Can you please review Final Fantasy 7?

[kaz3211231]

I don't see any final fantasy games reviewed for playstation.

I really love reading your reviews, but I was amazed that this title was not included.

If you like I could write a review of final fantasy 7 for you

Final fantasy tactics should also be included.

Thanks

[PSX1]

As the Critic will tell you, very few RPGs are reviewed on this site.  I don't think the Critic is a big fan of RPGs to begin with, but more importantly, they just take way too long to sufficiently review.  Considering that this is a one-man operation and readers like to see some new reviews every few days, it's a perfectly understandable policy.  That being said, if any RPG did deserve a review, it would be Final Fantasy VII.  I wouldn't claim that FF7 is the best RPG ever (and it hasn't aged particularly well), but I believe that, of all the RPGs ever made, it defined its console more than any other RPG.  It's up there with Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot, and Tomb Raider, and arguably tops all of those, in terms of the games that defined the PS1 for gamers during that era-- which makes it a glaring omission from the review list.  It'd be like missing Mario 64 from the N64 list.  Off the top of my head, besides FF7 on the PS1, I don't think any other mainstream console has ever had an RPG as its killer app.  For that reason, I do hope he someday has the chance to play and review it (or has the RPG Critic give it a go).

As for Final Fantasy Tactics -- it's in my all-time top 3 games, and considering the Critic's glowing A+ review of Vandal Hearts (which FFT is superior to), I think he would really love the game.  Nonetheless, this game is less important in the PS1 catalog, so I think it's pretty understandable if he never gets the chance to review it.

[LoganRuckman1]

[QUOTE=PSX]As the Critic will tell you, very few RPGs are reviewed on this site.  I don't think the Critic is a big fan of RPGs to begin with, but more importantly, they just take way too long to sufficiently review.  Considering that this is a one-man operation and readers like to see some new reviews every few days, it's a perfectly understandable policy.  That being said, if any RPG did deserve a review, it would be Final Fantasy VII.  I wouldn't claim that FF7 is the best RPG ever (and it hasn't aged particularly well), but I believe that, of all the RPGs ever made, it defined its console more than any other RPG.  It's up there with Metal Gear Solid, Crash Bandicoot, and Tomb Raider, and arguably tops all of those, in terms of the games that defined the PS1 for gamers during that era-- which makes it a glaring omission from the review list.  It'd be like missing Mario 64 from the N64 list.  Off the top of my head, besides FF7 on the PS1, I don't think any other mainstream console has ever had an RPG as its killer app.  For that reason, I do hope he someday has the chance to play and review it (or has the RPG Critic give it a go).

As for Final Fantasy Tactics -- it's in my all-time top 3 games, and considering the Critic's glowing A+ review of Vandal Hearts (which FFT is superior to), I think he would really love the game.  Nonetheless, this game is less important in the PS1 catalog, so I think it's pretty understandable if he never gets the chance to review it.[/QUOTE]

I think you're forgetting about The RPG Critic. I'm pretty sure he's the one who reviewed Vandal Hearts.

[Rev1]

[QUOTE=LoganRuckman]
I think you're forgetting about The RPG Critic. I'm pretty sure he's the one who reviewed Vandal Hearts.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure the VGC did the Vandal Heart reviews. Usually the RPG Critic will have a title stating "submitted by RPG correspondent..." The VGC has reviewed several RPG's over the years, even if they aren't his typical cup of tea.

[ptdebate1]

I don't think completion time or complexity is the issue. Think about how long some Zelda games are (Wind Waker or Twilight Princess, for example). And look at the breadth/complexity of Grand Theft Auto games, which he consistently reviews. There are far fewer details to uncover in the classic Final Fantasy games, by comparison, yet he hasn't a single one of the fifteen single-player games in the series (not to mention its numerous spinoffs). The time commitment factor of sandbox games (including the Elder Scrolls) is far, far higher than that of JRPGs. The answer must lie elsewhere. Has the man himself actually addressed this question before or are we working solely from speculation? 

[Vexer1]

Actually no the commitment time is not "far far higher" for sandbox games, RPG's usually force you to do a ton of level-grinding to even get anywhere and don't always give you the luxury of saving whenever you want.  Sandbox games you can jump into pretty much right away.

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Vexer]Actually no the commitment time is not "far far higher" for sandbox games, RPG's usually force you to do a ton of level-grinding to even get anywhere and don't always give you the luxury of saving whenever you want.  Sandbox games you can jump into pretty much right away.[/QUOTE]

There are a lot more tasks to be completed in a sandbox game than in a JRPG in order to achieve completion. GTA V is a game that requires at least 60-80 hours to experience to a level of completeness needed for proper evaluation. Final Fantasy VII, for example, requires around 30. Final Fantasy IV, more like ~24-28.

RPGs don't usually "require" much level grinding--unless, of course, you mean MMOs or 8-bit RPGs. Many people do willingly power level their characters in modern RPGs just to push the limits of the game, but rarely have I felt forced into any kind of focused, repetitive character building. Maybe I only play good games.

Also, your argument isn't really germane to the point I was making, which had to do with complexity and completion time--not whether or not RPGs are challenging, unfair, and/or fun to play. Whether or not a sandbox game is easier to get into, you're going to be playing that sandbox game for a lot longer than you would play a JRPG, ceteris paribus.

[Vexer1]

For me the more recent Pokemon games kind of embody the whole grinding thing, you don't stand a chance in hell of beating the Elite Four unless you grind a LOT on six of your pokemon, and I just simply did not have the patience to do that sort of thing.

Sandbox games are just easier to get into for the critic because they're not complex like a lot of RPGs are, so I think what I said is "germane"

[Rev1]

Pokemon X and Y have almost zero grinding whatsoever with all the new items it introduces. The game pace goes very quickly with the Experience Share which gives equal experience to all 6 party members. I beat the Elite 4 with little to no grinding throughout the entire game. The older Pokemon games had lots of grinding though.

[Vexer1]

OK good to know, I was refering more to Diamond and Pearl, grinding was almost required there in order to stand a chance against the Elite Four and the Champion.  Before those games I could just focus most of my attention on my starter Pokemon and and not have to worry too much about the other five.