If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Enix and Square to Merge

123457

Comments

  • 0Divide0Divide Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Perhaps this explains such a brilliant faux pax as FFX2?
  • gluttoglutto Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Perhaps I've been a bit too pessimistic.
    Things may work out alright as long as Enix teaches the Square developers how to make fun games again. Should that happen, I would be pleased.
    Once they've convinced Square to ditch the hoity-toity fashion designer characters in favor of appealing characters like knights and ninja, etc, then games should return to normal. (And Steiner does *not* count). In all honesty, who would want to name themselves as a badly dressed blonde beach bum who loves to play volleyball when they could be a evil dark knight? Not I.
    Oh, well. Whip them into shape, Enix!
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    And what about those people who already find Square's current games fun? I've thoroughly enjoyed their newer games (and by newer, I mean from about as far back as 1997). If you want medieval fantasy, then play FF11 when it comes out. Or play the remakes and rereleases of the old games if you want to live in the past. I personally had far more fun with any recent FF than I did with DW7, so explain to me why I would want Enix to teach Square anything.
  • gluttoglutto Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordBrian @ Nov. 28 2002,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"And what about those people who already find Square's current games fun? I've thoroughly enjoyed their newer games (and by newer, I mean from about as far back as 1997). If you want medieval fantasy, then play FF11 when it comes out. Or play the remakes and rereleases of the old games if you want to live in the past. I personally had far more fun with any recent FF than I did with DW7, so explain to me why I would want Enix to teach Square anything.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Ahh... The FF7+ generation of players.... I could offend a great many people if I answered that, so I won't.
    In regards to FF11, it's a step in the right direction, but by the time it's released I will be playing World of Warcraft instead. biggrin.gif It feels like a old pair of shoes: it fits perfectly!
    My preference for medieval games has something to do with living in the past? That isn't really why I dislike these games. The reason is if someone asked me "Would you like to be a character in any of these games?", I would immediately answer no. Admittedly there are one or two characters that aren't as bad as the rest, but if the choice was given wouldn't you boot the others out of your party in favor of more appealing characters? In previous games there weren't as many oddball characters. But then we're getting into personal opinion, and since everyone is different, it might be best to delay that discussion. We might break into fisticuffs should this continue.
    tounge.gif
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Yes indeed, and that was the whole point of my post. It's all entirely based on personal opinion. What precludes people who enjoy the older games to also enjoy the newer? It's not like Final Fantasy games used to be completely totally medieval, since there were always elements of sci-fi in them such as the airships and robots and whatever. Strong indications of futuristic elements started with FF4, what with, oh, a spaceship and giant technological towers and whatnot. There are still "swords and sorcery" elements in all the FF games: there's always at least one character who weilds a sword, and there is an abundance of magic. And exactly why doesn't the knight Steiner count as a knight?

    At any rate, my point was, if one person finds a certain type of game fun, another person telling him it isn't fun will have no effect on the way he sees the game. There is no "normal" for games to return to, as you put it.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MonCapitan2002 @ Nov. 28 2002,08:23)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"As big as this news is, I still don't see this as being as big as Sega going platform agnostic. Sega left the hardware market while Square was 'merely' absorbed by Enix. If looked at from that perspective, this development isn't quite as staggering. It still is jarring to know that Square will be no more though. At least not in its current form as an independent developer.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    It depends on your view of the world. Plus, everyone and their brother knew Sega was going multi-platform weeks before the announcement. It was something they had been working on for half a year or longer. Square and Enix proposed and announced their engagement in 3 months. And they kept it very hush hush.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Joshie @ Nov. 28 2002,15:36)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"For what it's worth, the impression I've gotten from the articles and particularly share information, Square will not be on equal footing with Enix. Enix will hold like 3x the share amount Square will have. I don't know if I'm interpreting this right or not, but I think it essentially means Enix is worth a lot more than Square at this point. Also, Enix will still have command of the company, with Square's lead as second-in-command.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    I think its closer to a 2-1. Enix is issuing roughly 49 million new shares, and I think they have about 75-80 million currently in circulation.

    As for people in charge, Mr. Wada from Square will be in charge of day-to-day operations. While its true the Chairman of the Board would have more power on paper, they rarely make decisions other than to fire the president wink.gif
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TrueGamer @ Nov. 28 2002,16:47)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"I remeber FF:tSW getting rave reviews from the critics, but those darn videogamers are just too used to action and interaction...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Actually, 90% of the critics gave it horrible reviews. Some of which later admitted to never having actually seen the movie. Anyone who actually saw the movie and read the reviews would have noticed right away which ones didn't wink.gif

    Sometimes I wonder if it was a setup, to make the movie fail, but then I remember Columbia did that themselves by all the outrageous hyping.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TrueGamer @ Nov. 28 2002,18:03)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"You mean the voice acting? Hey, you mean it was animated!? Holy crap!! I didn't notice! Heh, heh...seriously though, I wonder how Square Enix Ltd. will handle square's next movie? Don't forget, they had already signed contracts for 3 more movies. Also, I found a full-featured article (can't remember where) about exactly what the next movie would be. Its apparently "The Matrix"; this movie would take place between the first and second movie. It's been called "The Matrix 1.5". It will most likely be quite good. For those that don't believe me, look at it this way: who in the world would expect another square movie would be based on "The Matrix?".

    Oh, I think the article was at gamespot.com.
    Hey, does anyone even read those signatures? I'm getting sick of typing mine out, but I'm wondering if its even worth making one.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Square sold their movie development studio.

    As for the matrix tie in, you're thinking of AniMatrix, a collection of anime-matrix shorts. Square Pictures produced one for it.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ramsay @ Nov. 28 2002,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Someone said the stock division was 1 Square share = .81 Enix shares in the merger so I guess this would mean, even though Square was disbanded, they have a larger part in the company. ?Or maybe it means Square's shares were worth more to begin with and so got what they were worth in the merger. ?In that case, ignore me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    If your stock is only worth 4/5ths of your competitors stock, then obviously, you're going to have a smaller part of the company.

    Look at it this way. Each Enix stock is worth 1.25 square stock.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Look, even if square sold there studio and axed the movie, the article said there WILL be a movie (I've never even heard of AniMatrix) So if the article is outdated, then its outdated.

    Second, the FF battle system hasn't really changed. It's still heavily menu driven. Switching from the Active Time system to something else in FF10 doesn't change it overall. The FF system may process differently, but it all leads to the same outcome. No, I've never played DW. Any of them. I've played a lot of the newer games from Enix.

    Why do so many people knock the newer games? I don't get it. There are some good ones, and there are some bad ones. There are some that are just as good as the older ones, and the dialogue and plot are generally better because there is more memory on the discs to have more text (and voiceovers) And what is with the technology? I don't like rpg's with high technology in them either (the opening sequence at Baaj Temple in FF10 was awesome, then...) but if the game seems to stink, then the game itself is bad not the concept of high technology (look at Xenogears)

    To be honest, I've never really found rpg's "fun", just very interesting and its neat to follow the stories. I still like rpg's a tonne, but more realistic battle systems and better character development systems (like Grandia 1) can make rpg's lots of fun. This doesn't apply to online-rpg's.
  • chiapetchiapet Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TrueGamer @ Nov. 29 2002,09:21)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Look, even if square sold there studio and axed the movie, the article said there WILL be a movie (I've never even heard of AniMatrix) ?So if the article is outdated, then its outdated.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    No need to get so offended. ?Deals change all the time. ?But Square pictures is no more, even their website is gone.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Second, the FF battle system hasn't really changed. It's still heavily menu driven. Switching from the Active Time system to something else in FF10 doesn't change it overall. The FF system may process differently, but it all leads to the same outcome. No, I've never played DW. Any of them. I've played a lot of the newer games from Enix.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    The FF battle system is a lot less menu driven then DWs. ?As I see it though, menu and button driven (are there any other types?) all lead to the same outcome, you either attack, run, use magic, defend, etc, no matter what system you use. ?Button Driven (action-RPGs) tend to be a lot less developed than menu driven RPGs. ?The whole reason being its hard to choose between a lot of spells/commands using a limited number of buttons. ?I'm wondering what you are thinking of when you say "a more realistic battle system".

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"(the opening sequence at Baaj Temple in FF10 was awesome, then...) [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Uh, yeah, the opening sequence of X is either Zanarkand or Zanarkand, not Baaj Temple. ?When Final Fantasy started incorporating high technology, back in Final Fantasy 6, I was leary of it to. ?However, its not that bad, provided you can ignore the very large plot holes it tends to summon into existance. ?wink.gif



  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    When I say a "realistic battle system" I mean like real life. I want to see a battle system in an rpg that is a close to real life melee fighting as possible. True, its very hard to get the controls right for that sort of thing, but hopefully someone will find a way (I think Kingdom Heart's system was neat with the menu and real-time battle controls; clunky, but once you got used to it, it worked) If its so hard, then rpgs should switch over to more strategy-driven battle systems (like in FFT). Star Ocean 2 was also fine, but it needs some touching up. That's what I'm working on: trying to get it real. Battle systems are my strong point. Grandia is still tops for battle systems right now (for me anyway).

    By the way, the first sequence was Zanarkand in FFX. I just slipped up; I meant AFTER Zanarkand. Sorry smile.gif
  • MalboroMalboro Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Whoever said Square developers would do most of the games is pretty wrong cuz though there not called Enix....Tri-Ace are still part of Enix theyown them the same as Square and Quest. As you Game Arts it's about 18%...

    Anyone heard anything about Unlimited Saga making the trip of the pond?

    Plus this way us poor people in EU are more likely to see more Enix games now they joined cuz' Sony published all Square games in PAL before let's hope they carry on.
  • MalboroMalboro Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Sorry for the double post but it's easier.

    Here's some news first Dragon Quest VIII annouced and it's getting the graphical update it may have needed. Look's like En..er Square Enix (or they will be buy then) are gonna be working with Level 5 (known for Dark Cloud and Dark Cloud 2) as Heartbeat went outer business a while ago.

    http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q4-2002/112902a.html

    Also the results of the press conference according abit about them release alot of game that they'll think will sell more then 2 Million "worldwide" that includes EUROPE!! YAY!!!

    http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q4-2002/113002a.html

    Edited by Stom (Sorry, but I'd rather promote THIS site than somebody else's.)



  • crayzeeflycrayzeefly New Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    I can give you the one reason why Enix has done better than Square recently - and that's NOSTALGIA. Enix's chief series, Dragon Warrior, has not changed significantly enough in the past few games to steer people away from it. You've still got to go on random quests for various people, you still level up to get spells, and yes, even the monsters are mostly still all there. On the other hand, Final Fantasy has changed in how it does things every game since FF VII. Before then, Final Fantasy had a set pattern of how it's games would be - every even game its characters were in set roles, and in every odd game there were character classes (if you don't belive me, go download the FFIIj, FFIIIj, and FF5j roms and play them yourself). {for all you laymen, our FFII was actually FFIV, and our FFIII was FF VI in Japan.} I was shocked when FF VII came out and they broke the pattern.
    Enix has been smart. They've made innovative games ON THE SIDE, and haven't disturbed the winning formula that they have in Dragon Warrior. Square has stuck too much crap with the label of "Final Fantasy" and have force-fed it to the market. I'll admit that FF VII, FF IX, and FF Tactics were great - but FF VIII, FF X, and FF:TSW were utter shite. And even then, Tactics was a rip-off of Ogre Battle.
    So I leave Square Enix with this - Leave my Dragon Warrior ALONE , and make a new Final Fantasy Tactics for PS2 for God's sake. mad.gif
  • MalboroMalboro Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Guess you never looked at my first link cuz' DQVIII is gonna be a tid different. I guess they wanna make it more mainstream for the American/European RPG fans.
  • Options
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ramsay @ Nov. 28 2002,17:39)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Someone said the stock division was 1 Square share = .81 Enix shares in the merger so I guess this would mean, even though Square was disbanded, they have a larger part in the company. ?Or maybe it means Square's shares were worth more to begin with and so got what they were worth in the merger. ?In that case, ignore me.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    this does not mean that square is getting the larger part in the company. enix is. if you gave me one dollar for every 81 cents i gave you, and we started off with the same amount of money, i would end up getting the better deal.
  • crayzeeflycrayzeefly New Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Actually, besides being a little on the 3-D side, it's not all that different looking. I saw that the menu still had 6 commands... and the guys walking on the world map was still in oh-so underrated 2-D. As long as the battle system isn't touched, I'm perfectly happy. Enix knows what they're doing... and finally I get some info on DW VIII. Thanks Malboro, I'm glad you posted that.
  • JoshieJoshie Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Eh, I'm seriously hoping DQ8 doesn't have another sorry attempt at pseudo-mode7 worldmap graphics. DQ7's worldmap made me want to puke. I'm a fan of the series, but that world map was probably the worst part of the whole game (second to the inexcusably low-resolution sprites). But really now, there's no reason for them to cling to the SNES mode7 effect. People used mode7 in SNES days to be state-of-the-art, and to make a more realistic world map effect. Soooo, now that they're on PS2, shouldn't they again try to be state-of-the-art? Personally, my favorite type of world map ever was the kind like in Xenogears. Simple, comprehendable, and a visible sky (I dunno why, but the ability to SEE THE FRIGGEN SKY on the world map scores big points with me). I understand a lot of RPG players are angsty little goth posers who want things to be as overcast and claustrophobic as possible, but some people in the world haven't forgotten what it's like to be happy. ;P
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    I've always felt the type of world map from FF4 was always far superior to any Mode-7 world map effect, if for no other reason than towns and stuff weren't stretched blocks of pixels on the ground. Except when used for certain games (like Mario Kart) that effect always seemed really ugly to me, since there was no depth to anything.

    That is, until the 3D world map from FF7 showed up. At that point, I knew which kind I prefered.
  • ViperViper Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    Sorry for the double post but it's easier.

    Here's some news first Dragon Quest VIII annouced and it's getting the graphical update it may have needed. Look's like En..er Square Enix (or they will be buy then) are gonna be working with Level 5 (known for Dark Cloud and Dark Cloud 2) as Heartbeat went outer business a while ago.

    (URL edited out)

    Also the results of the press conference according abit about them release alot of game that they'll think will sell more then 2 Million "worldwide" that includes EUROPE!! YAY!!!

    (URL edited out)
    *cough* Heh, I guess I should have posted it somewhere people look...


  • MystalicMystalic Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Someone said the stock division was 1 Square share = .81 Enix shares in the merger so I guess this would mean, even though Square was disbanded, they have a larger part in the company. Or maybe it means Square's shares were worth more to begin with and so got what they were worth in the merger. In that case, ignore me.

    I liked The Spirits Within. It was the first movie I took the time to see on opening day. I was let down by the plot but still greatly impressed by the special effects. It was also the first DVD I ever bought. Square pictures itself was broken up I thought or sold or something so I thought that meant an end to anymore movie blunders (or successes) for Square. If S/E (I think the abbreviation is more catchy than the actual, current name so Cheers to whoever did it first) does anything outside of the videogame/videogame memorabilia industry with their graphic talents it should be in short animated series or tv movies. I'd still like to see a videogame network someday. A half an hour a week on TechTV devoted to games isn't nearly enough. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I did S/E. Now I can bask in my glory

    *gets pummled by lots of people*
    *is thrown into a hole*

    Ow...

    Now, to reality; FF games have sold more than Dragon Warrior. Square just lost the money from the movies. Enix also pushes out a few more games than Square does. Square makes more money with their games, but Enix gets out moer and is smarter in the business world. They're only disbanding Square for the liabilities, debts, funds, etc. can be sent away to a bad place.
  • RicoRico Member Full Members
    edited November 2002
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mystalic @ Nov. 30 2002,12:06)</td></tr><tr><td class="QUOTE"Now, to reality; FF games have sold more than Dragon Warrior.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Only in North America, I'm pretty sure. I don't have sales figures in terms of units sold for Final Fantasy in Japan, but just the main Dragon Quest series in Japan only has sold about 29 million copies, not counting any of the remakes, which sold around a million a piece, as I recall. Final Fantasy's around 38 million worldwide including Chronicles and Anthology, according to a recent press release. Like I said, Dragon Quest VII sold more copies in Japan alone than Final Fantasy X in both Japan and North America.
  • crayzeeflycrayzeefly New Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Actually, I'm pretty pleased that Enix decided AGAINST making DW as technologically updated as possible. It proves you don't have to have the kicken-assen'st graphics around to be a great game. Square can have their graphics all they want, gimme a sprite-filled game anyday. And if you look in the top-right corner of the 2nd picture on the DW scans, you'll see that the map for DW VIII IS like the one from DW VII. No sky for you. ;P
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    FFT was a rip-off of Ogre Battle? Holy moly!! At least say it was a rip-off of Tactics Ogre and get your facts straight! Ogre Battle is still its own series and FFT was a great game in its own right (and don't forget, it was made by the same people who made Tactics Ogre, so how can it be ripped off? I liked FFT MUCH better anyway)

    The talk is on maps right now, right? Okay, I liked FF7's map better than any map seen yet. No fancy polygons and no excessive colouring: just made to look fairly realistic to give you the idea. Period. No need to waste memory on something that is just meant to serve (but it should still look good, just not flashy; and yes, the sky is important)

    I don't mind sprites either, as long as they look good. By the way, who likes to see their character's have good manual dexterity? I really like it when characters' in the games use their hands in a fluid manner for every situation (like Wild Arms 3)
  • gfpaperboy22gfpaperboy22 Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I prefer the Super deformed, sprite filled games over the flashy 3d worlds of the PS final fantasy games. ?I have a great deal of respect for the graphic artist who takes the time to design sprites, pixel-by-pixel in a program much like MS paint (I tried and succeded but it takes a great deal of concentration to try and make anything look decent! ). ?World map design is very important as well. ?I agree with LordBrian, I liked the simplistic style maps of FF4. Straight, simple, and to the point.



  • crayzeeflycrayzeefly New Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    You knew I meant Tactics Ogre. And anyway, you got the point right? wink.gif

    But... how exactly are Tactics Ogre and Final Fantasy Tactics made by the same company? It was Atlus and Square respectively that made the two games. And if you're talking about development teams... thats still iffy. It kinda rips the first project off to use the same idea over again, especially if it was the same team. =P

    But I do agree with you that Final Fantasy Tactics was the better of the two games, even though I'ma big fan of Ogre Battle.
  • TrueGamerTrueGamer Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    I was too harsh; I should have known you meant Tactics Ogre. Anyway, Atlus and Squaresoft (formerly) are both publishers. How Matsuno did both games under different circumstances is unclear; it must have something to do with the developers.

    I don't mind simplistic maps at all, but when you compare FF7's maps with other 3D maps, you will notice FF7's map is actually quite simple. And you have to admit: seeing a dragon move fluidly in perfect 3D blast the party with firebreath which looks godly is quite cool. Characters under the same effect are also really neat. Good sprites can be appreciated and applauded, and why not? But that time has passed: not that I'm say it shouldn't be used anymore, it's just that every developer with money looking for more is going to use polygons, so we should be supporting those. Sprites are classic and will be missed, but its time to look towards newer horizons.
  • LordBrianLordBrian Member Full Members
    edited December 2002
    Much like we should have done away with radio when television was invented, because it became outdated and useless. Or why movies shouldn't use black and white anymore, because it provides no benefits over color.
Sign In or Register to comment.