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.
Squaresoft vs SquareEnix
#42
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
04 September 2012 - 01:42 PM
Valcrist, on 04 September 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:
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.
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.
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.
#43
- Difficulty Breaker
- Job: Bot
- Posts: 1,199
04 September 2012 - 01:50 PM
I see Chrono Trigger / Vagrant Story / FFT / PE / FF6 / 7 as the crown jewels.
Yes, FF7 is included in there.
Yes, FF7 is included in there.
#44
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
04 September 2012 - 01:51 PM
ID Bot, on 04 September 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:
I see Chrono Trigger / Vagrant Story / FFT / PE / FF6 / 7 as the crown jewels.
Yes, FF7 is included in there.
Yes, FF7 is included in there.
I really need to get around to some of their other stuff, honestly.
#45
- Dicklord, Lord of Dicks
- Job: Regulator
- Posts: 5,398
04 September 2012 - 02:26 PM
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:
Spoiler
#46
- Serious Gamer
- Job: Member
- Posts: 284
04 September 2012 - 08:57 PM
Advent, on 03 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:
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.
They were not better before.
Advent, on 03 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:
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.
Agreed
Advent, on 03 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:
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.
I hated FFXII, but I disagree with your assertion that FFXII is painful.
Advent, on 03 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:
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.
You hated the gameplay, so it's low quality?
Advent, on 03 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
#47
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM
Harbringer, on 04 September 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:
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.
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.
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.
#48
- Wawa Skittletits
- Job: Member
- Posts: 1,401
04 September 2012 - 10:09 PM
Valcrist, on 04 September 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:
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.
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.
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:
I see Chrono Trigger / Vagrant Story / FFT / PE / FF6 / 7 as the crown jewels.
Yes, FF7 is included in there.
Yes, FF7 is included in there.
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.
#49
- Creator of Dancing Mad
- Job: Modder
- Posts: 1,287
05 September 2012 - 12:00 AM
MASSIVE REPLY TIME(not in chronological order)
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....
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."
Yes! The evolution of gaming now is 95% in graphics. The evolution of gameplay has pretty much reached its peak IMO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
philsov, on 04 September 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
~
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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)
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
#50
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
05 September 2012 - 05:25 AM
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.
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.
#51
- Dicklord, Lord of Dicks
- Job: Regulator
- Posts: 5,398
05 September 2012 - 09:19 AM
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.
#52
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
05 September 2012 - 09:21 AM
Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:
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.
This made my otherwise shitty day a little brighter. Thanks for that.
#53
- Professor Bordam Daravon
- Job: Strategist
- Posts: 3,197
05 September 2012 - 09:31 AM
Quote
I still haven't played Chrono Trigger,
You should! I'd argue that it's better than FF6 on the majority of elements
Quote
here's actually very little outside of FF that I played of their games
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.
#54
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
05 September 2012 - 09:34 AM
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.
#55
- Serious Gamer
- Job: Member
- Posts: 284
05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM
Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 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.
I see you were also too tired to read my post.
Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Philsov explained quite nicely the innovative gameplay, and I myself will say you are dead wrong on that point.
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'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.
I personally don't believe it does.
Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:
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.
And I'm not the only person who thinks they're the same.
Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
(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.)
(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.)
aaaaaaand
Advent, on 04 September 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:
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.
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.
#56
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
05 September 2012 - 11:36 AM
Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, 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.
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:
IIRC, you told me that the spirit of Final Fantasy was exploration. Which it isn't.
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:
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.)
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:
I personally don't believe it does.
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:
And I'm not the only person who thinks they're the same.
See the first sentence I responded to the last post with.
Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 11:02 AM, 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.
-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.
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:
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.
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.
#57
- Serious Gamer
- Job: Member
- Posts: 284
05 September 2012 - 12:23 PM
Advent, on 05 September 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:
1)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?
2)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.
3)Innovation isn't necessarily what you do, it's how you go about doing it as well.
4)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.)
5)See the first sentence I responded to the last post with.
6)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.
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.
2)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.
3)Innovation isn't necessarily what you do, it's how you go about doing it as well.
4)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.)
5)See the first sentence I responded to the last post with.
6)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.
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.
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.
#58
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
05 September 2012 - 12:34 PM
Harbringer, on 05 September 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:
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.
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:
You defined innovation, but because I don't see innovation in context of FF, you're gonna have to expand upon that.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
#59
- Dicklord, Lord of Dicks
- Job: Regulator
- Posts: 5,398
05 September 2012 - 01:24 PM
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.
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.
#60
- The Handburglar
- Job: Administrator
- Posts: 8,862
05 September 2012 - 01:45 PM
Stann, on 05 September 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:
The only difference between the linearity of 7 and 13 is that the illusion of freedom is broken in 13.
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:
There's no reason to return to old areas you've explored, so the game doesn't let you.
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:
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 ... 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.
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:
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.
Toriyama was the head honcho in XIII, not XII. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this.
