final fantasy: crystal chronicles (is it any good?)

[Radical Dreamer]

Well, you can't really compare Super Smash Bros. to FF:CC when they're of two entirely different genres. SSBM is a fighting game while FF:CC claims to be an RPG. Fighting games are basically defined by how fun it is to K.O. the other player (at least, that's how it is as far as I'm concerned. XD). RPGs, on the other hand, are defined by deep stories, rich characters, effective and efficient battle systems, etc. RPGs are far more complex than fighting games or most adventure games, so you can't exactly compare them using the same criteria.

FF:CC, as an RPG, was really not well done. The battle system and dungeons were tedious, the story was not well done, and the characters were nothing but nameless pixels on the screen. As far as I'm concerned, it was just a way for Nintendo to make money while pushing their ridiculous "connectivity" innovations. Perhaps it would have worked better as an adventure game, in which case they should have dropped the "Final Fantasy" and RPG elements altogether. I think it would have worked much better that way, anyways.

[Scarecrow]

I hate FF... the only one I liked were FF 2 and 3 I think. The rest are long and boring IMHO. And FF online is about the worst online game ever...

I liked FF:CC though =D I can see how it could get boring quick if you wanted to sit and play for five hours straight like people do with normal RPGs, but for a fun game just to sit for a bit, do a dungeon or two, upgrade your armour and quit, I thought it was good. And I thought the 4 player thing was decent but not great (Not nearly as good as LoZ: Four Swords put that gimmick to use) Me and my friends had fun playing together. People complain about the bucket alot but we never really had much of a problem with it.

If the game had dumped the FF tag and just called it CC, it would have been alot better recieved. And I am looking forward to the next one very much cause I really did like CC.

[Tommy]

Wow, Scarecrow. You sure do fight the system.

You honestly have the opposite opinion of the majority of games.

CC has always been the shunned black sheep. but you're telling me it's the only gem.

I'm going to assume you dislike turn-based games and like stale stories.

FF7, 8, and 10 are in my opinion, some of the most beautifully-designed games.

FFCC is okay at best.

[Scarecrow]

=D

Eh, I know I dont have the most popular taste in games =P My favorite games of all time are the Myst series and everyone around here looks at me like o_O

Its not that I dont like turnbase... cause I LOVE Chrono Trigger and I thought Tales of Symphonia was great (but a bit long), I'm just not a fan of RPGs in general, though a few I happen to like for one reason or another.

And I love awesome stories... I just dont like playing 80 hours just to finish it (and the FF games like to drag alot... and constant random battles do not help when you just wanna get on with the story). Aside from Myst and the Zelda games with a few others here and there, I generally prefer multiplayer games and playing those with a few friends. Those are usually the most fun cause youre all sitting around laughing, blowing each other up or whatever.

[Myoti]

Once again, I feel like someone stuck in the middle of a confrontation. I sort of agree with Scarecrow, but not as much to the same extent, I suppose.

Though, truthfully, I was never a big fan of the FF turn-based system either (or, better yet, ATB; felt like some sort of way to create "psuedo-action" in a turn-based system, or something to that extent). I still enjoyed them, but I have almost no wanting to go back and play through any of them. Then again, the only turn-based game I recall actually going back through and playing was Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga. =p

Of course, this is getting off-topic...

And I love awesome stories... I just dont like playing 80 hours just to finish it (and the FF games like to drag alot... and constant random battles do not help when you just wanna get on with the story).

I do have to agree on this point. It would probably be the reason I've yet to (and haven't felt much like doing so) finish Tales of Symphonia again. It doesn't always have to take that long to make stories good (Sin and Punishment, an action game, had a pretty awesome story and I beat the whole thing in under an hour), though if the gameplay itself is entertaining (as in, for clarification, how you actually PLAY), I won't mind quite as much (which feels oxymoronic to say after just mentioning something like ToS =p ).

If the game had dumped the FF tag and just called it CC, it would have been alot better recieved. And I am looking forward to the next one very much cause I really did like CC.

Agreed again. I'd be interesting to see how well they'd be able to handle it this time around (and having some sort of DS connectivity could be interesting, as long as it's not required this time around).

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I find it odd how one could dislike something that is fairly "quote"long"quote". I would not consider a 50-hour game by any means. A long game (Of the RPG Genre) for me would clock about 100-150 hours. A short game feels tacky and not really worth the money I spent to buy it.

And the longer the better. And this also applies with movies.

[Nate]

I find it odd how one could dislike something that is fairly "quote"long"quote".

For people with full time jobs AND college, a long game is bad because they don't have much time to play games. If you could only get on a game and play it for an hour a day, a 100 hour game would take you over three months to beat. Not much fun at all.

You may be fine with sacrificing sleep to up your game time to four or five hours]I would not consider a 50-hour game by any means. A long game (Of the RPG Genre) for me would clock about 100-150 hours.[/QUOTE]
Fifty hours is about average for me, 100 hours is "long" and 150 hours is "too freaking long."

Arc the Lad II took me 120 hours to beat with all the secret stuff. I love that game. I will never play it again.

A short game feels tacky and not really worth the money I spent to buy it.

Final Fantasy VI can be beaten with all the secret stuff in 20 hours. By your logic Final Fantasy VI is tacky.

See? Short games can be awesome too.

And the longer the better. And this also applies with movies.

I have developed a very small bladder over the course of the years, so a long movie is bad for me, at least in theaters. I ended up missing some of each of the LOTR movies in the theaters because halfway through the movies I'd have to take a restroom break. Then I came back and had no clue what was really going on. When you're watching a movie and don't know what's going on, this is bad.

Also, a movie would have to be the greatest movie in the history of the world if they expected me to invest more than 3 hours in it. LOTR skirted this line.

It's fallacious to think that "the longer the better" because I could make a movie that's seven hours long and have it be really boring. Some movies suffer because they have a long story and try to condense it into an hour and a half. Some movies suffer because they have a short story and they try to stretch it to two hours. A movie should be as long as the story dictates, never longer or shorter. In fact, I'd say longer movies are worse, for the reason I mentioned above of bathroom breaks, for the general short attention span of most American moviegoers, and because longer movies tend to have padding that contributes nothing to the plot.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

For people with full time jobs AND college, a long game is bad because they don't have much time to play games. If you could only get on a game and play it for an hour a day, a 100 hour game would take you over three months to beat. Not much fun at all.

I'll agree with that.

Final Fantasy VI can be beaten with all the secret stuff in 20 hours. By your logic Final Fantasy VI is tacky.

See? Short games can be awesome too.

Considering it's an old game and that it's on a cartridge that cannot hold much data in comparison to a cd or dvd, I suppose that is to be expected.

I just like it when things aren't done. I hate finishing RPGs. Dunno why.

Now movies are different, because I like watching them XD Especially if it's a enjoyable long movie. Such as LoTR or Harry Potter. They are about three hours, and I like them like that.

I don't really know what I'm talking about. Forget it, disregard everything. I don't feel like I'm thinking clearly today. I typed that up when I came back from work at 3 AM and stuff, yadda yadda.

[Radical Dreamer]

I like for my games to last a couple of months. It feels like I've invested my money well if the game keeps my attention for that long, y'know? If I beat a game within a week...bleh. XD 'Course, that was back when I had time to actually, you know, play games. XD If I ever end up getting FFXII, it'll take me like, five months to beat it. XD

On the long movie thing...most movies shouldn't be longer than two hours. I LOVE the LOTR movies, and they're an exception to that rule, but even I got uncomfortable sitting through the three hours and 30 minutes of ROTK. XD At any rate...I don't know where this is going, so I'll stop there. XD

[Myoti]

I USED to like games that were super long, but I eventually wound up with the same mind-set as Nate. There's plenty of long games out there I loved, but likely will never play again (namely every FF I've every played; heck, I don't even feel like FFIII now).

This may also add to why I detest MMORPGs so much (well, that, and 90% of the ones I've checked out became boring after the first day).

If I beat a game within a week...bleh. XD

I beat Tales of Symphonia in a week. Liked it, but I'm not sure I'll ever finish it again.

I beat Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes in a day. And you know what? I actually want to play it again.

As I mentioned, the one RPG I've actually played through multiplie times was Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga. I beat that game in about 16 hours. Still love it.


I do agree that movies should aim for about two hours. That time limit doesn't feel TOO long, and yet makes you feel like you've actually gotten your money's worth out of it (well, if it's a GOOD movie, that is).

And though it's off-topic, I probably shouldn't have read ROTK before seeing the movie. It disappointed me so much... D=

(Actually, I'm starting to wonder if anything here is actually "on-topic" anymore...)

Considering it's an old game and that it's on a cartridge that cannot hold much data in comparison to a cd or dvd, I suppose that is to be expected.

Really? I wonder how long it takes to beat stuff like Star Ocean, Tales of Phantasia, and Chrono Trigger (not being sarcastic, I just really want to know).

[Mr. SmartyPants]

This may also add to why I detest MMORPGs so much (well, that, and 90% of the ones I've checked out became boring after the first day).

Considering MMORPGS don't have an end, I would say they fall under a different criteria.

Really? I wonder how long it takes to beat stuff like Star Ocean, Tales of Phantasia, and Chrono Trigger (not being sarcastic, I just really want to know).

I believe they all run around the same. Chrono Trigger may be a bit longer.

[Nate]

I believe they all run around the same. Chrono Trigger may be a bit longer.

Um, no. Star Ocean is the longest, seeing as how it used every available bit of space on the Super Famicom cartridge, which is why it could not be brought over to America. It is VASTLY larger than Chrono Trigger, which easily fit on a Super Nintendo cartridge and can be beaten in about 20-25 hours.

*checks his Star Ocean file*

I'm at 16:37 and I'm not even close to the end of the game.

[MasterDias]

Very rarely have I ever had an RPG last 100 hours. Now, certain games have sidequests and optional dungeons that pad out playing time considerably, but the main-storyline should be roughly 50-60 or so hours in length.
Dragon Quest VIII is a long RPG and it didn't take me 100 hours to beat and I got the best ending and did just about everything except the Dragovian Trials. In Tales of the Abyss, I'm at the last boss at about 70 hours in, although I haven't done all of the sidequests.

So, if you are busy with schoolwork and such, you don't have to complete every single optional boss and dungeon tri-Ace/Square-Enix or whoever throws at you to beat the game in a decent amount of time.

To be honest, I rarely complete a game more than once, regardless of the length. I played Chrono Trigger and a few other games that had multiple endings or added incentives multiple times through but that's about it.
If a spend $50 on a game that takes only a few days to beat, I feel like I wasted money...

[Tommy]

=D
Its not that I dont like turnbase... cause I LOVE Chrono Trigger and I thought Tales of Symphonia was great (but a bit long)

Nice try. Tales of Symphonia wasn't turn based.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Um, no. Star Ocean is the longest, seeing as how it used every available bit of space on the Super Famicom cartridge, which is why it could not be brought over to America. It is VASTLY larger than Chrono Trigger, which easily fit on a Super Nintendo cartridge and can be beaten in about 20-25 hours.

I see. Thanks for that tidbit. And when I said "I believe Chrono Trigger may be a bit longer" I was referring in comparison to Final Fantasy 6.

[Bobtheduck]

I just like it when things aren't done. I hate finishing RPGs. Dunno why.

Take this statement and make it the polar opposite, and you'll have my opinion. Well, I do like somewhat long games, but particularly since I started school, I can't invest that much time in them, so now I prefer my games in the range of 10-20 hours... That way I can at least beat them in a reasonable amount of time... It took one friend over a year to beat FFX... That would have killed me... I wouldn't be able to handle that. When I played FFX, I had nothing to do in the afternoons so it worked out.