Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2015-12-07 06:23 pm
[ SECRET POST #3260 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3260 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

[Garden of Time]
__________________________________________________
03.

[Fargo, Karl x Sonny]
__________________________________________________
04.

[Elementary]
__________________________________________________
05.

[Top Chef]
__________________________________________________
06.

[The Pacific/HBO War]
__________________________________________________
07.

[Penn Jillette]
__________________________________________________
08.

[Final Fantasy X]
__________________________________________________
09.

[Shadow of Mordor]
__________________________________________________
10.

[Judging Amy]
__________________________________________________
11.

[The Lion Guard]
__________________________________________________
12.

(Borderlands)
__________________________________________________
13.

[Anziz Ansari, Master of None]
__________________________________________________
14.

[Pokemon]
__________________________________________________
15.

[Samurai Warriors Chronicles 3/Pokémon Conquest/Japanese history]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 067 secrets from Secret Submission Post #466.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - take it to comments ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:19 am (UTC)(link)Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:22 am (UTC)(link)It's not just a simple facelift. They're basically building the entire game from the ground up again and literally all they have is the story on paper and the character designs. There are 0 assets from the original game they can reuse.
Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:31 am (UTC)(link)Do I think Square-Enix can do it? They've had awful direction with the Final Fantasy series as a whole since, well, Square-Enix became a thing, so I'm not optimistic. Is it perfectly possible? Yes, other game companies have long been doing it. And Final Fantasy VII is something that they'd put more money into than virtually any other project because they know absolutely that it will sell even if it's garbage.
But in reality, we're probably just going to see a linear, episodic game without an open world that's merely told in independent segments. They aren't going to do what other gaming companies are perfectly capable of doing.
Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:37 am (UTC)(link)It's not so much that it's complex, either, so much as there's just so much of it that they have to do. There's no reusing assets from any of their other games because the only game that uses the engine it's made in is XV. There's not any assets to reuse, and their budget is not actually infinite, contrary to what you believe.
Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:27 am (UTC)(link)I didn't say making open worlds is impossible. I said making a game the size of FF7 would be. Unless they want to go with the hyper-simplified world map of the original, or cut out the world map all together and instead go with a fast travel system like DA:Inquisition or FFX.
Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:37 am (UTC)(link)I'd support an open-world of a manageable size, mostly because with the new graphics, that was something that was so iconic about the original game. I think cutting that would be a massive disappointment.
Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:39 am (UTC)(link)Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:46 am (UTC)(link)Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 03:07 am (UTC)(link)Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 03:20 am (UTC)(link)The remake certainly will need to add more to flesh out an open world map, but I don't see that as an issue. I'm fine with them adding more locations - doesn't have to be major cities, but locations, landmarks, etc. That comes with developing a good map. Again, all of this is perfectly possible and been done already in other games.
Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 03:30 am (UTC)(link)Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 02:47 am (UTC)(link)Re: NO!
(Anonymous) 2015-12-08 03:11 am (UTC)(link)