thoughthaver
Chain Chomp
some people just want endless praise and don't like being told that ff isn't the series it once wasWhere are you seeing people hate Final Fantasy?
some people just want endless praise and don't like being told that ff isn't the series it once wasWhere are you seeing people hate Final Fantasy?
‘Hate’ seems like hyperbole, much of the discussion has centred around FF’s gradual changes over the years, with some fans now lapsed, others happy to follow it wherever it goes, and others taking it on an entry by entry basis. I’ve found the conversation fairly interesting, always happy to talk about FF, although I’m not overly interested in making predictions based on sales. Seems like it’s done OK. Honestly I wish the series well, it’s not for me any more but that’s OK, Square still make tons of rpgs that are exactly what I want.I really don’t understand the hate for Final Fantasy on this board. This thread is on its way to a thousand posts and it’s about a game that is not/probably will never be on a Nintendo system. Are people still pissed about Square choosing Sony back in the 90’s? No other non-Nintendo game has ever produced as much vitriol as FFXVI on this board. I truly don’t get it.
I love Final Fantasy and many of my favorite FF games were released after Square decided to ditch Nintendo. However, I do not like the direction the mainline series has taken as it continues to try and align itself with a PlayStation brand that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in Japan, which is really exemplified in the choices made with FF16.I really don’t understand the hate for Final Fantasy on this board. This thread is on its way to a thousand posts and it’s about a game that is not/probably will never be on a Nintendo system. Are people still pissed about Square choosing Sony back in the 90’s? No other non-Nintendo game has ever produced as much vitriol as FFXVI on this board. I truly don’t get it.
make it optional multiplayer and you have DQ9 or FF15 ComradesWhat I don't get, they keep wildly grasping so many different styles all at once. When, if they actually want the west to be enthralled, and cater to Japanese gamers. It really is looking at them square in the face. Go back to the original final fantasy game, and build from there.
Imagine a game opens up, and you get to customize not just 1 character, but 4. And actively change their class between a few archetypes. Fighter, Red Mage, white mage, blue mage, monk, and thief. And you get to just completely make your party whatever you want, and name them.
Then the game opens up into a rad cutscene of these four warriors going to town on some goblins. The game cuts to gameplay. Now, this game could be action, or turn based, and something in between like FF7. That really doesnt matter.
Because when you get out of that tutorial.... You have no idea of an objective, but you see a castle shortly in the distance. You can choose to go to it, or not. But the story is in the hands of a player.
Does that sound familiar? That's basically Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, Skyrim, ect. Basically the exact same of catalyst as those games, of going back to what used to make games so great. Discovery, improvisation, curiosity, intrigue. And it wouldn't be a complete ripoff, as long as it stuck to the series roots.
Final Fantasy, weirdly enough, always feels ashamed of its legacy, besides FF6 and FF7. If they went back to FF's roots, and did it well, they would have a smash hit.
that sounds great. FF1 is the most ff I've played, and the series already had such charecter then. i know ive said this 100 times now but romancing saga 3 is kinda this.What I don't get, they keep wildly grasping so many different styles all at once. When, if they actually want the west to be enthralled, and cater to Japanese gamers. It really is looking at them square in the face. Go back to the original final fantasy game, and build from there.
Imagine a game opens up, and you get to customize not just 1 character, but 4. And actively change their class between a few archetypes. Fighter, Red Mage, white mage, blue mage, monk, and thief. And you get to just completely make your party whatever you want, and name them.
Then the game opens up into a rad cutscene of these four warriors going to town on some goblins. The game cuts to gameplay. Now, this game could be action, or turn based, and something in between like FF7. That really doesnt matter.
Because when you get out of that tutorial.... You have no idea of an objective, but you see a castle shortly in the distance. You can choose to go to it, or not. But the story is in the hands of a player.
Does that sound familiar? That's basically Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, Skyrim, ect. Basically the exact same of catalyst as those games, of going back to what used to make games so great. Discovery, improvisation, curiosity, intrigue. And it wouldn't be a complete ripoff, as long as it stuck to the series roots.
Final Fantasy, weirdly enough, always feels ashamed of its legacy, besides FF6 and FF7. If they went back to FF's roots, and did it well, they would have a smash hit.
This is why I was so disappointed when Stranger of Paradise was announced. There were rumors beforehand that we were getting a Souls-like based on the original Final Fantasy, and that idea had such strong potential. An emphasis on setting and atmosphere over long-winded cutscenes, a highly customizable character/party, a vast world to discover, and on top of that if they had taken inspiration from Amano's original artwork for the visuals it could have been gorgeous and incredibly distinctive. Instead we got a ridiculous aesthetic that looks like a bunch of old men's idea of what modern teenagers think is cool, and absolutely wretched story and dialogue. I've heard some good things about the gameplay, but everything else about the game was so off-putting that I never had any interest. Still strikes me as enormous wasted potential.What I don't get, they keep wildly grasping so many different styles all at once. When, if they actually want the west to be enthralled, and cater to Japanese gamers. It really is looking at them square in the face. Go back to the original final fantasy game, and build from there.
Imagine a game opens up, and you get to customize not just 1 character, but 4. And actively change their class between a few archetypes. Fighter, Red Mage, white mage, blue mage, monk, and thief. And you get to just completely make your party whatever you want, and name them.
Then the game opens up into a rad cutscene of these four warriors going to town on some goblins. The game cuts to gameplay. Now, this game could be action, or turn based, and something in between like FF7. That really doesnt matter.
Because when you get out of that tutorial.... You have no idea of an objective, but you see a castle shortly in the distance. You can choose to go to it, or not. But the story is in the hands of a player.
Does that sound familiar? That's basically Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, Skyrim, ect. Basically the exact same of catalyst as those games, of going back to what used to make games so great. Discovery, improvisation, curiosity, intrigue. And it wouldn't be a complete ripoff, as long as it stuck to the series roots.
Final Fantasy, weirdly enough, always feels ashamed of its legacy, besides FF6 and FF7. If they went back to FF's roots, and did it well, they would have a smash hit.
Yup Final Fantasy brand not same anymore likes before. If Square Enix didn't put mainline FF in a Switch 2, FF brand will be downtrend furtherActing like the "hate" this game is getting is due to this being a Nintendo board is hilarious when you look at the multiple locked threads and incessant trolling on Era. I guess they really are bigger Nintendo fans than we are.
Current PS5 already around 40m, not to far from PS4 50m but FF16 sold quite drastically lower than FF15 when they launched respectivelyFWIW, regarding being limited by one system that's had supply issues: PS5 is still well ahead of where PS1, PS2, and PS3 were when they got VII, X, and XIII respectively. XV did arrive when PS4 was around 50m, though.
lol noYup Final Fantasy brand not same anymore likes before. If Square Enix didn't put mainline FF in a Switch 2, FF brand will be downtrend further
Lol yeslol no
I'm pretty sure it'll be fine honestly. It's selling really well in the west and will pick up steam once it drops on PC.Yup Final Fantasy brand not same anymore likes before. If Square Enix didn't put mainline FF in a Switch 2, FF brand will be downtrend further
My guess at this point.....
Rest of 2023:
- Gamescom (August) Nintendo privately shows off new dev kits
- August/September: Expected leaks come out about Nintendo's next hardware
- September Direct is a general direct and still focuses on Switch hardware; nearly all first party titles shown will be dated before H2 2024
- October: Price drop announced (around 15-20% drop in price for all models)
2024:
- February Direct another general direct, but only new software shown are download-only shadow drops and DLC the rest is more info on already announced games
- May: NIntendo confirms they will be announcing new hardware soon
- New Hardware is announced shortly before June Direct
- June Direct a mix of final Switch announcements and New Hardware showcase
- September Direct focuses entirely on software for the new hardware
- November release
The difference: the series you mentioned where never beloved for their story. FF is. Not the first one, but say 4 onwards. And you just can't make a compelling story to the degree of a FF6 or 7 or 9 or 10 (I know I is controversial) with that approach.What I don't get, they keep wildly grasping so many different styles all at once. When, if they actually want the west to be enthralled, and cater to Japanese gamers. It really is looking at them square in the face. Go back to the original final fantasy game, and build from there.
Imagine a game opens up, and you get to customize not just 1 character, but 4. And actively change their class between a few archetypes. Fighter, Red Mage, white mage, blue mage, monk, and thief. And you get to just completely make your party whatever you want, and name them.
Then the game opens up into a rad cutscene of these four warriors going to town on some goblins. The game cuts to gameplay. Now, this game could be action, or turn based, and something in between like FF7. That really doesnt matter.
Because when you get out of that tutorial.... You have no idea of an objective, but you see a castle shortly in the distance. You can choose to go to it, or not. But the story is in the hands of a player.
Does that sound familiar? That's basically Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, Skyrim, ect. Basically the exact same of catalyst as those games, of going back to what used to make games so great. Discovery, improvisation, curiosity, intrigue. And it wouldn't be a complete ripoff, as long as it stuck to the series roots.
Final Fantasy, weirdly enough, always feels ashamed of its legacy, besides FF6 and FF7. If they went back to FF's roots, and did it well, they would have a smash hit.
Yeah, I'm far from a Final Fantasy purist so I'm actually pretty excited to play it myself once Sony puts out a smaller PS5 (or SE brings it to other platforms). All of my posts about the game itself have been pretty positive but that has no bearing on what I think about the game's commercial performance. We have numbers that we can compare to each other and people are simply going to react to that. We can still change our assessment of the game later down the line when we have a more complete picture of its reception.I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm a fair weather FF fan, I like some games in the series, some aren't my thing. I'd like to try 16 when it hits PC, it looks good. Definitely don't care if it hits Nintendo or not, even if I'm not willing to spring for a PS5 to play it. I don't know if Square is disappointed with these numbers, per se, but it doesn't feel like the brand has expanded in the way they probably hoped. Maybe the legs will surprise me, I hope so because I feel like if this game underperforms we're gonna get more weird experiments that will dilute the brand more.
Now, back to waiting for the FF Pixel Remasters to go on sale.
Kind of agree. Switch 2 as saviour for the franchise sounds bizarre to me. We don't know how successful Switch 2 will be. I feel FF has an identity problem that must be adressed first.lol no
The difference: the series you mentioned where never beloved for their story. FF is. Not the first one, but say 4 onwards. And you just can't make a compelling story to the degree of a FF6 or 7 or 9 or 10 (I know I is controversial) with that approach.
I think this post is both insightful and missing the point at the same time.This is kind of the problem.
In delivering story-focused, cinematic narratives even back on the SNES, they were actually way ahead of the curve. But the benchmark now is Witcher 3 or The Last of Us or Disco Elysium. Games have, in general, advanced in how they tell their stories. Look at the shift God of War took.
Final Fantasy simply has not kept pace (and neither has most of its peers - certainly this also applies to Xenoblade Chronicles). The presentation is at the level of a Saturday morning cartoon.
I'm aware that a lot of people kind of love that, and they really enjoy the sort of cheesiness of these games in general. But I feel like they're a minority, and that the more successful narrative games of this era (which is what Final Fantasy endeavours to be) don't rely on that factor. In fact they seem to want to avoid it.
It is an active detriment to your game to have a story that is front and centre that most players can't take seriously. Having long cut scenes that make players cringe is bad, actually.
So Final Fantasy 16 appears to have been an attempt to fix that, to be something modern audiences can take seriously. For me, it's a huge miss. The cringe factor is in full effect, except it's coupled with some really funny direct lifts from a popular fantasy series in another medium. Time will tell if that's just me or if the mass market also feels that the storytelling is at a significantly lesser level than the big Sony exclusives. We can be certain that the battle system is no longer a barrier to entry at least.
To circle back to the point though: If 16 is Square's absolutely best effort to make a cinematic game to compete against Sony's best, and if it fails to resonate on the same level as those games, then it makes sense for Square to try a less cutscene-heavy direction.
That doesn't mean full sandbox. Square's own Automata has an open(ish) world, short and infrequent cutscenes, and it's still a game that is heavily reliant on story. The difference is that the story is told while the player is still in control. Nier doesn't present its story in a more sophisticated manner than Final Fantasy, but it seems to treat its audience with more respect, allows them to make their own connections, and on at least one occasion, presents the player with a choice that forces them to really think about the game's themes. It does more with less. I think the humorous tone helps as well - you don't have to be self-serious to tell a bleak story or to play with heavy themes. And it makes less subtle or sophisticated elements seem less jarring.
That's just one example. Games like Disco Elysium are full choice and consequence - despite the main character being well defined rather than a blank slate. The Valve games have the story playing out around you but you're always in control of your character. Souls games impart a feel and emotion though their world and gameplay systems. And it's not right to downplay a game like Zelda where the adventure is experienced through playing it out, giving a thin narrative much more meat.
This is kind of the problem.
In delivering story-focused, cinematic narratives even back on the SNES, they were actually way ahead of the curve. But the benchmark now is Witcher 3 or The Last of Us or Disco Elysium. Games have, in general, advanced in how they tell their stories. Look at the shift God of War took.
Final Fantasy simply has not kept pace (and neither has most of its peers - certainly this also applies to Xenoblade Chronicles). The presentation is at the level of a Saturday morning cartoon.
I'm aware that a lot of people kind of love that, and they really enjoy the sort of cheesiness of these games in general. But I feel like they're a minority, and that the more successful narrative games of this era (which is what Final Fantasy endeavours to be) don't rely on that factor. In fact they seem to want to avoid it.
It is an active detriment to your game to have a story that is front and centre that most players can't take seriously. Having long cut scenes that make players cringe is bad, actually.
So Final Fantasy 16 appears to have been an attempt to fix that, to be something modern audiences can take seriously. For me, it's a huge miss. The cringe factor is in full effect, except it's coupled with some really funny direct lifts from a popular fantasy series in another medium. Time will tell if that's just me or if the mass market also feels that the storytelling is at a significantly lesser level than the big Sony exclusives. We can be certain that the battle system is no longer a barrier to entry at least.
To circle back to the point though: If 16 is Square's absolutely best effort to make a cinematic game to compete against Sony's best, and if it fails to resonate on the same level as those games, then it makes sense for Square to try a less cutscene-heavy direction.
That doesn't mean full sandbox. Square's own Automata has an open(ish) world, short and infrequent cutscenes, and it's still a game that is heavily reliant on story. The difference is that the story is told while the player is still in control. Nier doesn't present its story in a more sophisticated manner than Final Fantasy, but it seems to treat its audience with more respect, allows them to make their own connections, and on at least one occasion, presents the player with a choice that forces them to really think about the game's themes. It does more with less. I think the humorous tone helps as well - you don't have to be self-serious to tell a bleak story or to play with heavy themes. And it makes less subtle or sophisticated elements seem less jarring.
That's just one example. Games like Disco Elysium are full choice and consequence - despite the main character being well defined rather than a blank slate. The Valve games have the story playing out around you but you're always in control of your character. Souls games impart a feel and emotion though their world and gameplay systems. And it's not right to downplay a game like Zelda where the adventure is experienced through playing it out, giving a thin narrative much more meat.
I think this + a more stylized "anime" art-style is their best bet going forward.What I don't get, they keep wildly grasping so many different styles all at once. When, if they actually want the west to be enthralled, and cater to Japanese gamers. It really is looking at them square in the face. Go back to the original final fantasy game, and build from there.
Imagine a game opens up, and you get to customize not just 1 character, but 4. And actively change their class between a few archetypes. Fighter, Red Mage, white mage, blue mage, monk, and thief. And you get to just completely make your party whatever you want, and name them.
Then the game opens up into a rad cutscene of these four warriors going to town on some goblins. The game cuts to gameplay. Now, this game could be action, or turn based, and something in between like FF7. That really doesnt matter.
Because when you get out of that tutorial.... You have no idea of an objective, but you see a castle shortly in the distance. You can choose to go to it, or not. But the story is in the hands of a player.
Does that sound familiar? That's basically Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, Skyrim, ect. Basically the exact same of catalyst as those games, of going back to what used to make games so great. Discovery, improvisation, curiosity, intrigue. And it wouldn't be a complete ripoff, as long as it stuck to the series roots.
Final Fantasy, weirdly enough, always feels ashamed of its legacy, besides FF6 and FF7. If they went back to FF's roots, and did it well, they would have a smash hit.
1. No, almost none of Nintendo's core games have what I'm talking about. They barely have cutscenes at all. Mario is almost all-in on humour, and if I had a problem with humour I wouldn't be citing Nier or Disco Elysium (and Valve as far as Portal goes) as examples to follow and Final Fantasy 16 as being a faceplant. Pokemon is consistently light hearted in tone, it holds together and is coherent. It's literally a Saturday morning cartoon, but that's fine because it's not trying to be anything other than that. Xenoblade and Fire Emblem are the ones that are guilty of the things I'm criticising, and what a surprise, they're niche as fuck."They are a minority" ... why? almost all of nintendos output has it, and it has a huge audience. FF7R is cheesy as hell, RE4 to and both where liked well enough. Cheese, humor or etc are important tools in storytelling, and done right they can elevate a story. Done badly, and you have crap, but thats true for to much simpleminded maturity.
Where do you cringe in FF6-9? i get that 10 has some memed cutscenes (take into context that it was their first Voiced FF)
Ok, yeah, then as expected i missread your post somewhat. Im just to used to "grim dark dad games" = "better and more progressive for the medium" takes in regards to gaming, my bad.1. No, almost none of Nintendo's core games have what I'm talking about. They barely have cutscenes at all. Mario is almost all-in on humour, and if I had a problem with humour I wouldn't be citing Nier or Disco Elysium (and Valve as far as Portal goes) as examples to follow and Final Fantasy 16 as being a faceplant. Pokemon is consistently light hearted in tone, it holds together and is coherent. It's literally a Saturday morning cartoon, but that's fine because it's not trying to be anything other than that. Xenoblade and Fire Emblem are the ones that are guilty of the things I'm criticising, and what a surprise, they're niche as fuck.
2. The point I've been making for ages now is that as the abstraction fell away and we got high fidelity graphics and voice acting, the exact same content was not adjusted to match. With embarrassing results.
6 is a masterpiece, but you can't just turn it HD and voice that same script and get the same effect. You have to evolve. They haven't done it. The "Western" examples have. That's the difference, and that's why the latter are way more successful than the former.
Look, did the devs telling the grimm and dark story of 16 intend for their presentation to resemble a Saturday morning cartoon or a prestige HBO show? It's a failure when it's trying to be one thing and ending up looking like another thing. The audience can feel the dissonance.
I'll give an early example, you've probably seen it already:In regards to FF16 and saturday morning... what exactly do you mean there? as mentioned, i only looked up the Demo, and outside of to grim and kinda flat characters outside the mains and their dad i did not get "saturday morning cartoon" vibes.
Yeah, that was definitely a weaker written part, i assumed its more to show that branded ones are kinda like slaves, and since we have seen Clive with a marking, its establishing that whatever happens in the story, the clive we have seen is a slave, not the kings son anymore.I'll give an early example, you've probably seen it already:
Our introduction to the branded is this guy who stumbles into young Clive and drops everything he's carrying. He's extremely apologetic. But Clive is kind to him, and helps him pick up all his stuff.
It's a very transparent setup to show that Clive is Good and Kind and Noble. It's also really, sort of, unsophisticated and kind of cheesy. It's like an early scene in an old Jackie Chan film.
This probably seems very minor. It is.
Later on you get characters that lurk in the shadows, watching our heroes, twirling their moustaches, utter charicatures of villainy. That stuff is right out of a cartoon. It's jarring. Maybe I'm harsher than most, I don't know. I wanted to get a general tone to compare it against so I watched some of God of War Ragnarok's opening. While Final Fantasy 16 honestly looks more fun to play than that at the beginning, the latter is definitely more advanced, more comfortable letting things go unsaid and letting the performance capture and animation carry the storytelling. That's my limited take on it, anyway.
You're not encouraging a healthy discussion with a comment like this.Anyway, I’m just trying to put things in perspective. I look forward to another 12 people quoting me to say how wrong I am.
Fair enough. I edited out the last sentence.You're not encouraging a healthy discussion with a comment like this.
weird because that's exactly why I think it's not going to expand the fan base, especially in Europe and japanBut I don’t think they took the wrong step per se in turning FF into a DMC-like
I don't think they need to go pure open world. They can retain the hybrid approach that worked in the 90s where the first half of the game is on rails and then in the last 1/2-1/3rd the game goes globetrotting open world. That's basically the formula a lot of S-E titles used back then, and still use.FF16's combat probably has very little to do with the franchise's fanbase growing or shrinking. If they want to grow they probably need to go open world (sadly, IMO, I prefer this franchise being linear) and increase the scope and make it a bit more varied visually.
This just simply is not true. No Final Fantasy game has ever sold remotely as well as games like Witcher 3, Elden Ring, or Skyrim. Only looking at cumulative sales across decades is missing the forest for the trees. Final Fantasy's current output has been largely overshadowed by multiple other developers in the sales department. If you looked at cumulative sales, Tomb Raider has outsold Monster Hunter, but one of these series just announced a title passing 13 million units.You can criticize the gameplay, story, direction of the series, etc. but it really bothers me when people say the series isn’t relevant anymore and that 3 million+ copies in a week isn’t a success or something to be proud of. Final Fantasy as a whole is far and away the most popular RPG series in the world (not including Pokémon, obviously). It has sold 183m+ copies, including 27m since April of 2020. 27m is a third of the entire Dragon Quest series sales. Imagine Xenoblade, Fire Emblem, or Persona selling 27m in the last three years. This place would lose their freaking minds if that happened.
I meant JRPGThis just simply is not true. No Final Fantasy game has ever sold remotely as well as games like Witcher 3, Elden Ring, or Skyrim. Only looking at cumulative sales across decades is missing the forest for the trees. Final Fantasy's current output has been largely overshadowed by multiple other developers in the sales department. If you looked at cumulative sales, Tomb Raider has outsold Monster Hunter, but one of these series just announced a title passing 13 million units.