Insane Difficulty: Squaresoft vs SquareEnix - Insane Difficulty

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

But had the article been titled "Pre PS2-FFs vs PS2+ FFs" it would be more true to the content, yes?

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

I suppose you're right, but the reason I was using Final Fantasy is because when you think of Squaresoft or SquareEnix, you think of Final Fantasy. It's really what both are most known for.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

I did read the article, actually. I thought it was poorly done, so I said so. If that means I'm trying to turn this into a pissing contest, then I'll stop. Good luck with your future articles.

Foyboy, on 04 September 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

It doesn't look like you did at all, or at least if you did you went in with bias and without an open mind. I said it in the first paragraph that this is a highly subjective subject and thus will get a highly subjective answer.

If you don't agree with me then that's just fine. But if you don't, and hell even if you do, say why you don't agree with me.

What points (or opinions) that I made do you feel differently about, and why?

All you did was attack me and my writing instead of the topic at hand, which is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Hominem.

Edit: I will say this once more: an article about "which is better, x or y?" is going to be subjective. There is no static standard to which you can completely objectively judge. Go find me a game review that is not deeply rooted in the author's opinion, please. I implore you.

Quote

I do not, no.

But evolution into PS2 Final Fantasies is actually less abrupt than the evolution from NES to SNES or from SNES to PSX. There's a correlation versus causation aspect that can be more attributed to the evolving nature of the genre and games than whether or not it was Square or SquareEnix.

~

1 through 3 were almost WRPG in nature -- you grab some random people at the start, name them what you want, and they stick with you for the entire game. There were no characters, no awesome cinematics... not even cutscenes where the characters move without you pressing a direction button! There was a boss sprite that you had some dialogue with it. BAM, done.

Then 4 waltzes onto the stage. Characters, mobility without directional input (ie, cutscene), zero freedom over class choice, zero freedom over party composition, and incredibility story-driven plotline. What the fuck, Square? This shit is blasphemy.

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

This made my day.

So every Final Fantasy since SNES days would've been better received had they had their names changed, since they deviated so much from previous iterations that people wouldn't be "let down" when the next installment isn't a clone of the previous. I don't think calling 10 or 12 a Final Fantasy cheapens the brand any more than calling 7 a Final Fantasy did.

~

Pre-rendered backgrounds? A complete dissolution of the class system? A black guy? Equipment limited to two slots? Full-blown cinematics (not even using the game sprites)? If you want to talk about the plummet of the series, look no further than seven*.

And all this occurred while Square was still Square.

*I'm being hyperbolic, I'd rather this not boil down to which FF was the best or at what point the shark was jumped. I'm more stating that the shifts in the series were more blatant prior to SE ever existing. All SE is doing is just continuing on that legacy, for better or worse. Had SE never existed I'd like to think FF13 (e.g.) would've been identical to its current state.

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Well when I said cheapens the brand I was more talking about how they slap the name on and instantly expectations are created. High and more to the point possibly unfair expectations. As Vanish has said no less than 5 times over the past two days to me; they are different games.

I actually for the most part share your sentiment about VII. I didn't like XII, at all, but I didn't play all the way through it either. It just was not my kind of game. X I liked, but as said in the article, I'm a sucker for love stories.

Quote

Well, yeah. This has been happening since 1990. It's hardly a square-enix thing.

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

Maybe so but this goes back to your point about recycling content. I think that was spot on.

I don't know why people keep bringing up the fact that SE is a business and businesses have to make money to stay afloat.

Justin Bieber (the franchise itself) is also a business, and it needs to make tons of money to stay alive. That doesn't mean what they are doing is right or high quality.

ID Bot, on 04 September 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

LOL

Yes, but it's a justification as to why they do what they do. It misses the point, but that's what it is and why people keep bringing it up.

ID Bot, on 04 September 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Every FF since 3 has been very low difficulty, graphically superior, and contains a kickass soundtrack. Appealing to the masses takes a budget but its a very solid form of investment.

And for what its worth, there is nothing either immortal or untrue about the Biebs, and his music is very precisely and masterfully engineered. I'm not a fan of the output, but to call it either wrong or low quality is empirically false.

Actually, that brings up an interesting topic; one that people inherently have come to accept, but still interesting and a bit sad.

Our generation is so goddamned materialistic that money and profit literally is everything. This is relevant to the article and by extension the topic at hand in this way: yes, money is the bottom line always, but correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't the only thing that mattered back when Square and Final Fantasy were started, right?

It's almost as if making a product good doesn't really matter much anymore.

"Sir, we need more funding to make this an enjoyable experience. We're going overbudget with the world creation."

"Fuck that shit. Stick to your budget. "

:But, sir.."

"Am I speaking a different language?"

I mean if I'm wrong here, I'm wrong, but this really really seems to be the case to me.

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

inb4 shitstorm

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

No, I can understand that.

I mean, many people don't like lady gaga, or Madonna, or whatever, but the fact is much of their music is very well produced and arranged. If JB's tracks are well made that is fine with me, I was just using him as a random example of something that is popular, makes a lot of money, but is not regarded as high quality within its genre (whatever that may be).

Businesses make money, ok. However what we're discussing here is not whether SE is good at making money or not, but the quality of the games they are making. Read: from the point of view of the consumer (us gamers), NOT investors or share-holders.

That is why I think bringing up the fact that its a business is a no-brainer. It doesn't matter if the games sell well if people develop a bad taste in their mouths for the franchises from actually playing them. I mean, it doesn't matter to the investors, but it should matter to you as the consumer.

Quote

It's always been the case, but the market has shifted to where the majority of gamers are female and/or play games only while taking a poop.

With regards to gaming in particular, its more the sacrifices made in the process. Sure, everyone loves a game with solid gameplay, excellent graphics, memorable characters, orchestra-worthy soundtrack, mountains of replay value, etc etc etc. But more often than not there's a focus on one or multiple aspects that comes at the expense of others, and people in the niche are typically snubbed in favor of mass appeal.

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Well yeah obviously it has always been the case, but what I'm saying is moreso now. But yeah you make another good point about the sacrifices.

The point about Sakaguchi leaving of his own will is true, but if you'll look back you'll notice that his position was changed after the financial travesty of Spirits Within, to a position that had no creative control over anything. I would've left too.

And on the topic of naming a game Final Fantasy, renaming XIII would not change the game in any possible way. There is nothing about the name that affects the quality of that game, it is merely the player's expectations of what the game should be that ends up changing their opinion of the game. A point which I find absurd. You can hate a game all you want based on what it is, but when you start hating it based on what it isn't, you've left the world of rational thought behind.

So far I really don't get what your argument with this article is, besides the fact that you liked the FF games up until a certain point, then didn't like them as much, therefore Squeenix is worse than Square.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

I heard something amounting to the same a while back, but I wasn't 100% sure if he was forced out or not.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

The expectations are why it needs to be changed. It is held to a high standard with that name.

And you and I both know that not everyone is going to go into a game with an open mind. I, myself do, and I'm sure you did as well when you went and played Rings of Power.

I do not hate any game for simply its naming, but you can't deny that there are certain expectations with the moniker "Final Fantasy." I don't think anywhere in that entire article did I say I disliked or downright hated a game because of its namesake. I did, however, say that it would more than likely have been received better if it had been named something aside from Final Fantasy.

As I've said about three times already, there is a stark contrast of ideology at work here. By definition the original defines what comes after it. The philosophies of Sakaguchi and Toriyama when it comes to game production are different to the point that I feel they should be -- and are, to me -- seperate.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

This article wasn't really an "argument" per se to begin with. This is a very controversial topic, and it is for precisely that reason that I chose it. I simply gave my opinion on the matter, and stated before I went into anything that it was exactly that: my opinion. If anything, I'd say my goal was to get a conversation going on this.

It is my belief that they were better off as Square, but I'm not saying you have to agree with me.