• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

Discussion Xenoblade Chronicles 3 announced, launches September 2022 (no open spoilers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if you somehow believe that BOTW caused the more linear world design of Xenoblade 2, which I definitely disagree with, they ran in to the exact same issue of how to tell a story in a bigass nonlinear world with Xenoblade X and flubbed it there too.

Xenoblade 1 and 2 are both series of big open areas which are segmented off from each other, not unlike Pokemon Arceus is, and that's fine, and actually helps quite a bit in how you tell what is otherwise a relatively linear story.
 
No, it doesn't. No, I didn't.

That is literally antithetical. Especially in monolithsofts case, and considering they are one of the premier world designers in the industry, that makes it pretty much just antithetical to good videogame world design. That's how you get potatoland world design.

Stories are cheap, and flexible. Game structures are not, and Takahashi and monolithsoft in particular, have learned many hard lessons in logistics on this, and where to start when designing a game, and how to make a compelling pitch for it's greenlight, and it's not the story for monolithsoft. Its the world. It's the first thing he did when he pitched the first Xenoblade to Nintendo. Literally made a replica of the world. The one they were going to need money to turn into a 3d videogame.


The starting point and backbone of the game are clearly not the story. This is before pre production. Starting with the story, and then tailoring the game too that, just doesn't pass muster.

Takahashi believes so strongly that it's about making a game world, that he says he used to start 'fights' at square soft over it. Not the stories. The world.



He believes so strongly in his world centric game design that he left square soft and started monolithsoft over it.



But there is a far more powerful force Takahashi reckons with that controls the direction of a game.

Xenoblade 2 wasn't designed the way it was because of a story narrative. Its world wasn't informed by any story. It was designed the way it was because Takahashi knew that if 60 members of his then 100 member studio were being taken to work on botw, there would only be 40 to work on xb2. That's why it was a bad fit for an open world game, logistics. Monolithsoft freaking made xB2 with only 40 people. Thats like a modern wonder of the world. It was a bad fit for open world because they didn't have the logistical man power to make an open world game. As Takahashi said, they could have connected the Titans, but there would be nothing to do between them. No manpower to spare to make anything. So they planned the structure of the game world to match the logistical capability of their team. Nothing whatsoever to do with tayloring the game world to the story, 'the story you want to tell' can easily be applied to any game structure you want to tell it with. The real obstacle, is having the manpower and funds to do it all the way you want. Something Takahashi talks about a LOT.

This Taylor the game world to the story argument literally did not exist before Nintendo announced 'open air' Zelda would be the standard going forward. Now you literally can't try and talk about world design without someone trying to chill the discussion with it.

So maybe next time consider the possibility
there might be something more to it than 'theyre just too damn stupid to understand and are talking random nonsense'.

Or not since apparently that gets the approval of the state here.

Honestly, while you make some good points, I sense lots of aggressiveness in your posts. Can you please tone it down a bit? I believe most of us are just delighted by the XC3 announcement and keep coming back to this thread because it feels like a family reunion for the community, but for the last couple of days I feel like the vibe has changed. Can we just go back to the cool celebration? I feel like this community deserves that after enduring so many years of hate and aggressiveness towards XC2.
 
I think it is on its way to Final Fantasy levels. I think 3 will outdo Persona but the work being done on this series is excellent and it shows. People are excited for it because it has modern game design, from the looks of it a good budget and and focuses on fun first and foremost.
dunno about FF as that series just reaches people outside of the jrpg bubble (And pokemon is a category of its own)
 
0
I think it is on its way to Final Fantasy levels. I think 3 will outdo Persona but the work being done on this series is excellent and it shows. People are excited for it because it has modern game design, from the looks of it a good budget and and focuses on fun first and foremost.

I'll bookmark this post for later.

The idea that Xenoblade 3 is going to do somewhere between twice and 2.5 times as well as Xenoblade 2 on the same platform in order to even match Persona 5 (Since 5+Royal are over 5m) is just completely absurd.

Franchises simply do not see that kind of growth on the same platform without a fundamental change to basically everything. Something like the jump from Pokemon SwSh to Arceus could break the trend and give a bit of growth.

What we've been shown of Xenoblade 3 is functionally just more of what Xenoblade has already done on the platform. There's not going to be a big growth jump.

Don't see how that's different from P5
I must have missed all those previous persona games on PS4 that it could be a by the numbers sequel to that gave us a good idea of what the ceiling was for a Persona on PS4. But if we're making comparisons, keep in mind this is a series that sold 1.5m copies of an upgraded port with extra content on the god forsaken PSVita, Meanwhile a pretty equivalent Xenoblade 1 port with graphical upgrades and extra content didn't vastly overshoot that on Switch.

The two series are not even punching in the same weight class.
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't. No, I didn't.

That is literally antithetical. Especially in monolithsofts case, and considering they are one of the premier world designers in the industry, that makes it pretty much just antithetical to good videogame world design. That's how you get potatoland world design.

Stories are cheap, and flexible. Game structures are not, and Takahashi and monolithsoft in particular, have learned many hard lessons in logistics on this, and where to start when designing a game, and how to make a compelling pitch for it's greenlight, and it's not the story for monolithsoft. Its the world. It's the first thing he did when he pitched the first Xenoblade to Nintendo. Literally made a replica of the world. The one they were going to need money to turn into a 3d videogame.


The starting point and backbone of the game are clearly not the story. This is before pre production. Starting with the story, and then tailoring the game too that, just doesn't pass muster.

Takahashi believes so strongly that it's about making a game world, that he says he used to start 'fights' at square soft over it. Not the stories. The world.



He believes so strongly in his world centric game design that he left square soft and started monolithsoft over it.



But there is a far more powerful force Takahashi reckons with that controls the direction of a game.

Xenoblade 2 wasn't designed the way it was because of a story narrative. Its world wasn't informed by any story. It was designed the way it was because Takahashi knew that if 60 members of his then 100 member studio were being taken to work on botw, there would only be 40 to work on xb2. That's why it was a bad fit for an open world game, logistics. Monolithsoft freaking made xB2 with only 40 people. Thats like a modern wonder of the world. It was a bad fit for open world because they didn't have the logistical man power to make an open world game. As Takahashi said, they could have connected the Titans, but there would be nothing to do between them. No manpower to spare to make anything. So they planned the structure of the game world to match the logistical capability of their team. Nothing whatsoever to do with tayloring the game world to the story, 'the story you want to tell' can easily be applied to any game structure you want to tell it with. The real obstacle, is having the manpower and funds to do it all the way you want. Something Takahashi talks about a LOT.

This Taylor the game world to the story argument literally did not exist before Nintendo announced 'open air' Zelda would be the standard going forward. Now you literally can't try and talk about world design without someone trying to chill the discussion with it.

So maybe next time consider the possibility
there might be something more to it than 'theyre just too damn stupid to understand and are talking random nonsense'.

Or not since apparently that gets the approval of the state here.

First of all, you're trying to force a narrative that doesn't objectively exist and is completely subjective.

Stories are not cheap just like game structure and game structure can be as flexible as stories. Some game developers start with story concepts and go from there, some start with gameplay concepts and both are completely valid approaches.

Second, Takahashi only presented the world itself and not much else to Nintendo with XC1 because he thought that was the best way to convince Nintendo to greenlight the game. The point of that anecdote was never an agenda of that the world has to be always thought of first. That was only the best way in his mind to convince Nintendo. Additionally, what you are missing is the world of XC1 is part of the game's story. Do you think the game structure at that meeting was set in stone? Of course not, the story of the world and the lore were created in tandem. The game structure of XC1 could have been way less open, less exploratory or in the other direction completely seamless as well. That wasn't decided at that meeting.

Lots of Nintendo studios don't even start with any 3D space whatsoever. They start with a single gameplay mechanic and go from there to see what fits best in their view.

To get back to what I originally said, stories you want to tell can and often do impact how the game is structured and that is a completely valid approach. Sometimes it even isn't just one or another.

And you know what's amusing? XC3 completely contradicts your absolute viewpoint. That game is completely built upon story, lore and world building done in the previous two games. Like lore and history is the only reason why it even exists and everything in XC3 is built upon stories and events that happend beforehand. Everything that exists in XC3 is informed by a set lore and story how the world came to be.

Lastly, stop bringing up BotW - seems you have a personal vendeta there.
 
Last edited:
The idea that Xenoblade 3 is going to do somewhere between twice and 2.5 times as well as Xenoblade 2 on the same platform in order to even match Persona 5 (Since 5+Royal are over 5m) is just completely absurd.

Franchises simply do not see that kind of growth on the same platform without a fundamental change to basically everything. Something like the jump from Pokemon SwSh to Arceus could break the trend and give a bit of growth.

What we've been shown of Xenoblade 3 is functionally just more of what Xenoblade has already done on the platform. There's not going to be a big growth jump.


I must have missed all those previous persona games on PS4 that it could be a by the numbers sequel to that gave us a good idea of what the ceiling was for a Persona on PS4. But if we're making comparisons, keep in mind this is a series that sold 1.5m copies of an upgraded port with extra content on the god forsaken PSVita, Meanwhile a pretty equivalent Xenoblade 1 port with graphical upgrades and extra content didn't vastly overshoot that on Switch.

They're not even punching in the same weight class.

XC2 will end up with lifetime sales over 3M.

While you are right that XC3 doesn't look to be reinventing the wheel, I believe it might attract considerably more people if it streamlines some mechanics (hopefully not too much as I loved the complexity of XC2 in that regard), is open-world (?), and has vehicles which make traversal fun. Beyond that, its artistic design and overall tone seem to have had a good reception so far, the IP is larger than ever (with the inclusion of Pyra & Mythra in Smash and Sakurai's compliments towards MS reaching a wider audience), and the game is launching in a very nice slot (a few months before BotW2, which might convince some people to try "the other epic large-scale adventure of the year" while they wait for Zelda) during the peak year for SW sales for Switch.

If the game reviews well, I don't see why all these factors couldn't make it sell a fair bit better than XC2. If the stars align I could see it growing 50-75% over XC2 lifetime (that is, between 4 and 5.25M million lifetime sales approx.).
 
The idea that Xenoblade 3 is going to do somewhere between twice and 2.5 times as well as Xenoblade 2 on the same platform in order to even match Persona 5 (Since 5+Royal are over 5m) is just completely absurd.

Franchises simply do not see that kind of growth on the same platform without a fundamental change to basically everything. Something like the jump from Pokemon SwSh to Arceus could break the trend and give a bit of growth.

What we've been shown of Xenoblade 3 is functionally just more of what Xenoblade has already done on the platform. There's not going to be a big growth jump.


I must have missed all those previous persona games on PS4 that it could be a by the numbers sequel to that gave us a good idea of what the ceiling was for a Persona on PS4. But if we're making comparisons, keep in mind this is a series that sold 1.5m copies of an upgraded port with extra content on the god forsaken PSVita, Meanwhile a pretty equivalent Xenoblade 1 port with graphical upgrades and extra content didn't vastly overshoot that on Switch.

The two series are not even punching in the same weight class.
Xenoblade doesn't need any fundamental change. It's still a young IP that was mismanaged in the Wii era and just recently reached the masses with Xenoblade 2. I think 3 will be the break out for the series judging by what we have seen from it in the trailers. Open world, good graphics and high budget. I need to see more but that is my initial impression. Persona 5 isn't even that high of a bar to reach. It sold 3.2 million last I checked, and Xenoblade 2 is already at 2.5 million. Xenoblade 3 reaching 4 to 5 million is not even that hard to predict, it's pretty much a guaranteed result with how the series has been managed.
 
I think a performance similar to Metroid Dread is the goal for XC3. It's still realistic and would be a great result.

5 million is definitely too far, though. That's a goal for the MS games afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Let's not lose our heads though

If 3 surpasses 2 in sales it will already be a success

If it reaches 3 million it will be a huge success
 
Honestly, while you make some good points, I sense lots of aggressiveness in your posts. Can you please tone it down a bit? I believe most of us are just delighted by the XC3 announcement and keep coming back to this thread because it feels like a family reunion for the community, but for the last couple of days I feel like the vibe has changed. Can we just go back to the cool celebration? I feel like this community deserves that after enduring so many years of hate and aggressiveness towards XC2.
Just want to signal boost this as a general idea for this thread. It's devolving into long-winded, unnecessarily aggressive arguments.
Let's not lose our heads though

If 3 surpasses 2 in sales it will already be a success

If it reaches 3 million it will be a huge success
Yep. I think 3 can do better than 2, but if it does, it's not going to be a huge margin. We've seen these sorts of predictions before with franchises like Fire Emblem and Metroid - that Switch will carry them to 5 million; then, shifting 3 million is somehow a poor result. 2.5 to 3 million would be great for Xenoblade 3.
 
Yep. I think 3 can do better than 2, but if it does, it's not going to be a huge margin. We've seen these sorts of predictions before with franchises like Fire Emblem and Metroid - that Switch will carry them to 5 million; then, shifting 3 million is somehow a poor result. 2.5 to 3 million would be great for Xenoblade 3.

Oh, good point, and I agree. Just to be clear: if XC3 sells in the same ballpark as XC2 it will already be a great achievement. My point is that I wouldn't be surprised either if it's able to surpass it as there seems to be several factors going for it (and its budget is most likely higher considering the longer development time and the likely larger size of the teams), but similar figures to XC2 shouldn't be considered a disappointment at all, as those were already a resounding success.
 
Judging by the trailer it seems very open ended. The way the trailer shows exploration reminds me of X trailers. Not to say it's gonna be the colossal map like X was(I don't think it'll ever be done again actually, that game was so huge it's hard to believe it actually came out 6 years ago and for Wii U), but I think we can call it an open world from what we saw already. Either way it's labeled, it looks like it has a big map to explore.
 
Xenoblade doesn't need any fundamental change. It's still a young IP that was mismanaged in the Wii era and just recently reached the masses with Xenoblade 2. I think 3 will be the break out for the series judging by what we have seen from it in the trailers. Open world, good graphics and high budget. I need to see more but that is my initial impression. Persona 5 isn't even that high of a bar to reach. It sold 3.2 million last I checked, and Xenoblade 2 is already at 2.5 million. Xenoblade 3 reaching 4 to 5 million is not even that hard to predict, it's pretty much a guaranteed result with how the series has been managed.

Persona 5 with royal is at 5m because they replaced it with an updated rerelease on the same platform, completely cutting off its otherwise impressive legs.

Name a single game, just one, that released a sequel on the same platform as a well recieved previous entry and then doubled its predecessors sales without a complete fundamental overhaul of the kind you see from SwSh to Arceus. It just doesn't happen, no matter what absurd predictions you want to make
 
Persona 5 with royal is at 5m because they replaced it with an updated rerelease on the same platform, completely cutting off its otherwise impressive legs.

Name a single game, just one, that released a sequel on the same platform as a well recieved previous entry and then doubled its predecessors sales without a complete fundamental overhaul of the kind you see from SwSh to Arceus. It just doesn't happen, no matter what absurd predictions you want to make

Both DQ3 and FF3 did it on the NES back when those IPs were still in the early growth phase. Funnily enough, they both end with a 3... wink, wink!
 
Persona 5 with royal is at 5m because they replaced it with an updated rerelease on the same platform, completely cutting off its otherwise impressive legs.

Name a single game, just one, that released a sequel on the same platform as a well recieved previous entry and then doubled its predecessors sales without a complete fundamental overhaul of the kind you see from SwSh to Arceus. It just doesn't happen, no matter what absurd predictions you want to make
I think you're getting too hung up on the same platform thing. Borderlands 2 >4x more than Borderlands 1, GTA San Andreas sold way more than GTA3. Yokai Watch 2 sold 3 times Yokai Watch and I can go on like that. It isn't about being on the same platform, it's how active the platform is played and the trajectory of the IP itself.
 
First of all, you're trying to force a narrative that doesn't objectively exist and is completely subjective.

Stories are not cheap just like game structure and game structure can be as flexible as stories. Some game developers start with story concepts and go from there, some start with gameplay concepts and both are completely valid approaches.

Stories are just words on a page until finalized and implemented. A games structure and world in comparison is hundreds of man hours resulting in an actual product that is much harder and more costly to change than clicking on a document and writing or revising a paragraph.

I'm stating the exact process the word of god has given. I'm not being secretive about it either.
Second, Takahashi only presented the world itself and not much else to Nintendo with XC1 because he thought that was the best way to convince Nintendo to greenlight the game. The point of that anecdote was never an agenda of that the world has to be always thought of first. That was only the best way in his mind to convince Nintendo. Additionally, what you are missing is the world of XC1 is part of the game's story.
I never stated the presentation was anything otherwise, so don't try to imply it. That wasn't an anecdote, it wasn't some out of context blurb in a contextless vacuum, it was the first in a series of times I provided where Takahashi has outright stated where his game making process begins, and what's the most important part, and it is always world world world world.


Do you think the game structure at that meeting was set in stone? Of course not, the story of the world and the lore were created in tandem. The game structure of XC1 could have been way less open, less exploratory or in the other direction completely seamless as well. That wasn't decided at that meeting.
I literally stated it was even before pre production.

That's not the story, that's the premise. You can tell a million stories within a premise.

No, it could not have been completely seamless, the game was on the Wii.

Lots of Nintendo studios don't even start with any 3D space whatsoever. They start with a single gameplay mechanic and go from there to see what fits best in their view.

We aren't talking about lots of Nintendo studios. I have been very very specific about what studio this is about.
To get back to what I originally said, stories you want to tell can and often do impact how the game is structured and that is a completely valid approach. Sometimes it even isn't just one or another.
Takahashi calls this getting lost in addition and subtraction.

It's a perfectly valid approach if you are making a platformer, or action game, when the scope, manpower and budget starts elevating towards these kind of large scale games like XcX and BotW, it's really not. It's just not practical.

And you know what's amusing? XC3 completely contradicts your absolute viewpoint. That game is completely built upon story, lore and world building done in the previous two games. Like lore and history is the only reason why it even exists and everything in XC3 is built upon stories and events that happend beforehand. Everything that exists in XC3 is informed by a set lore and story how the world came to be.

The game that is literally built from entire chunks and setpeices of pre established game worlds? After reading everything Takahashi said, you really think this time, where he has two premade worlds at his disposal to use as Lego blocks for a new one, is where he contradicted everything he's consistantly said for years?

Lastly, stop bringing up BotW - seems you have a personal vendeta there.

BotW is a game world literally made by monolithsoft, literally their biggest budget and most logistically complex gameworld, where they worked in tandem with more individuals than any other project they have ever done, and a work of design that has been seen as trailblazing across the industry by literal professional game world designers who say their mind was blown. It's also a product where monolithsoft and it's world builders had zero to do with the story, as it was not their game, or story.

Not bringing it up in a discussion regarding monolithsoft game world design would be vulgarly remiss.
 
Last edited:
0
Just to add to the stuff above, I dunno if anyone's read this in a while but Takahashi's own words - "Maps are at the core of role playing games."


This was when they started mass recruitment for the development of XC3.
 
Both DQ3 and FF3 did it on the NES back when those IPs were still in the early growth phase. Funnily enough, they both end with a 3... wink, wink!
The original DQ and FF trilogies absolutely saw significant overhauls between entries, given what the standards were for the Famicom. XC3 looks great, and I'm sure there will be lots of new stuff compared to its predecessors, but the scale of that difference doesn't compare to how progenitors of the contemporary genre established themselves.
 
It's very clear who in this thread has experience with sales data and who does not. There is zero chance XC3 reaches 4m+. Even 3m will be extremely difficult.
You can't just claim this as fact. You know as little as anyone else here. And the wording such as "zero chance" makes me chuckle a little.
 
Last edited:
You can't just claim this as fact. You know as little as anyone else here. And the wording such as "zero chance" makes me chuckle a little.
I can't tell the future but I can look at past data/trends and assess the current market climate to make a very educated guess. If you think this game has a chance to sell 4m+ then I feel quite comfortable in guessing that you did not do the same.

If you want to discuss this then use data to back up your stance. I don't find it worthwhile to entertain this further if we're just gonna be talking personal feelings and perceived hype here.
 
0



Feel like this tweet may be overlooking the seemingly shift in tone compared to 2. An adorable cat swimming animation might have worked in 2 due to its more lighthearted, juvenile aesthetic but I see that and stuff like Zeke's goofy swimming animation looking a little out place in 3.
 
0
Can you go into a bit more detail here?
For DQ, the second entry is the one that introduced concepts like "status ailments," "multiple party members," and "fighting multiple enemies at once." The third entry is the one that introduced concepts like "customizing characters via classes" and "day/night system."


Final Fantasy's trajectory didn't mirror DQ's, and it was building off of what Dragon Quest had done in a few ways, but its early entries were also making huge strides in terms of character development and plotting. Both series were also hammering out a lot of improvements in terms of playability/quality of life across entries because there was no real standard for them to measure up against.
 
For DQ, the second entry is the one that introduced concepts like "status ailments," "multiple party members," and "fighting multiple enemies at once." The third entry is the one that introduced concepts like "customizing characters via classes" and "day/night system."


Final Fantasy's trajectory didn't mirror DQ's, and it was building off of what Dragon Quest had done in a few ways, but its early entries were also making huge strides in terms of character development and plotting. Both series were also hammering out a lot of improvements in terms of playability/quality of life across entries because there was no real standard for them to measure up against.

I see a very similar progression in the Xenoblade series to be completely honest.

Monolith went back to basics with the first Xenoblade, but the games have become increasingly more character-driven. DE introduced more QoL improvements and a bigger focus on ease of play. If the leaks are credible, which they seem to be, Monolith are aiming for more characters on screen in 3 accounting for both playable characters and enemies. The combat will likely see a shake up. 3 looks like the first Xenoblade with a fleshed out main story in a seamless open world (something X failed at).

And I'm sure there's much more changes and improvements we've yet to see.
 
Last edited:
God install base really needs to let lurkers read :/
Forgot about that. Here's what he said:

Chris1964 said:
4m for Xenoblade 3 are doable if the game is good. Like Metroid Dread 3m is the minimum.

Chris1964 said:
Xenoblade 2 is around 2,5m and Xenoblade DE at 1,5m. 3-4m for a new entry is the expected range with the recognition the IP has gained last years, there's nothing confident about it.
 
Key thing to keep in mind is that Xenoblade 2 has been continually selling. Xenoblade DE and vouchers gave it a boost, Smash gave it a boost and now Xenoblade 3 has given it a boost.

Xenoblade 3 could sell 3m+ copies and not be far from Xenoblade 2 in the end.
 
What has Xenoblade done to redefine the JRPG genre through all of its first three entries?

X was the first seamless open world RPG to come out of Japan and redefined JRPGs by making them less linear.

And the first Xenoblade came out when JRPGs were in a bit of a funk, but Xenoblade sent them surging back to relevance and made people fall back in love with the genre.

It wouldn't have been any other developer other than Monolithsoft that had the ambition and vision required to put JRPGs back on the map.
 
"oh we should expect something similar to Metroid Dread or FE TH, let's not get disappointed again"
Well, FE TH was at 3.02m a whiiiileee ago. Metroid Dread sold 2.74m in less than 3 months, which is already almost the same as the best selling of the series did 20 years ago. And it won't stop selling so fast, not to mention possible promotions. 4m is still doable for it and it probably is already past 3 at this point.

It'll depend on the review scores, WoM, and of course Nintendo's marketing. If Nintendo markets it like an open world and story driven game(like it seems for the reveal trailer), and it's clear it's welcoming to newcomers, has an easy mode at launch, it can do 4 million too.

Sometimes a franchise becoming more recognized early in a console's life makes the new installment generate more buzz, and Xenoblade is more well known than ever now. The Switch install base will be giant by September and for front loaded games it's an advantage over its predecessor.
 
Just want to say I don't think Xenoblade 3 is going to be out of the ballpark of Persona 5, because I don't think comparing it to both releases of Persona 5 is a fair comparison to begin with. There is so many double dippers and honestly while Persona 5 had good legs for a JRPG, they weren't like, Automata levels. In a span of 1 and a half years it only sold an additional 700k from December 2017 to April 2019. That's great, but it isn't like the game wasn't starting to tap out before Royal.

Again, not dissing Persona, it had above average legs. But, it also had a scattered launch worldwide which also skewed things.
 
X was the first seamless open world RPG to come out of Japan and redefined JRPGs by making them less linear.
No it wasn't. Dragon's Dogma is an ARPG just like Xenoblade, sold more than X, and came out two years earlier. Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma world design probably did more to inspire modern JRPGs than X did to be honest.
 

If Chris doesn't have experience with sales data, I don't think anyone across both forums has either.
Alright then perhaps I was too harsh with my phrasing and for that I apologize, but I also think he is very wrong. And note that he is also a very big outlier in the discussion (only 10% voted for 4m+ there) and even got quoted for his bold claim.
 
Alright then perhaps I was too harsh with my phrasing and for that I apologize, but I also think he is very wrong. And note that he is also a very big outlier in the discussion (only 10% voted for 4m+ there) and even got quoted for his bold claim.
Chris said they expect growth, 3 mi minimum, 4 mi is doable and voted 3.5~3.99 mi. In the poll, 89% expects growth (2.5+) and 63% expect Chris' minimum or more (3+), so that's in line with the voters.

His vote was just half a million more than the most voted range (3~3.499 with 40%), so not that much of an outlier.

And just because people voted somewhere on 3~3.99, it doesn't means 4 mi is out of question in their opinion.

In any case, I and 63% of the poll don't think it will be extremely hard for XC3 to cross 3 mi, but I will still respect your opinion and will listen your arguments. I know there are many takes based only on their passion/disinterest for the series, but let's not generalize everyone we disagree into that.
 
No it wasn't. Dragon's Dogma is an ARPG just like Xenoblade, sold more than X, and came out two years earlier. Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma world design probably did more to inspire modern JRPGs than X did to be honest.

While Dragon's Dogma is open world, iirc it also had invisible walls which made the world feel like small corridors rather than a true open world.

Dragons Dogma's world design also lacks the verticality of X, and this verticality influenced games such as Breath of the Wild.
 
X is obviously very different to Drsgon's Dogma (DD is way more restrictive) but I don't think any of these games had any big influence.

I think XC1 had the biggest influence on JRPGs there and its the blueprint for games like DQXI, FFXV, etc.
 
While Dragon's Dogma is open world, iirc it also had invisible walls which made the world feel like small corridors rather than a true open world.

Dragons Dogma's world design also lacks the verticality of X, and this verticality influenced games such as Breath of the Wild.
Let's just say I can tell you haven't played Dragon's Dogma. It has a lot of vertically and a pretty big lack of invisible walls. If there are any, they aren't any different from any WRPG open world game that inspired the wave of Japanese open world games that came out. In fact, most of Dragon's Dogma's secrets are based of verticality. You can basically climb almost anywhere, you can literally take a ride on flying monsters you fight.

I do think Xenoblade 1 was influential, and I think fighting over influential-ness is silly, but X ain't it. It was merely at the party earlier than some later games, but it very much just realized a trend rather than ever sparking it.
 
0
Just watched the GVG analysis and I was quite disappointed tbh. They made a handful of mistakes and missed a lot of obvious stuff. Other channels were able to put out much larger, more in depth and more accurately researched analyses in less time than GVG did

Chris said they expect growth, 3 mi minimum, 4 mi is doable and voted 3.5~3.99 mi. In the poll, 89% expects growth (2.5+) and 63% expect Chris' minimum or more (3+), so that's in line with the voters.

His vote was just half a million more than the most voted range (3~3.499 with 40%), so not that much of an outlier.

And just because people voted somewhere on 3~3.99, it doesn't means 4 mi is out of question in their opinion.

In any case, I and 63% of the poll don't think it will be extremely hard for XC3 to cross 3 mi, but I will still respect your opinion and will listen your arguments. I know there are many takes based only on their passion/disinterest for the series, but let's not generalize everyone we disagree into that.
Yes, that's fair, and I apologize for the antagonistic wording earlier. But it's very rare for direct sequels on the same hardware to surpass the games that came prior, and Xenoblade 3 especially is being advertised as a direct sequel to both 1 and 2. The kinds of players that gravitate towards JRPGs are likelier to be early adopters and 2 had particularly good legs for a JRPG as well, so I don't think launching on a larger install base will make that much of a difference either. Lastly, jumping from 2.5m (which isn't even an official number) all the way to 4m would constitute astronomical growth. Unless future trailers really rock the boat, what we've seen so far does not paint such drastic change to justify that leap. All these points combined, and I simply do not see it as a feasible outcome at all. When I saw comments comparing Xenoblade to Final Fantasy, it was easy for me to get flippant, and for that I again apologize.
 
No it wasn't. Dragon's Dogma is an ARPG just like Xenoblade, sold more than X, and came out two years earlier. Dark Souls and Dragon's Dogma world design probably did more to inspire modern JRPGs than X did to be honest.

Xenoblade is not an arpg, it will try and fool you with movement but everything is actually decided by dice rolls and stats.

Also let's not sell DD short, it's combat system is a high bar to reach, even if xB was an arpg, it wouldn't be just like DD.

Can we get a common agreed foundation on open world? The person you quoted set seamless as a quantifier which dd does not meet, most people have seemed to gravitate towards sandbox designs are the only designs that are open world, and I have the old school notion of simply not being closed world.

That being said I don't see X's open world being particularly influential, one because it's ridiculously hard to do, two because shortly after monolith soft polished their skills even more and Nintendo revealed botw's 'open air' design, which well, it was BotW, it soaked up all the attention.
 
Can we get a common agreed foundation on open world? The person you quoted set seamless as a quantifier which dd does not meet, most people have seemed to gravitate towards sandbox designs are the only designs that are open world, and I have the old school notion of simply not being closed world.
I think it would be flat out disingenuous to say DD is not an open world game. The only loading screens are for caverns and entering a city ... you're like one criteria away from being BOTW, the most popular open world game currently, with that seamless definition. Actually if we consider dungeons aren't seamless to enter in BOTW, they're about equal.

Edit: I should be clear and say I'm not saying you're saying that. I'm just saying it would be disingenuous to say it isn't one. It's an incredibly open, vertical game, with a lot of freedom and almost entirely seamless. Just like BOTW.
 
The original DQ and FF trilogies absolutely saw significant overhauls between entries, given what the standards were for the Famicom. XC3 looks great, and I'm sure there will be lots of new stuff compared to its predecessors, but the scale of that difference doesn't compare to how progenitors of the contemporary genre established themselves.
Hmmm, let's say I partially agree. It's true that there are other much better examples to drive that point. Someone already mentioned Yokai Watch 2. Uncharted 2 also comes to mind.

It's very clear who in this thread has experience with sales data and who does not. There is zero chance XC3 reaches 4m+. Even 3m will be extremely difficult.
I already read your subsequent posts but allow me to bookmark this just in case... :p

Do you know how many people said there was zero chance XC2 would reach 2.5M+?

"oh we should expect something similar to Metroid Dread or FE TH, let's not get disappointed again"
Well, FE TH was at 3.02m a whiiiileee ago. Metroid Dread sold 2.74m in less than 3 months, which is already almost the same as the best selling of the series did 20 years ago. And it won't stop selling so fast, not to mention possible promotions. 4m is still doable for it and it probably is already past 3 at this point.

It'll depend on the review scores, WoM, and of course Nintendo's marketing. If Nintendo markets it like an open world and story driven game(like it seems for the reveal trailer), and it's clear it's welcoming to newcomers, has an easy mode at launch, it can do 4 million too.

Sometimes a franchise becoming more recognized early in a console's life makes the new installment generate more buzz, and Xenoblade is more well known than ever now. The Switch install base will be giant by September and for front loaded games it's an advantage over its predecessor.
All of this. As I see it, the sales potential talk in this thread has been very grounded and sensible. Some people have expressed reasons why they believe the game's sales will be similar to those of XC2, some others have reasoned why it could show some growth. I haven't seen anybody claiming that it will sell 10M or anything outlandish... Maybe I'll ask good ole T-bone to come by.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom