Insane Difficulty: Squaresoft vs SquareEnix - Insane Difficulty

No Contest, SquareSoft was a better company than Squeenix.

BUT, because with Squaresoft we also had Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Parasite Eve, Front Mission 1-3, Vagrant Story, Legend of Mana, FFT. Not Just Final Fantasy games and Kingdom Hearts.

I'm one of the few that geniunely loves FFXII though. If not for VII that I hold it up there as the best of the series because it did what it did the best it could, along side with FFIV.
XII would be in my book the best of all the series if it weren't of the messy narrative and unpolished gameplay elements, but they brought some depth to the stale JRPG Genre. It certainly had the potential to be the best FF of all time. Of course there's whole background of development hell on this game worth investigating.

Regarding love stories I think VII does a better job than VIII.

VIII felt so dull and forced that it got old and boring real fast for me.

Valcrist, on 04 September 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

Yeah in retrospect I probably should've named the topic differently; it's just to me I see FF as the crown jewel, and to be perfectly honest I haven't played a lot of their other stuff.

I see Chrono Trigger / Vagrant Story / FFT / PE / FF6 / 7 as the crown jewels.

Yes, FF7 is included in there.

ID Bot, on 04 September 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

I really need to get around to some of their other stuff, honestly.

Advent and myself had a little chit-chat on the Chit-Chat and I thought it'd be relevant to the discussion. Here we go:

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

They were not better before.

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

Agreed

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

I hated FFXII, but I disagree with your assertion that FFXII is painful.

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

You hated the gameplay, so it's low quality?

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

I assume this is the part where you say I was splitting hairs with you, so I will go on record and say this: Yes XIII was too linear. However, your assertion that Final Fantasy spirit is exploration is misguided at best, and hilarious at worst. The fact that there isn't big invisible walls that tell you where you can and can't go doesn't mean that the games weren't incredibly linear. What I described in chat, and what you so eloquently wrote off, is called a SOFT WALL. "Wow, I could go to this continent. Oh wait, the enemies just one shot my party, so I guess I can't go here." I'm not asking for open world sandbox type games for it to be called to non-linear, but there is a clear path of progression WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT LINEARITY IS.

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

The gameplay of each game is incredibly similar, with the exception of ever changing skill formats (Classes, materia, espers, zodiac board), FFT and FFXII, which I hated. Not to mention the fact that every single game had a plethora of broken mechanics and lack of any semblance of balance that overall cheapens an experience.

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

While I agree that the games would be received better than if they were labelled final fantasy, it would be a disaster because of all the fans that would cry out over the fact that squareenix wouldn't be making the Final Fantasy they know is right around the corner that'll return to the days of FF(Insert number). The other reason it would be disaster is that people will just start comparing all of their games to final fantasy, which would be no different that the latest final fantasy being compared to the last one.

So lets sum up my feelings for this topic in this point:
A) FF has absolutely zero claim on non-linearity.
B) FF has very little claim on different gameplay.
C) As evidenced by this topic, and the various "crown jewels" in eyes of older FF players, they have absolutely no idea as a collective whole of what they want, and that they should continue to make FF games like this.

Harbringer, on 04 September 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Honestly I'm not going to bother writing a response to every point here because quite frankly we've been over this shit already last night, and if you had read the first paragraph it clearly, in no uncertain terms states this is my opinion. And I am tired.

If you also read the conversation to this point, you would know that this was more intended to spark a debate and is not by any means me trying to pass off my opinion as fact.

Yes, you were splitting hairs like mad last night, though I'm too tired and for that matter lazy to go into detail here when we went over this exact same thing last night.

You're taking linearity way too far here. I never at any point -- and I said this last night -- tried to make the claim that Final Fantasy had Fallout-level nonlinearity. In fact, I never tried to make the case that it was not linear at all; You did.

A certain level of linearity is always needed or it turns out like Elder Scrolls where you explore and explore and explore and it's like "Wait.. what the fuck am I supposed to be doing again?"

Philsov explained quite nicely the innovative gameplay, and I myself will say you are dead wrong on that point.

That's two, now for number three.

I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to point at here, be it me or someone else, but I'll say this, even though I've repeated myself no less than seven times in the span of 24 hours. The brand sets a certain expectation to be held to a higher standard.

Furthermore, the ideology that defines 1-9 and those following are simply different. (And to touch on this point, I said I found FF12 to be painful. You can enjoy it all you want and worship it. I found it to be painful.) They really are. You can sit there and try to take things to the extreme to draw a connection if you want, but they are different. I am not the only one who thinks of them as truly different games.

Toriyama sacrifices -- in XIII though the sample size isn't very large here so I'll cut him a little slack -- all semblance of freedom and turns the game into an effective interactive novel. Gran Pulse? Give me a break. I swear if I hear one more person try to say that's exploration I will shoot them. Gran Pulse is for the most part a giant fucking plain.

Your whole argument that I can already see you pushing in response to this about the "illusion of freedom" or whatever doesn't hold water either. If your parents told you not to go somewhere because it was dangerous, would you take them on faith or would you wanna check that shit for yourself? You would do the latter of course. You want that option. FFXIII robs you of that option.

Alright, what if the enemies one shot you. You have the free will to at least try that if you wish, or go to level a bit, or fuck even go back to a town to check some shit out. FFXIII robs you of your free will and literally forces you from point A to point B.

Yes, I am highly irritated because I am tired and having to make the exact same argument I did against you in chat last night.

Valcrist, on 04 September 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

I couldn't agree more with this post right here!

XII is a masterpiece, in my mind, along with FFT and VS. And, since I'm enjoying the ever-loving hell out of Tactics Ogre, I think I can safely say I'm more of a Matsuno fanboy.

I won't touch on VIII at all, since a lot of people here already know that I'd just end up going on a hate-filled rant about it, and it's tough to keep subjective opinions civil around the FF series, but I do think that the love stories in VII were great--in overlooked ways. Personally, I think the love between Tifa and Cloud, on a deeper "old friends" kind of level, was brilliant; much more so than the Aeris and Cloud stuff. I still think the sequence where Tifa helps Cloud reconnect his memories in the Lifestream was more emotionally stirring than 99% of video game stories out there. That could be because I was going through some stuff around that time, where I told myself lies to convince myself that things were better than they were (basically, I could relate to Cloud a little, with that whole thing about stealing Zack's identity to cope with PST), so it really warmed my heart to see someone stick with him, through all of the lies and mistakes. That's the kind of love story you don't see very often, I feel. Less romantic; more real.

ID Bot, on 04 September 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

And, of course, I absolutely agree with this. FFT is the best of the best, done deal and seal, FFVI, VII & XII are my favorites of the main FF series, Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve were very well-made and unique, and I'd add Parasite Eve 2 for being a great survival horror game (I liked it more than Resident Evil, personally). Oh, and Super Mario RPG! The PS1 and the SNES were the best consoles; nostalgia glasses FTW!

I still haven't played Chrono Trigger, and it's one that I realize I have to play as soon as humanly possible, because it's a classic often put on the same level as 6 by people who love 6 as much as I do, but it's tough to find time to play long, epic games these days. Soon, though, soon.

As for Square Enix; aside from FFXII, the only other game that I could say I truly loved was Kingdom Hearts 2. That one really was amazing, even if the franchise has basically dwindled down to cash-cow milking and spin-off crap. Then again, I kinda drifted from video games in general around the time the PS2 was in full-stride. I have never touched a PS3, so it wouldn't be fair of me to lash out at XIII and whatever the hell else SE is making these days. I can only say that NOTHING I've ever seen or heard about XIII has ever made me interested in it, in the slightest, and nothing short of Matsuno returning to create a full-fledged sequel to XII will ever convince me to shell out the money for a PS3. I just don't have the interest in modern console gaming anymore.

MASSIVE REPLY TIME(not in chronological order)

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

I actually really liked Bushido Blade, I found it to be very realistic and quite fun especially the challenge modes. That one bitch with the assault rifle....

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

I don't mind the remakes and I get what you are saying there with them trying to please multiple parties. I don't think being stuck in the past is something bad though when these were genuinely good games we are comparing to. And I think that these newer games can be good as well. For me, after IX it didn't feel like the same franchise anymore. And I acknowledge there are differences in each game, VIII being a great example. At this point it feels like they are just using the name to sell something i.e. "Let's just make a game, throw some iconic FF names in there, and call it FF."

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

Yes! The evolution of gaming now is 95% in graphics. The evolution of gameplay has pretty much reached its peak IMO.

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

I see the experimentation that took place in the series on the PSX a little differently. Yes 7 had different concepts but it fundamentally played the same. You still fought battles exactly the same way, with similar abilities. Materia was new, but what you got from it was the same things experienced in previous FF games. A new way to do the same thing if you will. This is a case of experimentation that was pretty successful IMO. With VIII it was much different. Summons acted differently, the draw system created a different way to approach magic use in that it discouraged it, and so on. The game promoted a certain way of play and there was an illusion of customization IMO. The game just played differently and was not as focused on actually just playing the game. I don't hate it or anything, it is just a little off. I didn't like this game that much until recent years where the story was something that ended up making everything else a little more bearable. That being said I accepted it as them trying something new and failing.


I see FFIX as really the "optimum" title in the series. While not the best it was a true balance and combination of the best parts of the series. It introduced a environment similar to earlier titles, great homages to them, just a fun game that showed that it was still Final Fantasy. Hell, part of the advertisement for the game was the catchphrase "The Crystal Comes Back". They understood that fans of the series missed those things from the past. But, the next console generation really took graphics to the next level and that is a much easier selling point.

I will continue to say I don't mind the PS2 and beyond titles. Its just that everything after that feels like VIII all over again. Experimentation to see what sticks. Decent games but IMO not Final Fantasy.

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

Solid gameplay, excellent graphics, memorable characters, orchestra-worthy soundtrack, mountains of replay value, etc etc etc. should be the goal of any project. They should not have to sacrifice for any of it.

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

A lower quality product under a popular brand only serves to hurt the company. I get that this is mostly opinion though but I feel like it comes from me genuinely caring about preserving the integrity of great games.

Harbringer, on 04 September 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I would be 100% fine if they stopped making FF titles. I would still buy from SquareEnix and would actually be more inclined to want to try games that have a new branding from a company I had been buying from for years. I just feel in general there has been a decline in all else but graphics over the years.

Bastard Poetry, on 04 September 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

I don't mind XII, it just didn't grab me in the same way as previous titles. I really like Ivalice in general and wouldn't mind if they expanded on it further but that doesn't mean it would need to be called Final Fantasy. I find it weird with stuff like FFXI...why even call it that? Couldn't you have just spun it off and called it FF Online? Its a numbered entry that doesn't really fit IMO. I believe XIV is similar is that it is an MMO...I just don't get it. Spinning off your brand is perfectly acceptable...I would have rather had FF XII be called something else Ivalice related although I am not sure what that would be.

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

I think that it is quite fair to compare past and present, and someone new to the series should as well. For example if someone got into a band that had previously released 5 albums, they may or may not check out their past stuff. Since first impressions make a difference they may be more inclined to like those other albums less because they are very dated even though they are generally the most raw and emotional of any of their work ever made. I think this is always unfair because from personal experience if I find a new game series, or band, or brand of food I am inclined to try out other things by them and appreciate them, and try to learn more about them. Because newer fans are generally turned off by lesser graphics they have less of a chance of having those original experiences(save for remakes...I get that these sell and I have enjoyed them generally but not all of the gems will get remade) not just with that series but all great games of previous eras. The other side of my analogy would be if I was into the same band from the start and they come out with this album when they are all 70 and you think "Wow its some new stuff" and then you listen and then.....disappointment. Yea its the same band but they lost the soul of their music, now they are just trying to make money. The series has drawn on too long, and it just seems so watered down to me.


Its hard for me to understand that someone who has genuine interest in FF would be uninterested in their previous titles because they are good games. These new fans don't care as much about FF itself I don't think, they just like the game itself. This is why they are making multiple sequels to it. Game companies can make great games and series that have new names, Mass Effect is an example. If they had made FFXII with a different title it could have been just as successful and could have sold with SE's branding.

I am introducing my kids to gaming with NES and SNES stuff. Partly because I want them to see how gaming started, and to play really fun, challenging, and rewarding games. I understand the evolution of gaming but that doesn't take away from any of the previous stuff and I don't want it to be forgotten because I see alot more soul in it then newer stuff.

Awesome post Aura.

Let me clarify to some my opinion on FFXII. I am biased, yes, and I do believe the language I used in my article was possibly too harsh.

However, for me it personally was very painful to play -- especially at the part I mentioned where I stopped -- but I'm sure to others it's really good. I suppose it just wasn't my kind of game. I would've liked to get into it though.

And yes, FFT is most definitely one of the crown jewels of Square, but there's actually very little outside of FF that I played of their games. Vagrant Story and Parasite Eve to name a few.

So in conclusion, Apple Jacks are awesome, Justin Beiber is bullshit, metal will never die, the first 3 Star Wars movies were the best, Mark Hammill is the best Joker ever, Exosquad is the best cartoon, and nostalgia is a force to be reckoned with.

Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

This made my otherwise shitty day a little brighter. Thanks for that.

Quote

You should! I'd argue that it's better than FF6 on the majority of elements

Quote

My favorite gem is Live a Live. It's an SNES that never made it stateside, but got fan-translated 10 or so years ago. It's an RPG with a tactical combat system, and starts off with a... mega-man style selection screen. There are a number of heroes and era to choose -- iirc there's cavemen (zero dialogue, a LOT of fighting), ancient china, feudal japan, cowboy western, modern wrestler, future psychic, and far-future robot (ALL dialogue, 1 fight). After playing each of scenarios you unlock a fantasy medieval scenario, and then the final stage which combines all the previous heroes.

The robot scenario ALONE is a marvelous piece of sci-fi literature (well, short story).

The game is woven together very well, and each of the scenarios was worked on by a different artist/director, iirc.

~

I... don't think a game of this caliber will come out of SE. Thankfully the indie devs are cranking out a lot of awesome concepts due to technological advances for distribution/publishing. It just sucks that because it's all indie studios, the polish leaves... much to be desired. Either something is going to be interesting and fun to play but have bad graphics/sounds/voice acting, or it'll look awesome and play for shit.

Chrono Trigger -- though I've never beaten it all the way through -- is one of the exceedingly few games to do time travel the right way instead of as a plot device for lazy writing. And that, to me, if nothing else, garners respect.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I see you were also too tired to read my post.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Except your argument was that the first 9 were held to some objective standard that they allegedly no longer have. Either it is objective and fact, or this standard is subjective and thus bullshit. Pick.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

IIRC, you told me that the spirit of Final Fantasy was exploration. Which it isn't.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

Personally, I feel both you and philsov failed to explain what this innovation is. The way I see it, Final Fantasy is learn skills and/or magic through mechanic, press attack or magic/skill, win fights, progress story. (P.S. I've played almost all of them BTW.)

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I personally don't believe it does.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

And I'm not the only person who thinks they're the same.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I also have the free will to:
-Run into a wall over and over
-Grind in the current area.
-Talk to people in the last screen back.

All in FFXIII.

There is literally no argument for wanting to go somewhere where enemies oneshot you. Unless your hope, is that you intend on getting a piece of gear that you aren't supposed to have at that point, and are going out of your way to cheeseball the entire game.

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I'm highly amused because the only reason you chose to rehash your arguments is because you refused to read mine . Specifically:

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

aaaaaaand

Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

I'd prefer it if you'd at least not claim tiredness and bluntness as an excuse to not read my post and in turn insult my intelligence. I also don't appreciate the post cherry picking. If you want to call me an idiot to my face (or, well publicly I guess.) however, feel free.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Point out exactly where I concretely say I am going to be strictly objective. I will say one more time that you can't be strictly objective when the subject being measure is subjective. I said in the very first paragraph of the article that it is subjective, and when I said "let's be somewhat objective" I put the word "somewhat" behind it for a reason. Why is everyone tunnel visioning this?

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

No, I did not. What I said was that it is part of what defines the franchise. Gameplay, story, and the freedom to explore (read: enough linearity that you don't get too distracted from the objective at hand, but enough freedom so that it doesn't force-feed you the plot) all boiled into one.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Innovation isn't necessarily what you do, it's how you go about doing it as well.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Which one did you start with?

Example: If I call a game Mass Effect - Genesis, people are going to obviously hold it to that Mass Effect standard of quality and, to a possibly lesser extent, gameplay. (This is just an example, you can insert a franchise you're a big fan of in place of ME but I think it gets the point across.)

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

See the first sentence I responded to the last post with.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

This is purely splitting the split hair. I don't know how much farther you can take this. Let me give you a real life example.

You need to go to the store, but you can't drive there for whatever reason. Let's say it's because you don't have your license.

So, you get your Mother or someone to drive you. Midway, you have time and you want to stop by somewhere else on the way there, let's say McDonalds. You have the money to pay for it, but the one driving you says no. Why? It doesn't matter why, because you're dependent on them for your transportation, but more to the point, you don't have a say in it. You have no freedom whatsoever.

If you were capable of driving, you'd be able to since obviously you would have that option.

Whether or not you consider it to be an "illusion of exploration" or not is completely and utterly beside the point. I think I'd much rather have the option, however foolish you may think it is, to go into a different area, than be FORCED to go from objective to objective. This is why I say it plays more like an interactive novel than an RPG.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

No, you're not an idiot. You won't ever see me outright tell you you're an idiot for disagreeing me. This is 2012, and I'm sure people get enough of that with presidential debates anyhow.

Edit: I know you agree with me that it was too linear, but I'm trying to make my point on why I think the others are less-linear.

Advent, on 05 September 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

1) It's not that I'm tunnel visioning it, but your entire argument is based around this standard that the first 9 supposedly have over the other 6. The problem with that argument, is that either it is objective (i.e movie ratings) and your argument appears as such (and, as we have determined in other discussions not relating to this topic, objective is pretty equal to fact.), or that this standard is subjective, and thus not really a standard of what makes for a good final fantasy because everyone has an opinion on what the best final fantasy is.

2) fair enough, and I'll address the linearity point in 6.

3) You defined innovation, but because I don't see innovation in context of FF, you're gonna have to expand upon that.

4) FF6. As a side note, I feel that your example is misguided, as the stories and gameplay for Mass Effects are largely similar and interconnected, while for the most part FF is disconnected from each other storywise. While I disagree overall that it is innovative, or that they play different overall with a couple of exceptions, gameplay elements do change from game to game.

5)Acknowledged.

6) Look, without going into your example, my point is, is that going to previous town, grinding, or going to where you are not supposed to go yet (i.e. sequence breaking) does not constitute a game being less linear. For the record, I feel that Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3, are fairly linear as well. Skyrim not so much, but Oblivion and Fallout 3 in particular are bad for having questlines and storyplot that is incredibly linear with very little leeway in how you can solve them. In the same sense, you can ignore the plot by hunting mole rats/mudcrabs, perusing downtown DC/imperial city, things like that. More over, your choices for the most part affect absolutely nothing in both Oblivion and Fallout 3. So too is that your progression is incredibly linear. Your leveling is very linear, and because your levels are tied to what generates on the loot table, your loot is very linear as well. So with the obvious exception of FFXIII, I personally believe that every single one of them is as linear as the other. The only way it could be more linear, is if it were literally on a rail, at which point the game better be damn fun.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Movie ratings aren't entirely objective because they go by what the critic feels from the movie, and emotions in this context are subjective. I'll say again, it was not my intent to pass off my opinion as fact, and by the same token reviews aren't either. Those people saying I am trying to do this -- not you -- are flat out wrong, and in one case hitting the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacy pretty hard.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Gameplay mechanics, such as the way (and the background of it explained in its tutorial) Trance is not necessarily just a reskinned Limit Break, but functions just a bit differently. The whole Draw mechanic in FFVIII -- though not one of their more successful ones -- is another good example. Materia is another one, changing the way in which you acquire and use magic and skills.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Yeah but I can tell by your response that you see what I'm trying to say, so I'll just point you to my previous paragraph.

Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I think with this you're viewing linearity differently than I am. When I say linear in this context i'm talking simply about exploration and freedom to do it. There are some Final Fantasy games where you can approach a fight how you want to and still come out on top, but I don't think the fact that most of them have a cookie cutter strategy is going to really change.

Nuking a boss with summons and magic may be the fastest and most efficient way to do it, but there are at times other options available.

This whole point about linearity is getting a bit absurd. Harb's right in the fact that every Final Fantasy game with a number after it has been incredibly linear. You may have been given a bigger playground to play in before you move on to the next story point, but the story always proceeds in a linear fashion.

FF7:

You leave Midgar, and you're on an open field, where do you go? Well, you have two options, Kalm and the Chocobo Ranch. Well, you can't do anything at the ranch, so you go to Kalm where you get hit in the face with exposition. Afterwards, it opens up a scene at the ranch where you can buy a key that unlocks the Midgar Zolom. You get past the Zolom and go through a cave, on the other side of the cave is another open field. You have two choices, to go to Fort Condor or Junon. There's a sidequest available at Condor where you play a minigame. When you're done you have one choice left, Junon, so you go there. Some story exposition and you hitch a boat to the other continent. Well, now you're in Costa del Sol, but there's nothing to do here so you leave and find the only other place you can go, Mt. Corel. You proceed through Mt Corel which could've really just been a straight line, since there's nothing to do here but go through it, and you find a town with some more exposition, nothing to do, and an exit that leads you to the Gold Saucer.

This entire game follows this equation, you're given one and only one place to go to in order to progress through the game. You can backtrack and grind in areas you've already passed, or find a new item when you get a new vehicle, but does that make this game amazing? Not in my opinion, the game is great because of how the story plays out and the interaction between characters. (I know that anytime after you get the Tiny Bronco you can do the Wutai sidequest, but hey, 13 has Gran Pulse which is its own sidequest.)

The only difference between the linearity of 7 and 13 is that the illusion of freedom is broken in 13. There's no reason to return to old areas you've explored, so the game doesn't let you. The game wasn't designed with backtracking in mind. Complaining that you can't backtrack in 13 is like complaining that you can't rocket jump in chess, or that you can't get the tanooki suit in Mario Golf. (Can you do this? I don't know, I haven't owned a Nintendo home console since the SNES ) The game was designed with a certain purpose in mind, and backtracking didn't suit that purpose so it was left on the cutting room floor.

And besides, 12 had tonnes of exploration and backtracking in it, to the point where you were given special monsters to hunt down in areas you've already explored. In fact, it had way more exploration and backtracking than any of the pre-X games.

Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

So then by this logic being able to explore is an illusion. I'm not talking about just going to this or that area. Maybe linearity is the wrong word for what I'm trying to say here. You could, as you said, backtrack, go to towns, do sidequests, etc. This, to me, made the game much more fleshed out and immersive. It doesn't make or break the game, but it sure as hell adds to it.

Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

If the point of a game is to have you be immersed into its world in order to have fun with it, why does it tell you "you can't backtrack and check X out"? Whether you label it an "illusion" or not, it is still a factor.

Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

This is why I call it an interactive novel. And I really, really don't see where you can draw that chess example from. Look at just about any RPG -- Mass Effect, the Tales series, Dragon Quest, Lunar, Xenogears, Xenosaga, Star Ocean, Legend of Dragoon, The Last Story, Lost Odyssey, Zelda, and various others I've failed to mention -- and you will see exploration is a big factor. It does impact the quality of the game.

Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Toriyama was the head honcho in XIII, not XII. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this.