convenience. Cosmo Canyon? That was inconvenient. I don't particularly like travelling through it.

If we want bigger to feel more believable, then XII's size is fine. Even with XII's town size (mainly imagining Rabanastre here, I think other towns are smaller) that's still big enough for NPC sidequests without just being big for the sake of being more believable as a town.
 

Tennyo

Higher Further Faster
I knew it. This a reboot. They're not continuing the Compilation at all, despite what they said. They're leaving the reason of Genesis's return in the dark and a cliff hanger.:'(

Worse, this is like a new story trilogy that won't even lead up to Advent Children or have any connections with the other titles.

But that's just me not liking this at all.

Wait, really?

I didn't really get this impression outside of maybe a few design choices.

I don't see why we have to abandon the compilation just yet. :P
 

hian

Purist
I'm still thoroughly confused by whatever distinction people are forcing between "multi-part" and "episodic."

I think typically, when the term "episodic" is used in relation to gaming it conjures up an image of Telltale game series like The Walking Dead, where each episode is completely separate from the next one, which exception of in the sense that it tells the next part of the story.

There is no walking back and revisiting older locations, or any sense that you're in this larger interconnected world.
Each set-piece exists only to tell one specific story and deliver one specific set of game-play challenges, and then you're segued unto the next once you're finished.

FFVII, while linear in its own way, is not like this. Case in point, once you exit Midgar, though you have to go to Kalm to progress the story, you can also run past it to the Chocobo farm, or try your hand at the Midgar Zolom if you so wish. Later in the game, skip-able parts and off-the-beaten-track locations and rewards increase.

If SE plans to approach this more like old school PC expansion releases for instance, with each new part adding to the total install package and thus expanding and fleshing out the world, this would be completely different from what you get from most other games considered "episodic".
As would be the case if the game was simply split into three equal sized disks.
There is a big difference between a game that gives you Midgar, then let's you install Kalm, but where you can run back and forth between the two locations, and a game that offers you different episodes - one in Kalm and one in Midgar - that are completely separate, and the only way to replay any one part is to go back and play the episode again.

Finally, do anyone use the term "episodic" to describe Uncharted? How about Halo?
These are series. You don't call any one of the titles of these games "episodes".
If FFVII Remake is made, for instance with 3 separate disks all containing roughly the same amount of content as a regular AAA PS4 title, with clear and distinct beginnings and ends that separate them from one another, I don't see why it would make sense to call it an episodic game which is a label you often use for games like The Walking Dead, but not use it for series like Uncharted, Tomb Raider and Halo.
Sure, FFVII was original just one game - one story. But it could just as well have been a series.
The Trails Across the Sky series for the PSP and PS Vita are typically split into two games. Most people don't call them episodic either.

I sure hope it doesn't. If there is one thing I can't stand with most recent RPGs it's their plethora of useless, non-related to the story, MMORPG-like side-quests. I seriously can't see how someone can have fun with these, it's just being the NPC's stooge. Why would you help people you don't even know with their daily problems when you have a way more important task at hand?
FF7 was 40-50 hours long, but it was 40 hours of the story actually advancing. It had some side-quests but a lot of them were relevant to the story (Wutai, getting Vincent... ect) and they were fun, for example the fort condort side-quest proposed something fresh that played differently. Anyway, there was a reasonable amount of side-quests and the story was still the most important part of the game.
Now we have games like Xenoblade Chronicles, that takes nearly 100 hours to beat but it's like 80% side-quests and 20% story.
What you're talking about is MMORPG-like side-quests, they bring nothing but xp and money and every game that has them has a ridiculous amount of them and you're forced to do a bunch of them to have the sufficient level for continuing. That's not good at all for FF7.
FF7 was about keeping the player at the edge of his seat during the entire game, there is nothing like MMO quests to break down the rhythm and artificially increase the duration of the game with boring stuff.

This is not a dichotomy in terms of design though. It's completely possible to have a narrative driven game with a central story spanning 40+ hours, and have a decent amount of side-content as well.

My biggest problem with the MMO quest format worming its way into regular games, is because like in MMOs, these quests are often all there really is to the game at the expense of decent content.

However, if you fail to see how you could make decent side-quests and content you need look no further than to the Witcher series, or the older Knights of the Old Republic games - all which offer interesting story-driven side-quests apart from the main plot, that offer interesting diversions along the way.

If Kalm became an Assassin's Creed hub filled with map-icons needing attention with a small set of recycled MMO-type quests, then yes, that would be bad - especially if they needed to be cleared to complete the game.

That's not what I was thinking of though, and even if those kind of quests did exist, they would still exist next to the already interesting retelling of the original story, which would mean that they would detract nothing, yet add something which while you or I might not enjoy, a lot of other people maybe would.

Hunting quests a la monster hunter, the same we already see signs of in XV could be a great addition granted the new battle system.

As for why your party would help NPCs - well, to be fair they already do several times throughout the game.
Several of the reasons provided for general plot progression in the original game are already so flimsy that I can't for the life of me see why the writer(s) can't make up a decent reason for Cloud and Co would have to do a few more quests in Kalm.
Like, it's a long trek to the Chocobo farm and they need to gather supplies and a tent, but what do you know, the item store where you'd buy that stuff is shut down because the owner is stuck in a cave outside town looking for supplies, and now you need to go save him.
In saving him he tells you about some other issue he has in town which if you would be willing to solve, would result in you getting your supplies for free etc.

Loads of things you could do that would add to the game without subtracting anything from it. Additional quests could also be a welcome alternative for gaining experience and leveling up apart from the ordinary grinding of the original.
 

Obsidian Fire

Ahk Morn!
AKA
The Engineer
pileofan said:
I sure hope it doesn't. If there is one thing I can't stand with most recent RPGs it's their plethora of useless, non-related to the story, MMORPG-like side-quests. I seriously can't see how someone can have fun with these, it's just being the NPC's stooge. Why would you help people you don't even know with their daily problems when you have a way more important task at hand?
Because video game designers haven't figured out a better way to do worldbuilding yet. Unless they just want to have an in-game wikipedia of sorts, but we all know how much everyone likes that (FFXIII I'm looking at you).

As far as expanding the known 'verse of a video game goes, nothing approaches side quests. This especially goes for games that have a storyline where nothing "normal" happens in it. Side quests are the best way to get the player to different maps, hear different conversations and watch events happen that they wouldn't see in the normal main storyline. Granted, having the player find notes, books, video's etc. but those usually don't engage the player the way a sidequest does. They're also open to more interpretation...

It should also be mentioned that ever since XIII, SE games have been becoming more and more like The Elder Scrolls type games in their structure. There's a main storyline the game is meant to follow, but there's plenty of optional stuff to do that's got it's own stories, rewards, etc. Do they have to be done to advance the story? No, but they do provide insight into the world the game takes place in. SE games have also been ramping up the amount of readable material in games as well. Only since that stuff isn't seen by the player, while the side quests are, all the information gotten that way is a lot more open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
There is a big difference between a game that gives you Midgar, then let's you install Kalm, but where you can run back and forth between the two locations, and a game that offers you different episodes - one in Kalm and one in Midgar - that are completely separate, and the only way to replay any one part is to go back and play the episode again.

Well, the game probably isn't gonna let you back into Midgar after you leave. The original game didn't. And, in the more realistic approach to the world this seems to be taking, the ferry ship probably isn't gonna start working for you after you initially had to stowaway. Going back the mainland after Aerith dies might not be an option. And after Tifa wakes up, the world opens up but everyone's dialogue is different based on that giant meteor in the sky and the giant monsters roaming the world so could still be seen as a distinctive new chapter. Depending on where the cutoffs are, this could at least in part fulfill your definition of episodic gameplay.
 

hian

Purist
Well, the game probably isn't gonna let you back into Midgar after you leave. The original game didn't. And, in the more realistic approach to the world this seems to be taking, the ferry ship probably isn't gonna start working for you after you initially had to stowaway. Going back the mainland after Aerith dies might not be an option. And after Tifa wakes up, the world opens up but everyone's dialogue is different based on that giant meteor in the sky and the giant monsters roaming the world so could still be seen as a distinctive new chapter. Depending on where the cutoffs are, this could at least in part fulfill your definition of episodic gameplay.

I know that (except you could get back into Midgar if you got the card-key on disk 3) =P
I was just making an example in either case.
We could change it around to, say, being able to back-track from Junon to calm if you like. Or from Gold Saucer to Costa del Sol.

Even if the ferry ship can't take you back, again, it goes back to world building - are there really no other ships crossing the ocean in this world? Unlikely.
Besides, you get the Tiny Bronco some hours later, allowing you to back-track and visit Wutai.

My second point still stands though - nobody calls the Halo series episodic. Nor do they Uncharted.
There is clearly some sort of distinction here, and I generally feel it has to do with how much content is delivered and whether each segment can be enjoyed as a game in and of itself.
The Walking Dead or Life is Strange cannot. Halo 1, or Uncharted 1 clearly can.
I think FFVII could as well, if it's told correctly and has enough content.
The only way it doesn't seem like it now, is because
A.) We already know the entire story, so no matter how they cut it off, it will be unsatisfying to us even if new players won't take much notice and feel as if each segment has a rewarding end to it.
B.) Our perception of what FFVII should be is already so shaped by the original on top of the fact that we have no real idea how much content this remake will contain.

I'm just of the opinion that there is a difference between a game being split or serialized, and a game being episodic, and I think that distinction is obvious when you compare the kind of games usually associated with each label, which is why we shouldn't be using the term episode for FFVIIR when that's not what the developers have called it.

Also
@The Engineer :
Why is my name on that quote? It's not my post.
 

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
My second point still stands though - nobody calls the Halo series episodic. Nor do they Uncharted.
There is clearly some sort of distinction here, and I generally feel it has to do with how much content is delivered and whether each segment can be enjoyed as a game in and of itself.
The Walking Dead or Life is Strange cannot. Halo 1, or Uncharted 1 clearly can.

Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 are all stand-alone installments with their own story. Same is true of Halo 1 and Halo 4. Only 2 and 3 and now 5 and it's sequel or sequels weren't able to supply a complete story. FFVII's seperate parts will certainly be worth the buy individually, but do not each feature an independent story and aren't intended to as Halo 2 at least used to be before they ran out of time or whatevs.

We could change it around to, say, being able to back-track from Junon to calm if you like.

Depends on how they handle the Midgar Zolom, and the obtaining of Chocobos/ If they don't want you to backtrack, the world is filled with reasons why already.
 
Last edited:

JBedford

Pro Adventurer
AKA
JBed
Telltale planned to tell their Walking Dead story over five episodes, just like SE plan to tell FFVII story over multiple releases. In both cases, for as long as the game is not finished, players will be expecting a new release.

The same cannot be said for Uncharted and Halo. Each one is closer to an individual series in itself. There is no expectation for a continuation.

Two other differences with Walking Dead and VII that make them different from Halo and Uncharted is the audience expectation. Because these game series are being developed continuously, people will expect a consistent feel throughout. Where reviewers will likely criticise game sequels for introducing nothing new, people aren't going to expect any major gameplay changes between each episode.

This backtracking thing is an interesting point though. If in episodic games you can't backtrack, then maybe saying FFVII is a game told in multiple parts (functionally closer to expansions in terms of added content) is different from episodic.
 
Questions: What wording will Japanese game journalism typically use when talking about episodic Telltale games? Are there agreed upon distinctions between "episodic" and "multi-part" in larger bodies of gaming journalism and game design? This last question feels like it is impossible to answer, perhaps because episodic gaming is still a young phenomenon (correct me if I'm wrong) and definitions are fleeting at this point.

Whether hian's definitions of "episodic gaming" and "multi-part gaming" are correct or not, one truth remains: We simply don't know enough yet about how Square plans to execute this format with the FFVII remake. Maybe in the future the creators will say "the FFVII remake will be released as episodes" and yet contrary to popular interpretation of what episodic gaming means they may end up creating a seamless experience. We don't know enough and I don't trust the creators of FFVII to always pick the appropriate words.
 

hian

Purist
Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 are all stand-alone installments with their own story. Same is true of Halo 1 and Halo 4. Only 2 and 3 and now 5 and it's sequel or sequels weren't able to supply a complete story. FFVII's seperate parts will certainly be worth the buy individually, but do not each feature an independent story and aren't intended to as Halo 2 at least used to be before they ran out of time or whatevs.

This is a moot point. Looking at Halo now, you couldn't make the argument that you would get or understand the entirety of Halo's story by playing one of the games. Each of the Halo titles are incomplete in terms of the story as a whole at this point in time - just as incomplete as any one part of FFVII would be at any time after its release.
The only difference is whether or not the products in question where originally perceived as stand-along products or as a series.

As I said in my post - this perspective you front here only applies to people who already played FFVII and granted that the remake will follow the same narrative structure in general, which we won't know that it will.
For that reason, FFVII could easily be serialized in way similar to that of other game series.

Many RPGs already follow this formula - one series of which I provided an example of in my post - Trails in the Sky.
Both of the newest installments of this series in Japan have been split into half - the first part always ending in a cliff-hanger and the next release coming out several months later.

Depends on how they handle the Midgar Zolom, and the obtaining of Chocobos/ If they don't want you to backtrack, the world is filled with reasons why already.

You're missing the point - The point here being that I am not arguing that back-tracking must be in the game or that it cannot be inserted into it -
1.) I am saying that one of the factors that usually separate episodic games from say, a game consisting of several parts through such things as expansions, is that former cuts each episode off from one another, and the latter ones don't.
2.) I am saying that for every rationalization anyone can produce for why the game should be episodic, we can make another for why it shouldn't. That is not a constructive exercise to be engaging in.


Also, most of the reasons you could provide me for not allowing back-tracking or side-tracked exploring in the world of FFVII would be poor reasons that detract from the feeling of realism and scope to the world, two factors that Nomura himself have said and implied are important to this remake.

Since Nomura and Kitase have not been using the term "episodic", or even anything like it, to describe what they're doing, based on what they say they're trying to do, and based on the negative associations to the word, I don't think people should propagate it.

Questions: What wording will Japanese game journalism typically use when talking about episodic Telltale games? Are there agreed upon distinctions between "episodic" and "multi-part" in larger bodies of gaming journalism and game design? This last question feels like it is impossible to answer, perhaps because episodic gaming is still a young phenomenon (correct me if I'm wrong) and definitions are fleeting at this point.

Whether hian's definitions of "episodic gaming" and "multi-part gaming" are correct or not, one truth remains: We simply don't know enough yet about how Square plans to execute this format with the FFVII remake. Maybe in the future the creators will say "the FFVII remake will be released as episodes" and yet contrary to popular interpretation of what episodic gaming means they may end up creating a seamless experience. We don't know enough and I don't trust the creators of FFVII to always pick the appropriate words.

In the context of the Japanese term 分作 (bunsaku) it is sufficiently vague enough to the point that it does not appear in dictionaries as it is a sub-standard composite word, which Japanese born and bred journalists had to ask Nomura and Kitase to clarify (although they did not get a proper answer).

In Japanese, they have a word for episodic games and it's called
エピソード形式  (Episoodo Keishiki), which literally means "episode format", which is what, among others, Telltale games are referred to as in Japan.
Furthermore, as The Walking Dead games and Life is Strange are all エピソード形式 games published by SE in Japan, you can bet your behind there is a specific reason why Nomura and Kitase aren't using that term to describe FFVIIR.
 
Last edited:
In Japanese, they have a word for episodic games and it's called
エピソード形式  (Episoodo Keishiki), which literally means "episode format", which is what, among others, Telltale games are referred to as in Japan.
Furthermore, as The Walking Dead games and Life is Strange are all エピソード形式 games published by SE in Japan, you can bet your behind there is a specific reason why Nomura and Kitase aren't using that term to describe FFVIIR.
Thank you, I did not consider that last observation about The Walking Dead and Life is Strange. It seems more likely now that Nomura and Kitase are indeed consciously avoiding the term 'episodic'.
 

Lex

Administrator
I think it's worth front-paging, even if just to provide extra clarity between the multi-part =/= episodes verbage being used.
I'm still thoroughly confused by whatever distinction people are forcing between "multi-part" and "episodic."

The original press release said "multiple episodes" (Square Enix NA) which prompted everyone to go WHAT WE DON'T WANT THREE HOUR CHAPTERS A LA LIFE IS STRANGE, the entire gaming media jumped on it and started talking about Telltale Games (which are all episodic) and people started working out how that would work.

That press release has now changed to "multi-part series" which is different, and SE has since clarified a couple of times that they mean full games (I know it's a how long is a piece of string scenario, but a full game isn't an "episode" as we've come to understand it).

I'm still bugged by their use of "multiple" and "each entry will be its own unique experience". VII's story spans its entire world (as we know it) but I feel like they're going to have to heavily embellish on some parts to get the main story to span across more than two games.
 

hian

Purist
I think it's worth front-paging, even if just to provide extra clarity between the multi-part =/= episodes verbage being used.
I'm still thoroughly confused by whatever distinction people are forcing between "multi-part" and "episodic."

The original press release said "multiple episodes" (Square Enix NA) which prompted everyone to go WHAT WE DON'T WANT THREE HOUR CHAPTERS A LA LIFE IS STRANGE, the entire gaming media jumped on it and started talking about Telltale Games (which are all episodic) and people started working out how that would work.

That press release has now changed to "multi-part series" which is different, and SE has since clarified a couple of times that they mean full games (I know it's a how long is a piece of string scenario, but a full game isn't an "episode" as we've come to understand it).

I'm still bugged by their use of "multiple" and "each entry will be its own unique experience". VII's story spans its entire world (as we know it) but I feel like they're going to have to heavily embellish on some parts to get the main story to span across more than two games.

I guess I missed that press release before they changed it then.

Then the screw-up is entirely on SE NA for the bad media.

The fact that they've distanced themselves from that though should tell people all they need to know though.
 

Flare

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Flare
SE has since clarified a couple of times that they mean full games (I know it's a how long is a piece of string scenario, but a full game isn't an "episode" as we've come to understand it).

I've come to take it as when they say each installment will be a full game, they mean it'll be the size of a full FF game, so I'm guessing the installments will be of decent size with 40+ hours of gameplay each.
 

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
This is a moot point. Looking at Halo now, you couldn't make the argument that you would get or understand the entirety of Halo's story by playing one of the games. Each of the Halo titles are incomplete in terms of the story as a whole at this point in time - just as incomplete as any one part of FFVII would be at any time after its release.

First of all, the original FFVII game is not gonna cease to exist any time soon. It's on PS4, it's on PC. It'll come out on plenty of other stuff in the future. And no. Halo 1 is about dealing with the first Halo. Halo 3 starts on Earth and is about ending the threat to Earth that Covenant and Flood present. Halo 4 is about stopping the Didact. They work as stand alone stories just as much as Halo Combat Evolved did when it was first released, when it already dropped you midway into a war and threw all kinds of alien terms at you and asked you to accept these things out of hand. No one cared then, nor would they now.
Any multipart FFVII series is gonna have parts that start with chasing Sephiroth and end with chasing Sephiroth and do a multitude of barely connected things in the intermedium. If THAT was no longer true, then yeah I'd be pretty worried about the changes to the story.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
My thanks to hian for the explanation. I guess there are enough examples of those uses of both terms to justify the distinction -- though when I hear "episode," the multi-part "Star Wars" film series comes to mind. =P

I think it's worth front-paging, even if just to provide extra clarity between the multi-part =/= episodes verbage being used.
I'm still thoroughly confused by whatever distinction people are forcing between "multi-part" and "episodic."

The original press release said "multiple episodes" (Square Enix NA) which prompted everyone to go WHAT WE DON'T WANT THREE HOUR CHAPTERS A LA LIFE IS STRANGE, the entire gaming media jumped on it and started talking about Telltale Games (which are all episodic) and people started working out how that would work.

That press release has now changed to "multi-part series" which is different, and SE has since clarified a couple of times that they mean full games (I know it's a how long is a piece of string scenario, but a full game isn't an "episode" as we've come to understand it)
Are you sure that's what happened with the press release? The thread about it that Pixel made here used the "multi-part" phrasing in its title from go and folks were still using the word "episodic." Likewise, this Wired article quotes the press release as saying the remake "will be told across a multi-part series" yet still went with "The Final Fantasy VII remake will be released episodically" as its headline.

I think you may be remembering wrong just based on how quickly so many folks were to start saying "episodically."
 
Top Bottom