Forums > PC Gaming

Final Fantasy 7: Ultima Edition

Posts (38)

  • HacknKill

    HacknKill

    #3426536 - 13 years ago

    Has anyone played the Ultima Edition. Do you think it's as good as the original?

    Has anyone realized that some of the music is different?

  • SexualChoc

    SexualChoc

    #3426841 - 13 years ago

    Ultima Edition? Please explain.

  • HacknKill

    HacknKill

    #3427467 - 13 years ago

    It's a PC version of FF7

  • longy

    longy

    #3427856 - 13 years ago

    I didn't notice the music was different.
    Maybe it's just because it's on the PC and in .midi format...

    This is best with the Advent Children pack tho...

  • Kendal

    Kendal

    #3442383 - 13 years ago

    The PC version was just a port of FF7 and very glitchy. Atleast it was for me and most of my friends. I'd rather play the playstation version.

  • longy

    longy

    #3443171 - 13 years ago

    In reply to Kendal, #5:

    The fact that you can mod it up like this to run smoother and look better is a bonus though :)

  • Siddeous

    Siddeous

    #3446393 - 13 years ago

    I have both versions. I never really noticed any glitches with the PC version at all. I thought the default button layout was ackward.

  • drakhoul

    drakhoul

    #3446400 - 13 years ago

    i dont think they should have made it for computer when its so much better for playstation without having to have a good computer
    lets just say i liked the ps version

  • kico127

    kico127

    #3446461 - 13 years ago

    Only difference with PC version is that you can hack it. Max stats, chocobo, money, items, etc. Well...gameshark would work on PS version, but I've always heard Gamesharks and anything else like that can mess up games but oh well. I just edited the num pad to be the face buttons and wasd to be d-pad =P

  • phil_rebel

    phil_rebel

    #3451809 - 13 years ago

    well the thing is that people on the pc would like to experience the phonomenon that is ff7, i think it would be cool if they released all the ff`s on pc ... would be cool

  • kico127

    kico127

    #3453664 - 13 years ago

    everyone needs to experience the FF craze =D

  • longy

    longy

    #3471864 - 13 years ago

    In reply to phil_rebel, #10:

    The reason they didn't release them is because not everyones computer would run them!

  • phil_rebel

    phil_rebel

    #3477447 - 13 years ago

    how many peoples pc's cant run a PlayStation game? im talking of ff9, and if you have a video card with at least 128mgs on it you beat the ps2's video, and you pretty much need that to play any game now and days, im tlaking about the new games.. they should defentily look into getting some ff10 and ff10-2 and of course ff12.

  • Pudgyboi

    Pudgyboi

    #3478495 - 13 years ago

    It's just like the orginal FF7 expect you use a Keyboard. and you can see barret curse words. :O

  • Shike

    Shike

    #3484775 - 13 years ago

    In reply to phil_rebel, #13:

    how many peoples pc's cant run a PlayStation game? im talking of ff9, and if you have a video card with at least 128mgs on it you beat the ps2's video, and you pretty much need that to play any game now and days, im tlaking about the new games.. they should defentily look into getting some ff10 and ff10-2 and of course ff12.


    You, sir, are an idiot. It's not the amount of RAM on your video card that makes a difference these days. It is how fast they run. Yes, 128mb is considered necessary by many these days but it's far from being the reason most PC videogames surpass the PS2 on the graphics field.

    As for porting FF over to PC I rather not have it so. IMO FF died at ten, a very slow and painful death. It hardly felt like a FF game to me to say the least.

  • phil_rebel

    phil_rebel

    #3486289 - 13 years ago

    then what makes a video card good, how do u know wich is better?

  • Shike

    Shike

    #3486755 - 13 years ago

    In reply to phil_rebel, #16:

    There's multiple things at play, how effective shaders are, how many pixel pipelines the core has, how fast the core and RAM are. There's been cases back when the GeForce 4 Ti's were the rage when 128mb got their arses handed to them by speed demon 64mb cards. Obviously the equivelent today would be a 128mb card taking down a 256mb in the same model line, however as games get more advanced they start to require the RAM to hold higher textures and more poly's, etc.

    There's also what level of Direct X is natively supported, such as 7, 8.1, 9.0, 9.0 C (SM3.0 compliance), all of which factor into how fast the GPU can render an effect. One it's meant to support, or one it tries to mimic. Case in point, compare last generations creme of the crop (most consider this the X800:PE) and the GeForce 7800 512 and you will find the X800 gets stomped into the ground by the performance difference. Go back to the GeForce FX vs. Radeon 9XXX days and you will see how shader efficiency played a major rule in performance. Sometimes the Radeon would double the FX performance in Direct X 9 games, however sometimes the FX would win in Direct X 8.1 which showed its Direct X 9 Shader support was the problem.

    So now for the final answer of your question; how do you know which is better? Benchmarking, which is the act of measuring performance between cards. Standardized tests such as 3dmark or scripted runs in some of the latest games are used to find out average performance in FPS or Frames Per Second. The higher the frame rate, the better. This means more effects can be enabled, it can run games smoother, etc.

  • longy

    longy

    #3491843 - 13 years ago

    In reply to Shike, #17:

    That's an amazingly accurate description! smiley1.gif
    Also the fact that the graphics cards made for consoles are specifically designed and may run better than some of it's counter-parts.

  • phil_rebel

    phil_rebel

    #3491966 - 13 years ago

    hum... so why should they not port the new ff`s?

  • longy

    longy

    #3492107 - 13 years ago

    In reply to phil_rebel, #19:

    They don't have the time as they are currently working on Final Fantasy 11 (updates) and FF 12...

  • phil_rebel

    phil_rebel

    #3499979 - 13 years ago

    ...they should just release them both at the same time, the pc version and the console version

  • gengoro

    gengoro

    #3500210 - 13 years ago

    I am surprised it was glitchy for you, my friend played it and never said anything about weirdness. He also said that alot of the mistranlations from the PS version were fixed (weapon names and the like).

  • Shike

    Shike

    #3503008 - 13 years ago

    In reply to gengoro, #22:

    I don't know, mine crashes too now. I think I'll keep the save and re-install on my actual computer (it's currently on my father's, never had the time to bring it over to mine after I fixed it).

  • MasamuneChad

    MasamuneChad

    #3571478 - 13 years ago

    In reply to longy, #4:
    what is the Advent Children pack?

  • Iceman7777

    Iceman7777

    #3572030 - 13 years ago

    In reply to phil_rebel, #21:

    ...they should just release them both at the same time, the pc version and the console version


    I don't think you realize how much work it is to port a console game to the PC. Ever wonder why there aren't that many games available for Mac's? Thats because it takes time to rewrite all that code to make is run on a Mac. It's the same thing for moving a console game to PC. The amount of time it would take to port it and the number of people that would buy it doesn't justify doing it. The hardcore FF fans already have Playstations and whatnot and that's Square's main market. I mean come on, PS2's are super cheap these days anyways . If you want to play FF so much just go buy one. It would be less money than a decent graphics card anyways...