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.