How to fix the Final Fantasy series

Fo Real

To get the Final Fantasy series back on track, upcoming games will need to include the following elements:

• Anime style characters: FF 1-6 used anime sprites to represent the characters as the developers were limited by the technology available. Then FF7 came along with beautiful (albeit blocky) 3D anime characters. Big heads, big eyes and big swords. Then for some reason Square decided to use more "realistic" human characters for FF8 and every sequel since (except for FF9 which reverted to classic FF characters types). We love the colourful and cartoonish anime style! Bring 'em back!

• World map: A fully 3D world map which can be explored at the player's leisure. This has been lacking from FF10 onwards, instead being replaced with linear tunnels. I will never forget the awe I felt riding the chocobo around the 3D world map on FF6 on the SNES. Amazing!

• Non-playable characters: One element which makes classic RPGs so great are the NPCs. You would chat to the folk around town who would occasionally give clues as to where a secret item could be found or what to do next if you were lost. Some would just have a witty line to say. Make sure not to over-do it though. I remember one of the first cities in FF12 had way to many NPCs clogging up the streets with nothing of interest at all to say.

• Levelling up: I want my character to increase from level 1 to 2, then to 3 etc. getting stronger in various abilites as they grow. Scrap that bloddy crystarium system of FF13.

• Battle-system: battles should be turn-based. The live action battles of FF12 were an epic fail. Characters should each be ble to use magic and summons as well as weapon attacks. FF13 paradigm system was frustratingly bad. The game played itself with little player input.

Probrem officer?

Retr0gamer

FF is dead. Buy Shin Megami Tensei games instead.

Cyzrane

I think the better question is really what quality of nail we should use to shut the series' coffin closed, I fear.

Your optimism for saving the series is great, and your ideas mostly appeal back to more "classic" Final Fantasy games. The problem, however, is the company's mentality (at least in my view). It seems to me that everything after the Enix merger has been terrible; Square-Enix are a greedy and soulless company concerned with making money, seeming to give no regard to innovation.

Case in point, Final Fantasy XII. With Basch more or less set to take centre stage and Yasumi Matsuno (the man behind one of my all-time favourite games Vagrant Story) the game had everything going for it. Then they stuck in Vaan, who they felt would be a better character for their market to identify with, a character who subsequently ruined the damn game. Something really great should work on numerous levels, and be enjoyable for a wide, variegated audience. This silly targeting by Square-Enix is just the viscous grease with which they oil their "Game-O-Matic 2000" as it churns out more and more blasé and average titles, as they know they can rely on teenage audiences and brand loyalty.

No, the best thing for Final Fantasy is to starve it of its bloated zeppelin of a budget and eradicate it from the face of the planet. Take whatever you can from the earlier titles, which I enjoyed and can still enjoy to this day, and let the series fade away.

ussjtrunks

Final Fantasy needs to return to its roots, a japanese game should be a japanese game and not try to focus on delivering a us themed game.

Dragon quest ix is a purely traditional rpg and look at the success it has achieved.

+ An Anime style FF would be awesome

Retr0gamer

ussjtrunks wrote: »

+ An Anime style FF would be awesome

They tried it and it was ****. Anyway FFVII and FFVIII were just playable animes.

NeoKubrick

Cyzrane wrote: »

soulless company

Do you assume people set-up corporations to avoid maximizing profits?

What purpose would killing off the franchise serve, anyway? It has a main-series franchise with no recurring milieu or characters: each game in the main-series has the license to be whatever it wants and can be developed by whomever Square-Enix employ for the job.

Cyzrane

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Do you assume people set-up corporations to avoid maximizing profits?

What purpose would killing off the franchise serve, anyway? It has a main-series franchise with no recurring milieu or characters: each game in the main-series has the license to be whatever it wants and can be developed by whomever Square-Enix employ for the job.

No, I don't. I guess you could extrapolate that all companies are soulless, then. It strikes me as callous (but I suppose also necessary) to think only of money when making something; there should be some pride and creativity going into these games. They're sorta like that guy in that game they made pretty recently; y'know, the one about the Japanese rock star who lost all his dreams and honour.

As for killing the franchise, well, it would serve to eliminate the ridiculous compulsion so many people have to buy any box with a "Final Fantasy" sticker on it. It would take the impunity which Square-Enix has been coasting on away from it. As you so rightly say, each game in the series is considered separate from the others; in that case, why not just make them separate games with separate titles, so they can be judged on their own merits and not their brand?

NeoKubrick

Cyzrane wrote: »

No, I don't. I guess you could extrapolate that all companies are soulless, then. It strikes me as callous (but I suppose also necessary) to think only of money when making something; there should be some pride and creativity going into these games. They're sorta like that guy in that game they made pretty recently; y'know, the one about the Japanese rock star who lost all his dreams and honour.

As for killing the franchise, well, it would serve to eliminate the ridiculous compulsion so many people have to buy any box with a "Final Fantasy" sticker on it. It would take the impunity which Square-Enix has been coasting on away from it. As you so rightly say, each game in the series is considered separate from the others; in that case, why not just make them separate games with separate titles, so they can be judged on their own merits and not their brand?

You shouldn't need to guess. Corporations function to maximize profits. There is pride and creativity in creating these games for the developers: that doesn't mean the games have neither good design nor no constraints on its content automatically. Pride and creativity make creating a good game possible, but not automatic.

No, it wouldn't eliminate the compulsion. Those people who buy brands rather than games will just trade one allegiance for another; if it is not Final Fantasy, it would be Persona. You wouldn't be changing their behavior by removing the object that serves them to act out the behavior; one object is sufficient as another. To substitute developing a separate title and brand for a main-series entry would cut-down potential customers aware of the main-series brand. Separate titles would only foster monotony, and encourage unwarranted sequels (see: FFX-2).

Cyzrane

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You shouldn't need to guess. Corporations function to maximize profits. There is pride and creativity in creating these games for the developers: that doesn't mean the games have neither good design nor no constraints on its content automatically. Pride and creativity make creating a good game possible, but not automatic.

No, it wouldn't eliminate the compulsion. Those people who buy brands rather than games will just trade one allegiance for another; if it is not Final Fantasy, it would be Persona. You wouldn't be changing their behavior by removing the object that serves them to act out the behavior; one object is sufficient as another. To substitute developing a separate title and brand for a main-series entry would cut-down potential customers aware of the main-series brand. Separate titles would only foster monotony, and encourage unwarranted sequels (see: FFX-2).

Well, I said "guess" to mince words, but I'll try to be more blunt. I'm aware Square-Enix are still a business, but ruining the vision of one of your employees that might well have been your saving grace (FF XII) isn't just putting "constraints" on the developmental process; it's outright stifling innovation and replacing it with the same hackneyed junk they're so accustomed to churning out.

Regarding brand-following, I don't seek to change anyone's behaviour. If people are going to mindlessly follow sequels that's their business. What I do think people should be made more aware of, though, is how far Final Fantasy has fallen. They can follow another brand instead if they like; heck, I'd definitely advocate Persona or Shin Megami Tensei above FF any day. For all the flaws present in those games, they have far more interesting concepts at their core than any Final Fantasy I've played in recent years. Maybe they'll stagnate too, but Final Fantasy definitely has.

Mark Hamill

Fo Real wrote: »

• Anime style characters: FF 1-6 used anime sprites to represent the characters as the developers were limited by the technology available. Then FF7 came along with beautiful (albeit blocky) 3D anime characters. Big heads, big eyes and big swords. Then for some reason Square decided to use more "realistic" human characters for FF8 and every sequel since (except for FF9 which reverted to classic FF characters types). We love the colourful and cartoonish anime style! Bring 'em back!

Not really bothered by this, as long as the style isn't grating on the eye, it will purely be a taste thing as to wether people like it or not.

Fo Real wrote: »

• World map: A fully 3D world map which can be explored at the player's leisure. This has been lacking from FF10 onwards, instead being replaced with linear tunnels. I will never forget the awe I felt riding the chocobo around the 3D world map on FF6 on the SNES. Amazing!

• Non-playable characters: One element which makes classic RPGs so great are the NPCs. You would chat to the folk around town who would occasionally give clues as to where a secret item could be found or what to do next if you were lost. Some would just have a witty line to say. Make sure not to over-do it though. I remember one of the first cities in FF12 had way to many NPCs clogging up the streets with nothing of interest at all to say.

Agreed. NPCs and a world map just make an rpg seem more real.

Fo Real wrote: »

• Levelling up: I want my character to increase from level 1 to 2, then to 3 etc. getting stronger in various abilites as they grow. Scrap that bloddy crystarium system of FF13.

The crystallarium had two main problems: unneccessarily complicated 3-d design (which made navigation a pain) and retardly high points requirements to level in any of the three non default paradigms (which meant retardly high amounts of time grinding against boring monsters). FFX had a great system, the sphere grid, based on picking and choosing the stats yourself, there is no reason, with a little thought, that another system like wouldn't work.

Fo Real wrote: »

• Battle-system: battles should be turn-based. The live action battles of FF12 were an epic fail. Characters should each be ble to use magic and summons as well as weapon attacks. FF13 paradigm system was frustratingly bad. The game played itself with little player input.

Probrem officer?

Why? Kingdom Hearts had a great battle system (it was almost what FF13 was emulating, complete real time control of one character with two AI support, I played 13 wondering why they didn't go all out and copy it exactly). And then there is Tales of Eternia on the PSP which had random battles, but with a real time side scroll brawler fighting system, and that was good. I'm not saying rpgs should be either real time or turn based, I think the key is make the sure player has enough input to make them interesting.

pablomakaveli

They seem to be aiming for the MMORPG road with FF 14 so i reckon thats the route they might stick with for the coming years.

It would help if they stopped aiming games in the series at teenage girls but i don't think we'll see any more FF games like the good old ones. I hated FF13 and it's put me off buying any future FF games.

Retr0gamer

Kingdom Hearts can hardly be called an RPG though. It's closer to DMC or Ninja Gaiden than any RPG.

Fo Real

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The crystallarium had two main problems: unneccessarily complicated 3-d design (which made navigation a pain) and retardly high points requirements to level in any of the three non default paradigms (which meant retardly high amounts of time grinding against boring monsters). FFX had a great system, the sphere grid, based on picking and choosing the stats yourself, there is no reason, with a little thought, that another system like wouldn't work.

I agree that the sphere grid of FFX worked well because, like you said, the player had complete control over which stats to prioritise. One of the best levelling up systems I have seen is the one in the Atelier Iris series. You learn special attacks from having certain weapons or accesories equipped until the SP quota for that weapon has been reached (SP points are earned in battle as well as EXP points). This means you must be put thought into what weapons/armour you equip - do you forego a sword with a higher attack power until you learn that special attack from a weaker sword? I think the Grandia series had a similar system.

Why? Kingdom Hearts had a great battle system (it was almost what FF13 was emulating, complete real time control of one character with two AI support, I played 13 wondering why they didn't go all out and copy it exactly). And then there is Tales of Eternia on the PSP which had random battles, but with a real time side scroll brawler fighting system, and that was good. I'm not saying rpgs should be either real time or turn based, I think the key is make the sure player has enough input to make them interesting.

Maybe it's down to personal preference. I'm going to be crucified for saying this but I didn't enjoy the 16-bit Zelda games specifically because of the real time battles (I haven't played the more recent ones). All you did was walk up to a monster and continually bash the a button to swing your sword unitl the monster was dead. There is no strategy involved. I'd label these games as action RPGs to distinguish them from true RPGs.

I haven't played Tales of Eternia so I can't comment on that. I did play Kingdom Hearts and enjoyed it for what it was. It wasn't trying to be a serious game. But like Retr0gamer I wouldn't classify it as an RPG.

Mark Hamill

Fo Real wrote: »

I agree that the sphere grid of FFX worked well because, like you said, the player had complete control over which stats to prioritise. One of the best levelling up systems I have seen is the one in the Atelier Iris series. You learn special attacks from having certain weapons or accesories equipped until the SP quota for that weapon has been reached (SP points are earned in battle as well as EXP points). This means you must be put thought into what weapons/armour you equip - do you forego a sword with a higher attack power until you learn that special attack from a weaker sword? I think the Grandia series had a similar system.

FF9 is similar to that too.

RetrOgamer wrote:

Kingdom Hearts can hardly be called an RPG though. It's closer to DMC or Ninja Gaiden than any RPG.

Fo Real wrote: »

I did play Kingdom Hearts and enjoyed it for what it was. It wasn't trying to be a serious game. But like Retr0gamer I wouldn't classify it as an RPG.

Why not though? You had leveling up, weapon/accessory management, magic, summons, AI controlled characters had to be set up to act in different situations according to how you wanted them to. It may not have been massively deep in those regards, but you wont find most of them in DMC or Ninja Gaiden. I can kinda see the similarity if you think that they are button mashers (each game will have you wacking the X/A, most of time) but even in that regard, games like FF6/FF7/FF10 are only different because they force to pause for the enemies turn between each button mash (I spend a lot of time in each game spamming "Attack" against standard enemies I encountered in random battles, its mainly bosses that require major tactics).

Fo Real wrote: »

I haven't played Tales of Eternia so I can't comment on that.

Its an interesting system, here is a clip of what the battle looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmiQgmv7srU

A bit messy at first, but when you get into it, its quite deep and exciting, with different moves and tactics to learn.

Retr0gamer

Fo Real wrote: »

Maybe it's down to personal preference. I'm going to be crucified for saying this but I didn't enjoy the 16-bit Zelda games specifically because of the real time battles (I haven't played the more recent ones). All you did was walk up to a monster and continually bash the a button to swing your sword unitl the monster was dead. There is no strategy involved. I'd label these games as action RPGs to distinguish them from true RPGs.

Zelda isn't an RPG though, very far from it. It's an action game and has more in common with Metroid than any RPG. The only real levelling up is getting a new sword. It got wrongfully classified as an RPG because of the top down perspective and look of the game was very RPG like. An action RPG would be something more like Soul Blazer, Terranigma, Threads of Fate, the Mana series and maybe the Tales of games in a certain way where you gain experience and upgrade your character but instead ofattacking automatically or selecting attack from a menu you press a button to attack.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why not though? You had leveling up, weapon/accessory management, magic, summons, AI controlled characters had to be set up to act in different situations according to how you wanted them to. It may not have been massively deep in those regards, but you wont find most of them in DMC or Ninja Gaiden.

Well it just plays more like Ninja Gaiden, God of War, Bayonetta or DMC than an RPG. You say you can equip weapons learn magic and level up but you do those things in God of War, Ninja Gaiden and DMC. It's not handled through experience points but items you collect from enemies basically act as currency/experience that can be traded in for magic, stat bonuses and new moves to make you stronger. I actually think Kingdom Hearts stand on it's own with Ninja Gaiden and DMC because the combat is so good in the game (I found KH2 a total button masher though but then didn't play a lot of it). As for the AI characters, well that was something it had over those games but tbh I found them absolutely useless. The AI always did something stupid and they ended up dead after doing nothing for me and I'd end up beating all the bad guys myself. They were as useful as a cock flavoured lollipop no matter how I set up the AI.

We are kind of getting into what defines an RPG though which is very much a grey area Sure CoD MW2's multiplayer could even be defined as an RPG if you stretch the definition a little.

Mark Hamill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well it just plays more like Ninja Gaiden, God of War, Bayonetta or DMC than an RPG. You say you can equip weapons learn magic and level up but you do those things in God of War, Ninja Gaiden and DMC. It's not handled through experience points but items you collect from enemies basically act as currency/experience that can be traded in for magic, stat bonuses and new moves to make you stronger.

Kingdom Hearts had experience points. It even had that weird thing some rpgs have at the sort, some seemingly innocuous questions, the different answers of which would lead to a starting stat bonus in different areas.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I actually think Kingdom Hearts stand on it's own with Ninja Gaiden and DMC because the combat is so good in the game (I found KH2 a total button masher though but then didn't play a lot of it).

I cleared KH2 and I thought the general combat was ok, but the boss battles all seemed to involve quick time events which I didn't like, seemed to cheapen them somewhat.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for the AI characters, well that was something it had over those games but tbh I found them absolutely useless. The AI always did something stupid and they ended up dead after doing nothing for me and I'd end up beating all the bad guys myself. They were as useful as a cock flavoured lollipop no matter how I set up the AI.

I never had much problems with them, I always had them set up to defend and heal me, let me get on with ass kicking. They are no Shiva in resident evil 5:pac:.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

We are kind of getting into what defines an RPG though which is very much a grey area Sure CoD MW2's multiplayer could even be defined as an RPG if you stretch the definition a little.

True. I think there is enough in kingdom hearts 1, though, that it can be called a proper rpg though. Hack and slash rpg maybe, but the rpg elements are all their and all are required to clear the game. Its important for your character to grow in terms of abilities to clear the game (beyond needing an arbitrary move to open a door or something) and thats what makes an rpg, imo.

Mark Hamill

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Zelda isn't an RPG though,

If you think about it, the main gameplay difference between Zelda and God of War is that Zelda is a sandbox game. Both games have a limited number of interchangeable weapons and magic spells and you increase your hp bar and mp bar with item pick ups. In some ways, GoW is more deep than Zelda (more levelling up of weapons and abilities).

Retr0gamer

I'm not sure I could stretch the definition that far. DMC, Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta all had the same magic and experience system except presented in a different way and the combat is so far removed from general RPG conventions that I just can't call it an RPG. Sure Radiant Silvergun has leveling up through score/experience points but I'd never call it an RPG.

Retr0gamer

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you think about it, the main gameplay difference between Zelda and God of War is that Zelda is a sandbox game. Both games have a limited number of interchangeable weapons and magic spells and you increase your hp bar and mp bar with item pick ups. In some ways, GoW is more deep than Zelda (more levelling up of weapons and abilities).

Neither game could be considered an RPG though. Zelda's combat isn't as deep as God of Wars in some ways.There's not as much options in the combat but I think Zelda makes better use of the combat options it does have over god of war, with different weapons all having their uses in combat and the inventive ways you have to use them to beat them while God of War is basically a button masher.

However we are way off topic now!

NeoKubrick

Cyzrane wrote: »

Well, I said "guess" to mince words, but I'll try to be more blunt. I'm aware Square-Enix are still a business, but ruining the vision of one of your employees that might well have been your saving grace (FF XII) isn't just putting "constraints" on the developmental process; it's outright stifling innovation and replacing it with the same hackneyed junk they're so accustomed to churning out.

Regarding brand-following, I don't seek to change anyone's behaviour. If people are going to mindlessly follow sequels that's their business. What I do think people should be made more aware of, though, is how far Final Fantasy has fallen. They can follow another brand instead if they like; heck, I'd definitely advocate Persona or Shin Megami Tensei above FF any day. For all the flaws present in those games, they have far more interesting concepts at their core than any Final Fantasy I've played in recent years. Maybe they'll stagnate too, but Final Fantasy definitely has.

I'm not sure you're aware that they are a business if you're surprised a corporation is "soulless".

Has the main series of Final Fantasy stagnated? Final Fantasy X was a great game, even if it the battle design is outdated: it is probably the pinnacle of that type of RPG. I do not play MMORPGs; however one cannot argue for the failure of an online game which has had a life-span of nine years and still going strong. They didn't stifle the innovation of Final Fantasy XII; they placed constraints on the narrative and the main character specifically, but the design of the battle system is Matsuno's. Final Fantasy XII is an untraditional Final Fantasy main-series game, and despite the troubled development, the result is very good. All three were vastly different games and all succeeded in achieving what they were aiming for.

So, you're left with Final Fantasy XIII, which I haven't played, but for the sake of your weak argument, let us say it's a poor game. That doesn't justify calling a series 'stagnate' unless it replicated the others released before which it obviously didn't. To consider that the main-series of Final Fantasy isn't required to be a sequel to previous plots or battle systems, it doesn't even apply as no recurrence of the cited components precludes stagnation.

Cyzrane

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I'm not sure you're aware that they are a business if you're surprised a corporation is "soulless".

Has the main series of Final Fantasy stagnated? Final Fantasy X was a great game, even if it the battle design is outdated: it is probably the pinnacle of that type of RPG. I do not play MMORPGs; however one cannot argue for the failure of an online game which has had a life-span of nine years and still going strong. They didn't stifle the innovation of Final Fantasy XII; they placed constraints on the narrative and the main character specifically, but the design of the battle system is Matsuno's. Final Fantasy XII is an untraditional Final Fantasy main-series game, and despite the troubled development, the result is very good. All three were vastly different games and all succeeded in achieving what they were aiming for.

So, you're left with Final Fantasy XIII, which I haven't played, but for the sake of your weak argument, let us say it's a poor game. That doesn't justify calling a series 'stagnate' unless it replicated the others released before which it obviously didn't. To consider that the main-series of Final Fantasy isn't required to be a sequel to previous plots or battle systems, it doesn't even apply as no recurrence of the cited components precludes stagnation.

I think our difference in opinion comes from a difference in taste. See, the elements you cited above as being Matsuno's own in XII are elements that I really don't care for anyway in RPGs. Story comes head and shoulders above the rest, and that's the very element they placed "constraints" upon (to use your own terms, which in my opinion put it lightly). To be honest, if I wanted an enjoyable combat system I wouldn't play an RPG. But, that's a totally different matter. Suffice to say, innovations regarding the combat system or leveling up or character customisation etc. really don't matter much to me personally.

So yes, they've advanced this way and that way from X to XIII as you pointed out in your own post, but their slipshod storytelling and frankly crummy characters are degrading. I wouldn't define "stagnating" as "replicating what came before"; I prefer to think of it as "not making significant advancements". But that's a semantic argument and doesn't belong here.

On a side note, I think calling my argument "weak" without backing up the claim is a bit inconsiderate. If you do think my argument is flawed, at least tell me why.

Retr0gamer

I know I have a lot of complaints about FFXII and didn't like it but I do admire that they tried something totally new even if in my opinion it wasn't successful. I again haven't played FFXIII but whatI have heard about the 20 hour tutorial does smack of pandering to try and draw in newbies in totally the wrong way and a corporate decision.

As for the story in FFXII again I didn't like it but it is definitely a Matsuno story and has all of his signature features like the suikoden esque 'no bad guy is truky evil' and the excellent political intrigue and well thought out universe. The characters were interesting as well other than the annoying bellend pretty boy with the sunglasses which was obviously Nomura having to get in and leve a stain on the game. The only problem I see with the story was due to the troublesome development that left the story either half finished or rushed. The end came a bit too sudden and the final, eh, thing to appear came out of know where. It seemed like a way to bring the story to a conclusion quickly without protracting development.

Basically I think the development team bit off more they could chew with FFXII and if they had another year at it it would have been a better game. As it stands it's a bit rushed and the battle system I think needed some balancing to cut down on MP circling and how long each battle took. Vagrant Story had a pretty poor battle system that didn't really work but was saved by an excellent story and I think given more time FFXII could have been as well.

NeoKubrick

Cyzrane wrote: »

I think our difference in opinion comes from a difference in taste. See, the elements you cited above as being Matsuno's own in XII are elements that I really don't care for anyway in RPGs. Story comes head and shoulders above the rest, and that's the very element they placed "constraints" upon (to use your own terms, which in my opinion put it lightly). To be honest, if I wanted an enjoyable combat system I wouldn't play an RPG. But, that's a totally different matter. Suffice to say, innovations regarding the combat system or leveling up or character customisation etc. really don't matter much to me personally.

So yes, they've advanced this way and that way from X to XIII as you pointed out in your own post, but their slipshod storytelling and frankly crummy characters are degrading. I wouldn't define "stagnating" as "replicating what came before"; I prefer to think of it as "not making significant advancements". But that's a semantic argument and doesn't belong here.

On a side note, I think calling my argument "weak" without backing up the claim is a bit inconsiderate. If you do think my argument is flawed, at least tell me why.

It's not a case of a difference in taste. You claimed that the main-series of Final Fantasy had definitely stagnated. You used that word specifically, and your preference for what you think it means is irrelevant to what is explicitly means. I cited the three games before the current release: indicating how different they actually are, which would contradict your claim that the main-series had stagnated and which would make your argument weak, and all of which is in my previous post (refusing to acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

So, now, you're trying to change the topic from a critique of the games to the games' narratives. Again, Final Fantasy X, XI, and XII had different themes and narratives. Final Fantasy X was a more traditional journey-based story; Final Fantasy XI was an MMO which encouraged emergent narrative; Final Fantasy XII was partially a retelling of Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, which is a complete break from traditional JRPG.

If you wanted a mature unsentimental non-pandering narrative, you wouldn't play a computer game.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

If you wanted a mature unsentimental non-pandering narrative, you wouldn't play a Final Fantasy game.

FYP

Looks like Matsuno isback after his break down during FFXII and is reamking Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling together. I can't behappier because he's after getting the Quest team back together and they seem to be the last bit of real talent left in Sqaure.

Cyzrane

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It's not a case of a difference in taste. You claimed that the main-series of Final Fantasy had definitely stagnated. You used that word specifically, and your preference for what you think it means is irrelevant to what is explicitly means. I cited the three games before the current release: indicating how different they actually are, which would contradict your claim that the main-series had stagnated and which would make your argument weak, and all of which is in my previous post (refusing to acknowledge it doesn't mean it doesn't exist).

So, now, you're trying to change the topic from a critique of the games to the games' narratives. Again, Final Fantasy X, XI, and XII had different themes and narratives. Final Fantasy X was a more traditional journey-based story; Final Fantasy XI was an MMO which encouraged emergent narrative; Final Fantasy XII was partially a retelling of Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, which is a complete break from traditional JRPG.

If you wanted a mature unsentimental non-pandering narrative, you wouldn't play a computer game.

Alright, well, firstly then we should clear up the confusion regarding the term "stagnate". I offer this definition from The Oxford Dictionary of English: stagnate: cease developing, become inactive or dull. The closest thing to a definition you gave was:

NeoKubrick wrote: »

That doesn't justify calling a series 'stagnate' I]sic[/I unless it replicated the others released before which it obviously didn't.

From this I took it that you inferred "stagnate" to mean "replicate what came before" which is not, as you can see, in the true spirit of its definition. To cease developing does not mean complete and utter cessation, rather it could refer to a more sideways or ineffectual movement. This is the understanding of "stagnate" I used in my original post and all subsequent posts, as I believe that while the Final Fantasy series may have reinvented itself in some ways (which you nicely summarise in one of your earlier posts), they are essentially missing the mark and not contributing meaningfully to the quality of the games.

My point is, then, that no RPG should focus on its combat system as its sole point of improvement. In a genre of games where the combat is often as fun as watching paint dry, I don't see the point. It's the weak point of RPG games and, as Retr0gamer points out in his above post, some games (Vagrant Story was the one he cited, which I definitely agree with) can compensate for a poor combat system with a compelling story.

To be fair to Final Fantasy X, it wasn't so much that its premise was terribly awful; the fault of that game rests more with the characters. If you managed to like Tidus, Yuna, Lulu, Wakka (the Jar-Jar Binks of the Final Fantasy series) et al. then you might well have enjoyed the game. Some of the locations were beautiful as well (the ruined Zanarkand springs to mind immediately). The idea of slating religion is a bit tired in the JRPG genre, but it wasn't terrible here.

Final Fantasy XI I've never played because I have no desire to give my life to that soul-sucking "job-away-from-job". That's just my opinion, but I can't see that game being fun.

Final Fantasy XII was another game with great promise that fell flat on its face. The traces of a great Matsuno story are all there: from ambiguity in the villain's motives to a more mature, battle-hardened hero, it looked as though this Final Fantasy might actually have a story to tell. Then the higher-ups at Square-Enix decided to ruin the game by cramming Vaan and Penelo into it and, well, the result is obvious. Beautiful locations, archaic dialogue, interesting premise...the game had a lot going for it until the protagonist ruined it.

As for Final Fantasy XIII, well, I have no intention of giving Square-Enix any more money for sub-par products, so I haven't played it.

You say if I wanted a "mature unsentimental non-pandering narrative", I wouldn't play computer games. Well, Vagrant Story didn't pander. It put you in a world of considerable political intrigue and subterfuge, made you the only one who didn't know what was going on, and gave you an inconclusive resolution to the troubled past of the main character. The machinations of each of the characters played brilliantly off each other and the gradual revelation of the plot is very nicely paced. And Planescape:Torment has so many plot threads and complications that you need to be playing very close attention indeed. Instead of being another "killing the Big Bad" story we are instead presented with the painful self-discovery of a man who has led hundreds of lives and committed thousands of sins. Each of the party members are strongly characterised and have diverse reasons for following you. It probes questions of belief, human nature, and redemption. These are more mature narratives. Sure, they might not be on par with great novels, but when you judge them by the yardstick of most other video games, they stand well above the rest. These two games are, to me, proof that games are capable of telling more compelling stories, where laughable angst isn't the "plot device" du jour.

Anyway, I don't think that either of us is gonna give an inch on this. Should we just agree to disagree and be done with it?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Looks like Matsuno isback after his break down during FFXII and is reamking Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling together. I can't behappier because he's after getting the Quest team back together and they seem to be the last bit of real talent left in Sqaure.

Glad to hear that; maybe these last, vestigial remnants of talent can redeem Square.

Retr0gamer

Cyzrane wrote: »

My point is, then, that no RPG should focus on its combat system as its sole point of improvement. In a genre of games where the combat is often as fun as watching paint dry, I don't see the point. It's the weak point of RPG games and, as Retr0gamer points out in his above post, some games (Vagrant Story was the one he cited, which I definitely agree with) can compensate for a poor combat system with a compelling story.

Have to totally disagree here. While I did say that an RPG with a bad combat system can be saved by a good story I also think that a JRPG with a bad story can be saved by an excellent battle system. Grandia and Baten Kaitos are two good examples, poor and simplistic storylines saved by amazing battle systems.

Kiith

I dont think a good battle system would ever keep me interested in a game if it had a poor story. I know its more down to personal preference, and that the battle system is important, but the story is what will keep me playing an RPG. I think FF10 is probably the only battle system that sticks out in my mind as one that i really enjoyed, and i'm not really even sure why i enjoyed it.

I can easily overlook a bad battle system if the game has a good story and characters.

Varik

Kiith wrote: »

I dont think a good battle system would ever keep me interested in a game if it had a poor story. I know its more down to personal preference, and that the battle system is important, but the story is what will keep me playing an RPG. I think FF10 is probably the only battle system that sticks out in my mind as one that i really enjoyed, and i'm not really even sure why i enjoyed it.

I can easily overlook a bad battle system if the game has a good story and characters.

FF10 had my favourite battle system, if FF9 level and ability system was added i'd be happy. I don't like the story in FF13 but will finish it and i still haven't got past the big tower in FF12. The only reason i'm still playing 13 is to platinum it and that is not a good reason. 9 was my favourite game and i liked everything about it and have play it more than the rest combine, that being said if they add loads of steampunk stuff to 15 i'll buy it.

I do think that jrpg should stay separate from western ones and as far away as possible form eastern European games, i don't want a Bioware clone with chocobo.

Cyzrane

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Have to totally disagree here. While I did say that an RPG with a bad combat system can be saved by a good story I also think that a JRPG with a bad story can be saved by an excellent battle system. Grandia and Baten Kaitos are two good examples, poor and simplistic storylines saved by amazing battle systems.

Hehe, I thought you'd disagree about that. Sorry if it looked like I was putting words in your mouth there. I played the original Grandia and can vouch that by RPG standards it had a good combat system; but, I've never played Baten Kaitos, so I wouldn't know about that one.

Kiith wrote: »

I dont think a good battle system would ever keep me interested in a game if it had a poor story. I know its more down to personal preference, and that the battle system is important, but the story is what will keep me playing an RPG. I think FF10 is probably the only battle system that sticks out in my mind as one that i really enjoyed, and i'm not really even sure why i enjoyed it.

I can easily overlook a bad battle system if the game has a good story and characters.

My sentiments exactly.

NeoKubrick

Cyzrane wrote: »

From this I took it that you inferred "stagnate" to mean "replicate what came before" which is not, as you can see, in the true spirit of its definition.

Well, that is an erroneous inference, because that's not a definition (Read: That doesn't justify calling a series 'stagnate' unless it replicated the others released before which it obviously didn't (no recurrence of the cited components precludes stagnation.)). An analogy of your ridiculous incorrect inference is if you were to claim I defined 'rain' as "the presence of a thick layer of the atmosphere to have temperatures above the melting point of water near and above the Earth's surface" for citing the condition for 'rain' to exist. Understand the difference between a definition and a condition. For stagnation of a game series to be claimed on the basis of Final Fantasy XIII, there has to be a consistent replication of content (battle systems et cetera) previous, which there hasn't been in the main-series of Final Fantasy as I've already pointed out. Of course, it's based upon opinion of the games before the current release. Therefore, I claimed your argument was weak, not absolutely invalid.

Furthermore, you explicitly stated your preference for defining 'stagnate': "not making significant advancements". That doesn't adequately substitute for the actual definition. Strictly, to cease to develop and to become inactive or dull is exactly that, and to stretch the meaning to your preference is valid for creative writing, not debate which requires standardization.

Cyzrane wrote: »

Anyway, I don't think that either of us is gonna give an inch on this. Should we just agree to disagree and be done with it?

If you throw away the shovel, I'll help you out of that hole. I have no problem discussing Role-Playing-Games and the genre, but don't waste my time with ridiculous semantic arguments. Let's discuss something other people will be interested in.

How you can claim anything of a series if you haven't played the current release? As you once had to guess that companies are soulless profit machines, are you guessing that Final Fantasy XIII is a poor game? Why do you want to divert game designers from concentrating on creating playable games for which their strengths lie to creating stories for where their strengths don't? Are RPGs' narrative of such high quality that you're willing to play three hours of a bad combat system for every hour of enjoying a good story?

Your designation of what 'mature', 'unsentimental' and 'non-pandering' means to you is different to mine.

Cyzrane

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Well, that is an erroneous inference, because that's not a definition (Read: That doesn't justify calling a series 'stagnate' unless it replicated the others released before which it obviously didn't (no recurrence of the cited components precludes stagnation.)). An analogy of your ridiculous incorrect inference is if you were to claim I defined 'rain' as "the presence of a thick layer of the atmosphere to have temperatures above the melting point of water near and above the Earth's surface" for citing the condition for 'rain' to exist. Understand the difference between a definition and a condition. For stagnation of a game series to be claimed on the basis of Final Fantasy XIII, there has to be a consistent replication of content (battle systems et cetera) previous, which there hasn't been in the main-series of Final Fantasy as I've already pointed out. Of course, it's based upon opinion of the games before the current release. Therefore, I claimed your argument was weak, not absolutely invalid.

Furthermore, you explicitly stated your preference for defining 'stagnate': "not making significant advancements". That doesn't adequately substitute for the actual definition. Strictly, to cease to develop and to become inactive or dull is exactly that, and to stretch the meaning to your preference is valid for creative writing, not debate which requires standardization.

If you throw away the shovel, I'll help you out of that hole. I have no problem discussing Role-Playing-Games and the genre, but don't waste my time with ridiculous semantic arguments. Let's discuss something other people will be interested in.

How you can claim anything of a series if you haven't played the current release? As you once had to guess that companies are soulless profit machines, are you guessing that Final Fantasy XIII is a poor game? Why do you want to divert game designers from concentrating on creating playable games for which their strengths lie to creating stories for where their strengths don't? Are RPGs' narrative of such high quality that you're willing to play three hours of a bad combat system for every hour of enjoying a good story?

Your designation of what 'mature', 'unsentimental' and 'non-pandering' means to you is different to mine.

I would think that, by now, we're both sick of bickering over the term "stagnate" (by the way, I'd like to point out that the adjective is "stagnant"; a thing stagnates, and in so doing becomes stagnant). You can attack my understanding of the term as much as you please, but at the end of the day my point was always, and continues to be, that Final Fantasy has fallen from grace as a series and should be terminated. To link back to the original topic of this thread, my opinion was basically: "there is no saving Final Fantasy; it's beyond redemption". I'm sorry if I didn't word it correctly.

You said: "If you throw away the shovel, I'll help you out of that hole. I have no problem discussing Role-Playing-Games and the genre, but don't waste my time with ridiculous semantic arguments". I think you misconstrued what I said as a concession of defeat: it wasn't. You haven't convinced me that the Final Fantasy series is worth saving. In any case, I don't believe that was ever your intention; you wanted to assert an intellectual superiority over me. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I do think your objective wasn't to convince me of the worthiness of the Final Fantasy series, but rather you were trying to convince me of some profound stupidity that you perceive in me. The reason I called for a peaceful cessation to this "debate" is because it is beginning to look very much like a battle of egos between you and me, not because I think I'm "in a hole" and desperately need your help to escape it.

Finally, your last paragraph is ridiculous. I've been a fan of Final Fantasy for a long time and I've played every iteration besides XI and XIII (which I didn't play because: FFXI an MMORPG, which I don't like on principle, and XIII received terrible reviews). To claim that I'm not in a position to comment on the series because of that is simply asinine.

I'd like to think this all began cordially, but either due to your aggressive method of "discussion" or your infuriatingly self-rightious conviction that you are far smarter than I am (heck, if you are I have no problem with that, but there's no need to take a condescending tone with me, as you have) this "debate" has soured somewhat for me.

I apologise for my own unpleasantness, and for derailing the original topic of this thread. NeoKubrick, I'm sure we'll discuss something again on these forums, and I hope that when we do it will be on better, more pleasant, terms. I hold no personal grudge against you, in case you might think from the above post that I do. Now, all that said, people really should get back to Fo Real's initial suggestions on how to save the Final Fantasy series.

CodeMonkey

NeoKubrick might be a little pedantic here with Cyzrane's use of the word "stagnate" to describe FF but he is essentially correct. The newer FF games are not stagnate, they are just not to everyone's tastes because it's actually trying out new things that didn't work as well as the developers wanted. The fix as listed by Cyzrane is just telling square to remake the older games in the series.

Lahinchians

Wow guys that was some read :eek:

In my opinion, to reboot the series they need to employ some new creative writers. The stories in the last few games I've played haven't given me that same obsession like need to play through the game, and because of this I haven't finished them. The only way i could get through FF10 was through sheer will which I have simply lost now as I can't push myself to finish FF12. If they aren't going to do this then maybe they could borrow elements from an already successful fantasy novel.

I would totally love to see the world map reintroduced as the sense of freedom it gave was incredible, and as Fo Real said in the original post, they have gotten very linear. I'm not sure if they're doing this in an attempt to become more realistic, or whether they've seen the huge popularity of the MMORPG genre and are jumping on board whole heartedly and in the process creating an offline MMORPG. Whichever it is that they want to head for they need to make their minds up a bit.

The battle system I'd say need some kind of step back. I havn't played FF13 so can't comment in depth on it, but from what I've seen of it it's unnecessarily complicated. I think a step backwards would be the best option here, look at the older games with good battle systems, and even at other developers battle systems. They, in my opinion, should simplify and bring us back the fun for even the smallest battle. That sense of achievement and progress you get from beating some of the tougher monsters has been lost as the series has progressed. Not bosses now, they will allways give you that sense of achivement. Unless they're the final boss in FF10. Yu Yevon was shocking as a final boss.

About the Final Fantasy series stagnating, I don't really agree with that. I feel it is making progress, albeit in the wrong direction. I feel that Square have really given the middle finger to all the old fanbase and have instead decided to grab a new audience. In their process of doing this they've seen that a huge number of people have been sucked into the MMO market and so are now releasing offline MMORPGs with the odd proper MMORPG ala. FF11 n the upcomming FF14.

I havn't bought FF13 and I probably won't, and I do have to agree with Cyzrane that there really is no hope for final fantasy any more. Unless they have a huge restructuring and major rehash of their ideas and implementation of those ideas, we all may as well confine final fastasy to the bin where it can stay for the foreseeable future.

Now back to the debate on the definition of stagnate

Fo Real

The developers have made the game in a linear fashion so as not to break the pretence that you are watching an interactive movie. Metal Gear Solid 2 was the first of these movie-games where you spend just as much time watching it as you do playing. FFXIII took it to ridiculous levels with a cut-scene every 20 seconds. Unfortunately I see these type of games cropping up more often as developers pander more and more to the casual gamer.

Cut-scenes used to be a treat, used for game endings or to emphasize a major turning point in a game. Now they are a cancer suffocating gameplay.

Lahinchians

Fo Real wrote: »

The developers have made the game in a linear fashion so as not to break the pretence that you are watching an interactive movie. Metal Gear Solid 2 was the first of these movie-games where you spend just as much time watching it as you do playing. FFXIII took it to ridiculous levels with a cut-scene every 20 seconds. Unfortunately I see these type of games cropping up more often as developers pander more and more to the casual gamer.

Cut-scenes used to be a treat, used for game endings or to emphasize a major turning point in a game. Now they are a cancer suffocating gameplay.

I'm not sure if linearity in level design is supposed to give the impression of an interactive movie. I don't get that from it anyway.

I do agree about cut-scenes though, I think a cut-scene here and there at pivotal moments in the story are perfect, not every 20 seconds as you said in FF13. (i get that that's an exaggeration btw unless it's not in which case SE should stop making games)

Retr0gamer

I'm not sure they should start making movies either. Even stuff like FFVII in film or TV form would get rightfully laughed at for being poor. Too many cutscenes can really kill a game like MGS2 and MGS4 (some awful writing and storydidn't help them either). They really need to be reigned back, it's an interactive game afterall! MGS3 was so beloved because of the lack of useless exposition and the whole game flowed so much better.

Lemegeton

i dont believe the series can be saved under the current FF team and Square Enix. our beloved FF games were made by squaresoft which was a very different company from what he have today. as much as i love the series i doubt it will ever reach the highs of the first 9 games ever again and i agree with all your suggestions i just dont see it happening under square enix

Aurongroove

the thing the new final fantasies are missing is soul.

I don't mean to sound like a wack-job, but the reason people we're disappointed with FFXII and XIII wasn't because of anything to do with systems, character development, or mistakes, equipment etc, it was the lack of soul.

VII, VIII & IX were rife with mistakes, but the beautiful polish which glided over the cracks, was the not the story, no, (please, the stories were all **** with maybe the exception of VII).
it was the characters, their personalities, or rather the fact they had personalities, and if by accident one of two people as the series went on didnt have personalities, then they were the ones with no personality (Vincent, Edea, Beatrix) .

my top 10 personalities FFXII
Balthier
Fran
Cid
the old dude the judge kills
Vayne's younger brother
Judge Drace (for some reason, I liked her go get 'em attitude)
cant remember anyone else...

Top 10 personalities if FFXIII
Bhakti
Sazh
Lebreau
can't remember anyone else. Snow's mum maybe...


as you can see, It's a complete joke.

denballs

Fo Real wrote: »

To get the Final Fantasy series back on track, upcoming games will need to include the following elements:

• Anime style characters: FF 1-6 used anime sprites to represent the characters as the developers were limited by the technology available. Then FF7 came along with beautiful (albeit blocky) 3D anime characters. Big heads, big eyes and big swords. Then for some reason Square decided to use more "realistic" human characters for FF8 and every sequel since (except for FF9 which reverted to classic FF characters types). We love the colourful and cartoonish anime style! Bring 'em back!
• No it should be as realistic as possible its rpg not south park.

• World map: A fully 3D world map which can be explored at the player's leisure. This has been lacking from FF10 onwards, instead being replaced with linear tunnels. I will never forget the awe I felt riding the chocobo around the 3D world map on FF6 on the SNES. Amazing!
• perhaps some sort of compromise or choice in settings for this

• Non-playable characters: One element which makes classic RPGs so great are the NPCs. You would chat to the folk around town who would occasionally give clues as to where a secret item could be found or what to do next if you were lost. Some would just have a witty line to say. Make sure not to over-do it though. I remember one of the first cities in FF12 had way to many NPCs clogging up the streets with nothing of interest at all to say.
• with good real voices and intersting characters this is good

• Levelling up: I want my character to increase from level 1 to 2, then to 3 etc. getting stronger in various abilites as they grow. Scrap that bloddy crystarium system of FF13.
• yes this is the main reason i like ff......constant progress achievment
  

• Battle-system: battles should be turn-based. The live action battles of FF12 were an epic fail. Characters should each be ble to use magic and summons as well as weapon attacks. FF13 paradigm system was frustratingly bad. The game played itself with little player input.
• yes old way is best.....

Probrem officer?

I THINK THEY SHOULD JUST RE MAKE 1-9 FOR THE PS3 AND XBOX TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY.....WITH SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT STORYLINES.....MAYBE A WHAT IF THIS DIDNT HAPPEN AND CLOUD TOOK A DIFFERENT PATH TROUGH THE STORY.......same characters and game mechanics but new and interesting story/content and modern graphics/sound etc.......and online story play were say one person is cloud and another baron etc making up a team and that team can schedle when to play and if a person isnt on then the cpu takes their place

Retr0gamer

I think Matsuno deserves another shot at the FF series. He's brought out consistently brilliant games with excellent storylines with great universes and political intrigue. I've heard on a podcast FFXII was maybe the first third and final 5% of Matsuno's original vision for the story. Pity he had that break down.

pablomakaveli

Aurongroove wrote: »

the thing the new final fantasies are missing is soul.

I don't mean to sound like a wack-job, but the reason people we're disappointed with FFXII and XIII wasn't because of anything to do with systems, character development, or mistakes, equipment etc, it was the lack of soul.

VII, VIII & IX were rife with mistakes, but the beautiful polish which glided over the cracks, was the not the story, no, (please, the stories were all **** with maybe the exception of VII).
it was the characters, their personalities, or rather the fact they had personalities, and if by accident one of two people as the series went on didnt have personalities, then they were the ones with no personality (Vincent, Edea, Beatrix) .

my top 10 personalities FFXII
Balthier
Fran
Cid
the old dude the judge kills
Vayne's younger brother
Judge Drace (for some reason, I liked her go get 'em attitude)
cant remember anyone else...

Top 10 personalities if FFXIII
Bhakti
Sazh
Lebreau
can't remember anyone else. Snow's mum maybe...


as you can see, It's a complete joke.

It definitely felt like FF12 and 13 were lacking that spark that the older FF games had. A lot of the characters that were in those games just don't stand out like the old characters.

Vaan from FF12 just seemed like another version of Tidus from FF10 with Hope from FF 13 just a younger version of Vaan. The other characters in FF12 & 13 (particularily 13) are'nt memorable or distinct. I suppose the design of the current FF characters makes them all look too similiar as well.

Compare that to the characters from the old FF games who always looked distinct and were just as distinct in personality as well. These were the type of characters a player would be able to grow fond of while it's hard to give a crap about the current characters and their storylines.

Mario007

I think people are missing the basic most important thing here with regard to FF. Final Fantasy is a series of standalone titles that each offer different gameplay, graphics, music, plot, premise, characters and lore.
That is why any talk of the FF series stagnating is quite silly. If anything FF is progressing and exploring new ways, gameplay and worlds. I mean when FF 1 came out those 20 years ago probably no one could have even dreamt that there will an FF that will be linear and focus on character development and struggles rather than on free roaming and saving the world. Yet here we are.
Personally this is what I love about the series. Every title is different and offers something new. You can't actually come to an FF game comparing it with previous titles, because there are so many differences between each title.
This is actually shown by the people here stating that FF should go back to its 'roots'. This, in my opinion, is ridiculous. These people basically liked a few FF games and thus assume that all FF games are the same and should be made the same, reliving what they've already played again and again.

And with regards to the FF13 hate, that happens with just about every FF game. When FF6 came out people complained that it was too futuristic, with FF4 people complained about too much concentration on character development as opposed to the previous 3 titles, when FF8 came out people hated the new junction system, when FF9 was out people complained about going back to the roots of the series, FF10 was too linear, FF12 too open worlded and FF 13 yet again too linear. But this complaining is only natural as it always concerned people hating something new in the series, thinking that the series should just copy everything from the previous game.

denballs

the difference between modern and original style characters is that you pretty much made up who they were and why you liked them yourself in the old games ...........we never got much info on who the characters were before the game starts ...with the exception of a few short video clips in vii and vi that i can remember of cloud and edgar.........if you thought somone was noble or strong because that was the way you played the character then they were......you filled in the gaps.........in the modern games you have to follow a story that fills in the pieces of exactly who the characters are and it can show things that show he/she is not the character you want them to be and this sort of ruins the RPG part of the game........if in future games they want to tell more of the story of a character then they should leave it up to the player to make that story........like how they let you change the characters name........somone should ask things like what is your occupation and with characters whos occupation isnt set out {like we all know cloud was no fisherman} you should have say 10 choices such as assassin-thief-cook-pirate-cobbler...........and by giving this information you could create a profile viewable in menu {maybe in status}......and this could affect your abilities such as if there was equipmeant damage then somone who was a metal worker could repair items more cheaply.......and an assassin could gain more agility or somthing every lv up..........this wouldnt be like in FFI with the class selection were there are red black and white mages and warriors and thieves........it would be different as there could be 100,s of different questions that random people could ask you that would build up characters information and skills.......

Lahinchians

denballs wrote: »

the difference between modern and original style characters is that you pretty much made up who they were and why you liked them yourself in the old games ...........we never got much info on who the characters were before the game starts ...with the exception of a few short video clips in vii and vi that i can remember of cloud and edgar.........if you thought somone was noble or strong because that was the way you played the character then they were......you filled in the gaps.........in the modern games you have to follow a story that fills in the pieces of exactly who the characters are and it can show things that show he/she is not the character you want them to be and this sort of ruins the RPG part of the game........if in future games they want to tell more of the story of a character then they should leave it up to the player to make that story........like how they let you change the characters name........somone should ask things like what is your occupation and with characters whos occupation isnt set out {like we all know cloud was no fisherman} you should have say 10 choices such as assassin-thief-cook-pirate-cobbler...........and by giving this information you could create a profile viewable in menu {maybe in status}......and this could affect your abilities such as if there was equipmeant damage then somone who was a metal worker could repair items more cheaply.......and an assassin could gain more agility or somthing every lv up..........this wouldnt be like in FFI with the class selection were there are red black and white mages and warriors and thieves........it would be different as there could be 100,s of different questions that random people could ask you that would build up characters information and skills.......

That's a great idea, you should contact SE

CodeMonkey

denballs, maybe you should try out the FF mmorpgs.

seraphimvc

the idea of fixing up the FF series under this Square enix hurts me head - it is just simply impossible with the company management going on now in square enix. DQ series(the most conservative/traditional jrpg) on the other hand actually has showed it has more evolve potential - judging by their DQ9.

the problem of the FF series since X is that they really need to stop treating FF as a sole product. i know what i said probably is laughable but really tho, for those of us who truly love FF and proud of ourselves as FF lovers (for me are FF4-X), old FFs are something more than a general consumer product.

for example,Nobuo's music. i was playing Lost Odysey the other day and i realised how beautifully the music blend in with the story and scenes - Nobuo actually play and design the music specically for the scenes in game, eg the theme song fades away and follwed by the scene fades.

RPG is about getting the player immersed into the game, involved player to the story - how did the old FFs did that?? and how they did them so well. None of the old FFs is flawless or perfect, but really they are some well done works by the team behind.there are laugh and tears with every old FFs - that i was actually touched by the game. even for the bad one, like everytime when i think back of ff8's story i get a headache. but hey,guess what,i replay FF8 for at least 3 times :pac: ff12 and ff13?only once.

ff12 was a half-product(judging by its development drama),i like some of it,dislike some of it. i played more than 120hours i think,gave up on the last Yazmat mission.Fran,Basch and Baltheir surely are the main reasons to keep me going.

ff13,god,i hate it.(again,Snow,Hope,Vanille MUST die!!!) well,i can go easy on Vanille if we get a proper lesbo ending for her and the (awful) australian accent girl :pac: total play time? 60hours.such. a. shame.

old FFs feel like a big epic story book, i am not sure if it was Sakagushi who made that happen, i just feel like the design team leader managed to pull the team together and design the game/story like it is written by one person. the flow of the story may not be perfect all the time, but it works. i can remember too many unforgetable moments from ff4 - X. new FF? FF12 - capital city, mines area,a few summons. ff13 - only annoying characters, plus the lesbo thingy:pac:.

feel like a rant now rather than 'how to fix FF' lol

ye,the new FFs are just lacking real FF soul. maybe it is because of the high gaming development budget nowadays screw up the design team. maybe it is really because of the lack of heart of the design team. maybe it is because Sakagushi and Nobuo werent there anymore.

but one thing i am sure tho - i need to get over with my once beloved FF series. My FF is dead about 10years along with FFX.

BigBenRoeth

One thing needs to be done with FF-bring it back to the type of gameplay from final fantasy 1-7.

Aurongroove

I also think there's a lot to be said about "reading" a story instead of watching one.

Reading leaves an entire sense (the visual) up to your own imagination, and as any decent story writer knows, the more the reader imagines the better the story gets. everything you're directly presented will need to be pristinely good to be a match for the human imagination.

with voices, unless they're PERFECT, graphics too: we all knew that with the older games when people are angry they don't actually turn red and leap, the character "actions" were vagues visual clues as to what's going on, and we would read their words and apply the emotive cue "angry" and smile at the little person we know know to be angry.

Now characters are speaking clearly, and moving precise facial muscles, the imagination has to do nothing, and instead we watch "OK" voice actors speak through "nearly there" facial expressions.

in 8/16bit it was expected things were a dodgy representation of what was going on, we read the lines, saw the gigantic question mark or exclamation mark over their heads, and we joined the dots ourselves; in pristine high quality imagination, no less. now we're fed "graphic" versions; low quality by comparison and incompatible to our own inbuilt sound and graphic engines.

its' the same with how a charming musical box or midi file can make a person smile, where as a "nearly great" real world symphony, can sound heartless and crap

carbonkid

Aurongroove wrote: »

Now characters are speaking clearly, and moving precise facial muscles, the imagination has to do nothing, and instead we watch "OK" voice actors speak through "nearly there" facial expressions.

Same idea was going through my head, cause you dont use your own imagination anymore you also dont feel as part of the story, more of an outsider looking in. This might be what someone else was saying earlier i think about there not been any spirit to the new games. Personally i'd love it if Hironobu Sakaguchi and Hiroyuki Ito jumped back in for a final game like they did with FFIX.

Although saying that FFX was kickass and had great graphics lol. I dont think there is any saving FF because most of the great creators that made FF great are all gone.

PJTierney

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

One thing needs to be done with FF-bring it back to the type of gameplay from final fantasy 1-7.

I'd like to see an FF6 HD remake actually, but in terms of gameplay FFX pretty much nailed it.

Lantus

It's hard to believe that the entire FF franchise was made as a last ditch effort by a company dying on it's a**e.

Anyway, I've been thinking on this recently and I think one of the biggest problems is that they have tried to keep up graphically with other games and ditch the written word in game text speach bubbles. This has several major problems with it.

Even on todays consoles there's a limitation as to how much you can store. Also, to get anywhere near the amount of readable text say in FF6, 7 or 8 as speach you'd need a stupendious budget, more discs and an army of voice extra's just to get you some nice npc content.

By trying to keep up with this graphical pressure to perform they have shot themselves in the foot in many ways as they have had to dilute what they do in terms of story and just that overall feel.

Take the most emotional FF game ever made in most people's opinion (FFVII) which didn't have a single spoken work in it. STill made thousands of people laugh, feel angry, sad and even cry....

So yes, they need to put the halts on this graphical showboating and take a few steps back so that the story content always takes first place. I would even say get rid of the spoken word and go back to written text only. Make huge adventures with leveling up, collectibles, exploration with maps and a sense of purpose.

One of the things that made FFXIII so bad was that it was a such a lonley experience. There were almost no NPC's anywhere and almost none you could interact with. gran pulse was empty (easy to dev I suppose.) most of coccon was non interactive as well. it was souless.

Come on SE, you can do this and you can still make a profit!

The FF series has been in dire trouble since 12 with 10 being the last (and actually very good outing.) as 14 approaches we have a very large company riding it's reputation in the belief it can do no wrong. But when you turn your back on the thousands of people that put you where are today you start down a very dangerous road, one you may not survive.