Insane Difficulty: Squaresoft vs SquareEnix - Insane Difficulty

It's been a little over nine years since that fated day, April 1, 2003, when Squaresoft merged with Enix to become SquareEnix. The million dollar question is this: Are they better now than they were nine years ago? It's not something you can accurately pinpoint with static evidence, because it's really a highly subjective question and thus has a highly subjective answer.

I believe there was a conversation on ID a while back that basically made the case that sales do in no way transfer to quality, or how enjoyable a game or product is. I happen to be of this mentality; I do not believe that sales equates to quality. That being said, let's get this started.

Squaresoft, good old Squaresoft. The company that made your dreams come true. Or at least, they did if you have ever touched an RPG on the Playstation (Legend of Dragoon and a few others exempt from this). I personally do believe that Squaresoft made better games than SquareEnix does, but let's look at this somewhat objectively, shall we? Nothing good ever comes from looking at something out of rose-colored (or nostalgia, in this case) glasses.

I use the word "somewhat" because quality is subjective. Now, while we're talking about SS vs SE, a lot of you can probably read a little deeper into this and say Sakaguchi (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Uematsu) vs Matsumoto.

Squaresoft's claim to fame can be summed up in two words: Final Fantasy, which then also equates to two other words: Hironobu Sakaguchi. While Nobuo Uematsu's music came to define the Final Fantasy series as well and attributed to its greatness, let's look at the gameplay perspective first. For me, the series started to go downhill after IX.

The Father of Final Fantasy had a role in the creation of all Final Fantasy games up to IX. His final role as as game producer at Squaresoft, was that of Final Fantasy IX. I'm not going to ramble on and on about his achievements; that's what wikipedia is for. But do you see a trend here? After the last game he produced, the series started to go downhill.

I won't lie; I thought Final Fantasy X was a really good game, however in comparison to its predecessors, I found it a bit lacking.

Then it took a nosedive. Hard.

Final Fantasy XI. It is.. pretty bad. However, I'll cut them a little slack and call it an experiment in MMOs.

I hated Final Fantasy XII. I still do hate it. It is the only Final Fantasy game that I have literally been unable to finish not because of lack of interest, but because it is painful. I am sure that even if you are a fan, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

You know that tower that I think you get locked in or something, and you have to I believe fight your way to the top, or to the exit, or whatever? Yeah. It became so painful that I could not bare to play it anymore. I had been pushing myself to play it before that point since I mean, it's Final Fantasy. Surely at some point it gets better than this, right? Unfortunately not.

Final Fantasy XIII.. I have mixed feelings about this. Motomu Toriyama, the effective successor to Sakaguchi, had a hand in Final Fantasy X, but this was really when I started hearing his name. I loved XIII's story, setting, and to some extent, the gameplay, but -- and I'm sure you know what I'm about to say -- it was waytoo linear. That's not how a Final Fantasy game is supposed to be, and I'll even go as far as to say it almost if not outright violates a part of the spirit of the game. Final Fantasy is about.. well.. just that; a fantasy. Freedom and not being pigeon-holed into always continuing with the story has been a big theme in how the game plays since the original Final Fantasy.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not covering the sequels and spinoff titles, but not because they're just downright bad (which they aren't.) It's because they're not relevant to this article. And with that, I'm going to go in reverse and talk a little bit about the games leading up to and including Final Fantasy IX. However, for the sake of relevance I'm only going to list a few key points, and list the more.. modern ones.

Admittedly, there are a few of the older titles I haven't played through for various reasons. I'm just going to cover VII, VIII, and IX.

Final Fantasy VII. The game that countless gamers used to -- and many of them still to this day -- worship. It is seen as the Holy Grail of RPGs. It set the bar. It was the first 3D Final Fantasy game.

I won't go too much in depth on the story, because honestly, I am in the minority that didn't really like it too much. I did, however, love the gameplay. I remember the first time I saw this game, never having ever heard of the name "Final Fantasy" in my entire life. I believe I was.. well, pretty young. I went over to my friend's house, and I saw a huge six-winged silver dragon on the screen that I would come to know as Bahamut ZERO. I was like "Wow, that's awesome" and watch him play for a bit. Later on I loaded his file and used Omnislash on Ruby WEAPON for 0 damage each hit.

But I digress, when I finally got the game, I was absolutely blown away by the cinematics and gameplay, because at that time it was completely new, and thoroughly awesome. It still is one of my favorite RPGs to this day, but not because of the story. We won't get into that though.

Final Fantasy VIII. I must admit, I'm a real sucker for love stories, so this one holds a special place in my heart. I loved the setting too, it was awesome to me how they blended modern and medieval elements just right. There are FAR too many games nowadays that try to do that and fail oh-so-terribly-hard at it. It's not an easy thing to do, and I think FFVIII did it brilliantly.

The mechanics were innovative to me, but I still think they should've been fleshed out more, and in some cases nerfed. Yes, Duel, I am looking at you.

Final Fantasy IX I can admittedly say I didn't think much of the first time I saw it. After being sucked into FFVII by my friend I'd become hooked on Final Fantasy. However, being the naive and biased child I was, I couldn't accept FFIX's unique art style, so I passed on it.

I picked it up a few years later, and it was glorious. Different mechanics yet again, and ones that to me where new and epic. I still to this day love the equipment ability system that itself is limited by the number of abilities you can equip. It prevents you from grinding like mad to become OP (Vanilla Final Fantasy Tactics, I'm looking at you this time.)

I loved the story, and the gameplay the farther I got. I will also have to come clean and say that I had never actually beaten the game until about a year ago. FFIX also holds a special place in my heart. I love you, Sarah. <3

There is another game that is far more recent with Sakaguchi's name all over it, so one might be able to tie it to this argument. No, it's not The Last Story. I can't comment on that since my Wii is broken. It is Lost Odyssey.

When I first saw videos I was skeptical, but when it recieved the glowing endorsement from one of my friends (the same guy that got me hooked on FF) and I believe it was Vanish Mantle, I decided to give it a try.

I went in expecting a Final Fantasy clone.

Boy, was I in for a surprise.

It was turn based, as I knew, but it was addicting, and fun. It was the first next-gen console turn-based RPG (I'm talking old school not FFXIII) that I enjoyed. It had innovative mechanics once again like Composite Magic -- combining two spells to devastating effect -- and Elemental Mines that function as an elemental counterattack to physical attacks. I think the story is definitely different, but not bad at all.

Now, let it be known that I do not detest Toriyama for taking the series in a different direction. I mean hell, the Tales series does that in every single release and it works out pretty well.

However, to me Squaresoft just put out better games than SquareEnix does with the title "Final Fantasy" or "RPG."

This brings up an interesting point. I am not alone in the belief that if certain games had been named differently, they would have been better recieved.

Example:
Final Fantasy XII -> Fortress
Final Fantasy XIII -> Lightning Saga

For clarity, I mean to drop the Final Fantasy title off of their name. Stop slapping a label on it for publicity, because all it does is cheapen the brand, not to mention the company. If I hate apple juice and someone hands me a can of apple juice that is labeled as orange juice, I am obviously going to find out that it is, in fact, not orange juice. It's just stupid.

This also to an extent plays into a conversation I had with my buddy the other day. We were talking about basically this same thing about slapping the label "Final Fantasy" on a bad game (CRYSTAL CHRONICLES I AM LOOKING AT YOU ) so it'll sell well.

SquareEnix will never, ever do a Final Fantasy VII remake because they would mess it up, and wouldn't be able to milk it any longer. They actually made the excuse of "it would be too massive" which I could only laugh at. Do they really think we're that stupid? Don't answer that.

Anywho, case in point, it is my belief that Squaresoft released better quality games than SquareEnix does. This is merely my own opinion, and you are more than free to disagree with it. This entire article was actually spawned from a conversation that I had with Vanish Mantle on his Facebook page.

Feel free to weigh in on the comments if you'd like.

Click here to view the article

First off, I really enjoyed reading, and its good to get some more writers! I love to talk about these things even if I can't always have to time to polish an article on it.


That being said, this is such a rich topic that I could write an article just responding to it. This is just one cog in the evolution of games in general over the years. I honestly think that Square would have progressed in some similar direction no matter what and its the same direction that I have seen most companies go. It makes sense to them, but to the people who appreciate their product the most(i.e the hardcore players) it is a step back with every release.

In my opinion as gaming has evolved it has went through many different stages. I will condense Atari, Intellivision, NES, and any of the other early systems I didn't mention into the "first stage" if you will. Very little graphic and memory capabilities, so they focused on what they could, the gameplay and the music. In my opinion the tunes created in this and the second stage to a lesser extent have the most memorable video game tunes in the history of video games. There is a theme I will carry throughout this being that quality does not equal quantity. There are songs today that have amazing quality, orchestral arrangements, etc. But none will ever be as iconic or memorable as the main themes of games such as The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros., and Final Fantasy. Gameplay could still be improved upon, but the base that was created with games like these were the foundation of everything after it. The games were very involving for a player, and did not have to be overly complex to do so. In addition the challenge was not as much with the gameplay itself but that there were no clear cut directions, the player was left to pretty much fend for themselves. Zelda for the NES is a great example because there were hardly any clues to where dungeons were, you had to look everywhere. Nowadays there are guides rampant and its too convenient to have a walkthrough at your fingertips. I will digress and say that the first stage of gaming was a true foundation of great, enjoyable games that left a base that could be easily improved upon.

Now enter the second stage, being SNES, Genesis, etc. Graphics capabilities were improved but there was a very similar base. Super Mario World looked and played just like the NES titles, except it looked better, played smoother, was more immersive, I can go on and on but my point here is that they improved upon the NES formula in every single way possible without losing the feel of those games. I think the graphics in this stage were the most beautiful I have seen in some cases. There are some really great sprites in more than one title. With new capabilities you are also able to focus on more in depth stories as well. This stage IMO has some of the best games I have ever played and they stand the test of time.

I think the 3rd stage is the most interesting because it is really the "optimum" stage if you will. Graphics were transitioning into a new era, where the older style was hardly ever being used. This is an upgrade surely, but it is the start of a decline. 3D was something that alot of us were in awe of even if we didn't play games, and it is something that can draw people into your product that may not have been as interested just because its something that is new and exciting. The older games were also exciting, but more for someone that is looking to play a game and really enjoy that experience. If I never played games but saw these awesome looking 3D images I would be interested in trying out the product. Enter dumbed down difficulty, mechanics, etc. This stands out more in stage 4 and beyond, but started to seep in here. With companies like Squaresoft they could try new mechanics and such because they had that liberty, but they also had the experience of what they had done before and knowing what their playerbase liked. This combination created FFVII, FFVIII, FFT, Vagrant Story, etc. You could make new and exciting concepts with new engines and people would buy them because you had built up a brand.


As stage four came in though, graphics were getting even better and all companies realize that is what sells. Team that up with a new person behind the helm of the Final Fantasy development team and you get things that can be good and can be enjoyable, but are they great? Are they even geared towards the original values and goals of the company? Money really becomes a determining factor here and it always comes back to "What sells better?" Certainly they can improve voice acting, and make games even more graphically better, but the better graphically games get, they slowly creep away from that amazing gameplay we grew up on.


To touch on Square vs SquareEnix, I would have rather seen them seperate, because I think the companies made different types of games. Square would have never made Illusion of Gaia for example. I think that with corporate mergers and all of that, its a way to sell to more people because you have a dual branding, but you really lose the identity of what those companies stand for.


All that being said I know there are some nice games on later gen consoles, I just think that in general the 2nd and 3rd stages I talked about were able to create the most balanced and rewarding gameplay experiences that I have ever seen or experienced myself.

I feel like quoting the whole thing but it'd just be one massive wall of text. Spot on with that entire review, but I will reply to this part specifically:

auraplatonic, on 03 September 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Exactly. They lose their identity. Beautiful post.

*looks at games made pre-merge*
*looks at games made post-merge*

=/

But yeah I don't think there's a single game I like that Square-Enix made. Pretty much any FF post 9 are pretty bad IMO (not counting FF11, didn't try. I also didn't try FF14 but we all know it sucks). I also don't really like FF7, mainly because of the bland bland bland characters (FF8 has that problem too, but to a lesser extent).

Imo their peak was with the SNES. They made so many amazing games with those 32 bits. Then came the FMV consoles and it just gradually went down over the years, especially post merge.

Yeah I agree with you

Squaresoft back then was a masterpiece. Publishing Vagrant Story, FFT, FF9(better than FF7 or 8 IMO), Parasite eve series and much more.

But now they're just sending recycled ideas on to cds which suck ass.

Come on did anyone play FF13

Seriously the game plays by itself.

You press X than shoulder button......

Parasite eve?

They published something called The 3rd Birthday. It's not horrible as a game itself but considering that it's from the PE series it's a shame. A real big shame.

Now even if SE makes another FF game like FF15 it won't be the same as the PS1 era.

And why the hell is FF13 versus taking this long. The more I think of SE ruining epic game series which was made by Squaresoft not them the more I get pissed.



But come to think of it I think it's not only SE but a lot of game companies are becoming douchebags by the minute. Capcon, or Crapcon, for example, became so idiotic they cancelled Megaman legends 3. Man the ML series wasn't bad and I am sure they got some profits out of it but no they just cancelled it just to f**ck with the fans' brains especially mine.

DLC..... HAhaha the more I talk about the current game gen, the dirtier my mouth becomes so I'll stop here.


Anyway all the shitty games that are coming out is the main reason why I came to the site to play real challenging games.

Cheers

From looking at the title of this article, I knew exactly what I was going to read. (I did read the whole article, just for the record)

Quote

I constantly hear Final Fantasy fans saying that Squeenix ruined their beloved franchise, because the games they make now aren't the games that they should be making, aren't real FF games, whatever.

Try this, go find a group of people who have played FFXIII and get their opinion on it. Nearly every FF fan will tell you the game has a 20 hour tutorial, and nearly everyone who's new to the series will tell you that the game really slows down after the 20 hour mark once the character development stops and the game becomes less linear. It's not that they're playing a different game, but the person who's new to the series isn't going in with any expectations of what to see.

When you say something like:

Quote

then your point is self defeating. What you're saying is that labeling the game Final Fantasy makes people expect something, and when they don't get what they expect they don't like the game. Even though every single game with the Final Fantasy name has been a huge departure from the previous title, people still expect the next game to be like the one they loved. Just take a quick poll of the people on this site over FF8. Especially for people who've only started with the series with FF7, this game was a huge change from what they were expecting, and it was the most hated FF game on the PSX.

I liked all of X, XII, and XIII, and thought they were fantastic games. (I detest MMOs so I can't rightly comment on XI, nor have I played it) Yes, of course the new change in direction was thanks to Sakaguchi being dropped, (It was his fault for losing Square $81 million on Spirits Within, to be honest) but in my opinion it was a change in the right direction.

Or, let me employ the average Final Fantasy fanboy equation. I thought IX was a piece of trash, I thought X was a great game. IX < X. Therefore, Squeenix is better than Square.

Quote

I wouldn't go that far. Notably, DQ8 and DQ9 are wonderful games.

http://en.wikipedia....of_Square_games
http://en.wikipedia....nix_video_games

Both lists have their share of noise and crap. Has anyone here ever played Bushido blade? It's a fighting game with one-hit KO's. Let that settle for a second. Also, apparently SE has a hand in the CoD franchise?

I think the problem is more with innovation. If you look at a 9-year snapshot of either game list, the amount of brand new content Square spat out trumps what little SE has done. Most of what SE has done to date is dragging out franchises and re-releasing older games onto newer platforms. I love FF4 DS worlds more than FF4us. If we were to compare apples to apples, SE wins on that criteria. (And loses on WotL, for what its worth). FF12 was good, FF13 sucked. FF7 was good, FF8 sucked. Meh.

I don't really want to play rehashes. More often than not I've already played the original. I want something new.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

If you did read the article I think you are able to tell I'm not just a screaming fanboy here. I've played XIII, and I thought it was decent aside from how excessively linear it was. I do give reasons for my feeling a certain way.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

You're talking to someone who started on VII and loved VIII more. I realize not everyone is like me obviously, but still. And yes, labeling the game Final Fantasy most certainly does place certain expectations upon it. XIII would've been received much better if it wasn't named Final Fantasy. It should've been called Fabula Nova Crystallis, the series it started.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

Sakaguchi left of his own free will. Look it up.

Stann, on 04 September 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

I said in the very first paragraph that this article is my opinion. I think your resentment I sense from this post is unwarranted. Also, I never said X was bad. As a matter of fact, I really liked X.

We had a really good debate about this last night on ID Chat. I do think they would have been received better, because as you said there are certain expectations that come with the Final Fantasy name.

I say it defies the spirit of the game because the philosophy of Sakaguchi and Toriyama are so fundamentally different.

Sakaguchi's philosophy was.. well.. you see it clearly in 1-9. Give the player just enough linearity that it keeps the story intact, but gives them a little bit of freedom to explore a bit. Give them a new world to immerse themselves in.

Toriyama's philosophy is almost ass backwards in comparison: Give the player too much freedom and it takes away from the story. Toriyama's stuff plays more like an interactive novel than anything really. The story in FFXIII is forcibly shoved down your throat. Gran Pulse? Give me a break.

I'm not saying that XIII was a bad game, but giving it the label of Final Fantasy when the ideologies behind them are so different is just silly.

And to the argument about what if someone's first game was XIII; Okay, I keep seeing this come up, and it holds some water, but ultimately falls short. When you have something named the same, in this case a Final Fantasy game made by Toriyama, people will obviously expect the same direction as the past games. I myself consider up to FFIX separate from those following it. As a matter of fact, in retrospect I always have, even without knowing that the man in charge changed.

So, more to that point, it may define it for them, but by definition the original will define that which follows. That's exactly why Chrono Cross was received so negatively. (Not that I agree with it, but it's fact.)

I'm sure you did know how the article was going to play out, but I put a lot of thought into this article and tried not to base it on pure nostalgia and give reasons as to why I feel a certain way.

Edit: Also, I've noticed something. This whole idea that "If you criticize SE, you hate change" is completely and utterly fallacious. There's a lot of SE games that I rather enjoy and think they are awesome despite other people's opinions. Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, Star Ocean: The Last Hope, and Project Sylpheed, to name a few.

Debate is obviously going to have people on either side of the spectrum. The mentality of "If you criticize SE, you hate change" has absolutely no place in a debate, because it's a generalization, and as we all know 99.9% of the time generalizations are false.

philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

This. This is what I was trying to say. Not that X game is better than Y, or X sucks because it's different than Y, but for the most part it is innovation, which you hit right on the head, and the philosophy of the head honchos.

Advent, on 03 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Prefacing an article with "let's look at this objectively" doesn't make what you say objective. This article is basically just your completely subjective "reviews" of each FF game, masquerading as some in-depth analysis of which of the two companies is better.

Quote

FF12 does this beautifully, by the way. FFX-2 does as well (one of the few things it does do correctly). In terms of FF titles, only 50% of the SE ones have been disgustingly linear.

But, according to wikipedia, the guy is responsible for 10 and 13, but not 12. Oddly enough, he was also the "event planner" for 7.

Also given this guy's paltry list relative to all of what SE has produced, I don't think his work is representative of SE as a whole.

Foyboy, on 04 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

There is a reason I used the word "somewhat," because you can't define quality objectively. If you read that article and see bias then that is your own shortsightedness to blame. If you can show me a purely objective review then I can show you a flying pig.

I said at the very beginning of the thing that the article is my opinion, and I explained why I feel a certain way. Don't act as if I'm trying to pass off opinions as fact, because I don't.

Read the article for what it is. If you disagree with it that's fine, I actually would enjoy a debate on this and chose a controversial topic for that exact purpose. However, I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest and if you're going to downright lie about what's in the article, then I'm just going to leave it there.

I will reiterate, one more time, that at the beginning I clearly, in no uncertain terms, said that it is my opinion and the question itself is highly subjective. It is simply not possible to gauge something like this completely objectively.

Let's keep this as a debate and not turn it into a pissing contest, shall we? I'm not calling anyone's opinion here stupid, so I'd appreciate it if we could debate this like reasonable adults.

Foyboy, on 04 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Good Feyboy, now how about addressing the arguments presented instead of attacking the writer?

TheNeuromancer85, on 04 September 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Seeing as how my favorite games (Chrono Trigger and FFVI) are Squaresoft games, I'll have to give the nod to SquareSoft. The games of this era were just special and have that certain something that makes them classics. SquareEnix has made good games but none that I would consider extraordinary. I even fell in love with Star Ocean Til' The End of Time's battle system and played hours on end but the story was definitely lackluster for me.

As far as the newer FF's go, I've played 10, 12, and 13 and enjoyed them but I will say this. The next FF (FF15) will be the next FF I will not buy right away for the first time. So I do believe as a whole, the trend in quality gaming from SE is going down. Summing it up this way: I'm more likely to replay an SS game than an SE one.

Elgrad, on 04 September 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I have noticed that as well. This isn't simply nostalgia; It's replay value. And for the record, not saying you're saying this, but anyone that tries to push the argument about nostalgia, heed my words. Anytime I lay hands on a new game, from any franchise, I keep an open mind.

The two best examples of this are Lost Odyssey, which I addressed in the article, and Dragon's Dogma.

I won't go too in depth on my opinion of Capcom's games, but suffice it to say that I don't hold them in high regard. Dragon's Dogma came out and I played the demo. It was amazing. I traded in almost every game I owned to get it, and do not regret it at all.

Case in point, despite my feelings toward a certain company, I always keep an open mind when I play something. If you're biased you more than likely won't enjoy the game as much.

TheNeuromancer85, on 04 September 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

There are no arguments to address. His "arguments" are "FF12 is painful" and "FFXI...is pretty bad."
I don't care what his opinion is. Really, I don't. I just felt like pointing out how truly subjective and lacking-in-depth this article really is.

Foyboy, on 04 September 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

If you read the article at all you wouldn't be even saying this. Go and read the damn thing before commenting. Don't come and try to turn it into a pissing contest.

I originally wasn't going to say anything but I am just gonna voice how I feel since it keeps being brought up.

First and for most SE is a business. Keep this in mind, if they don't make money the lose out. If their investors tell them to make a 13-72 because it is making them money then they would be stupid not to do just that. A great example of a company that ignores their investors is Nintendo and they suffered financially. Square-Enix cannot afford that luxury. When it boils down to it it is all about the money and if you aren't making any then you lose out. One of the best ways to grab new fans is to give them a story without any distractions. When you have them hooked you can give them something better. A great example of this strategy is Nintendo's execution of the Wii. It opened the flood gates to people who would have never gamed. Sure us hardcore games got burnt but now that they have a bigger market they can push a product that everyone can enjoy, IE the Wii U. I also see that as true with early FFs (Yes i know that FF1 was designed as Square's last ditch effort at making money) like FF1 to FF2. I see the same thing with FF13 and 13-2. FF13-2's exploration albeit weird was also very engrossing because you could move at your own pace. It did require you to open up new areas. You can see this in their approach and is really evident with what they are talking about doing in LR:FF13 aka 13-3. So from my stand point I think it is better to to have a solid story and good game mechanics and work on exploration second in an RPG. I know of quite a few RPGs that have all the exploration but no story at all or that you explore so much that the story is lost in the process. Most of the people playing games now are very much new to them so SE is selling to not one but two generations if not 3 of them at the same time. Who do you prioritize pleasing? The ones that got into FF on the PS1 games? The ones that got into it on the NES/SNES games? Or the ones that got into it on the PS2/PS3/360 games?

There is no right answer because each is a valid party. This is why they are remaking/rereleasing older FFs. This is why there is an HD update for FFX in the works and this is why there is a FF13-3. Because they are doing what they can to meet the demands of several hundred million fans who all love FF. Sure you may get pissed at the recent games but why worry so much about old and let the players who are just now discovering it have their fun with the game like you did when you played your first FF.

In the last couple of days i have been talking to many people about just this and it is so sad to see so many people stuck in the past of Squaresoft. Square-Enix is more than just Final Fantasy now. They are also Tomb Raider, Dungeon Siege, Just Cause and many other IPs. That bring a fresh new life to their over all brand. Yet the one thing people only care about is FF. Two words for some people: Move on. Enjoy the games as games and quit comparing your past experience with your current ones. That's how we hurt ourselves. If we did that for everything then think about it like this. Say you have a really good Pizza and the next time you had pizza you expected it to be just as good even though it was made by someone totally different. That said pizza isn't bad it just didn't meet your expectations. You will still eat said pizza since you are hungry. Now think back to how you compare Squaresoft to Square-Enix and it is easy to see how silly it is to compare the two because it is like comparing pizza made by two chefs who are world class.

Vanish Mantle, on 04 September 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

Yeah but this is coming from a gamer's point of view. You're preaching to the converted. I understand completely that from a business point of view that it makes perfect sense, though.

Vanish Mantle, on 04 September 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

Sure, and it turned out not to be nearly as bad as the reception was.

"WAT? AWKWARD CONTROLLER THIS SYSTEM IS BAD"

Six months later...

"This shit is pretty sweet."

Vanish Mantle, on 04 September 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

You are the first to make a solid point on this, and honestly I can agree with this.

Vanish Mantle, on 04 September 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

Yes, and you're expanding on a point that I made in the article, which is that the name "Final Fantasy" causes fans to hold it to a higher standard than other titles. This directly ties into why I share your belief that it would've been received better under a different name.

Vanish Mantle, on 04 September 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

But we do do that for everything. In anything you do, the standard you hold something to it what it was before. They are different than they used to be, which is another reason why I say they need to stop calling Toriyama's games Final Fantasy, because they have become something else. As long as it has that label people will always without fail compare it to its predecessors.