Did Final Fantasy die with Sakaguchi's departure or is there hope?

[spoonyrogdrumps]

Where do you stand?????

Did Final Fantasy die with Sakaguchi's departure.....or is there hope???

You have three options but you can argue until your hearts content.
This vote is on the Final Fantasy series games as a whole IP.
As always no flaming, trolling etc. Be respectful after all it's just your opinion.....though I know I'm right

1. Sakaguchi's departure destroyed Final Fantasy and it's spirit. There is no hope...only death.
2. Though Sakaguchi departed from the company that is now Square Enix, Final Fantasy can still return to it's former glory which was I-X.
X-2 is not Sakaguchi's work, and you are aware that Final Fantasy is a specific IP that needs to stick to it's roots.
3. Final Fantasy is still Final Fantasy and it's better than ever.

I am voting......


number 2


In the comments stay within the guidelines of the 3 choices and give your reasons why you voted which way.
The goal of the poll is to determine where this community stands the most.

 

[iSmiff]

When did he leave? I'm really not all that privvy to that stuff

 

[Shaissa]

When did he leave? I'm really not all that privvy to that stuff

2003, I think. Shortly before the Merger (but there were talks back in 2000 about Square and Enix merging also... sooo...)

To answer this question...

I can't say it is "better than ever" but at the same time I don't think it needs to go to the "former glory days."

Sure he was Director/Producer of some great FF games... Also some of the worst to...Also let us not forget his biggest mistake... Spirit Within...

He was the leader behind Tactics Advance, and other really bad things... but also made one of my favorite Final Fantasy's (wrote the story) Final Fantasy IX... so It is hard for me to say one way or the other.



Also think of what he has done since he left Square... Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, and The Last Story.

I played 2 of the 3 (Blue Dragon and The Last Story) and those two I couldn't really get into that much. I hear great things about Lost Odyssey, but also hear really bad things.

 

[Sheechiibii]

Hmm...I don't like any of the three options lol. I would say that Sakaguchi's departure certainly meant a big change for Final Fantasy, but I don't think it's the end or that the games are never going to be as good.

Returning to it's roots? I don't know whether that would be such a good thing. The Final Fantasy games were all about change, every new numbered title has a different story, different world, different battle styles. It's always been that way, and it still is now. Every new numbered title is going to be different from the last, and that's what's important because it means every time you get to play something knew, and if you liked the last instalment or not, you know things are going to be different this time.

I mean, how can you even describe 'its roots' when all of the games have been so varied over the years. Some had great stories, some did not, every one has had a different levelling system, a different battle system, a different world and characters. They're all so different. Other than gimmicks like the Chocobo (not in all games I-X), Moogle (not in all games I-X), controllable airships (not in all games I-X) etc. You get my point I'm sure. Even the iconic Final Fantasy staples have not been in all of the games that Sakaguchi made. So what exactly made Final Fantasy's 'former glory' I always thought that the reason Final Fantasy games were so great was because of their immersive story and constantly fresh gameplay. But great stories have not always been the focus of Final Fantasy games either.

Seriously. People speak about Final Fantasy not being Final Fantasy enough, but can anyone actually give a definition of what makes a 'real' Final Fantasy game?

If there'd been an option: "Sakaguchi's departure isn't the end Final Fantasy can still be great" I would have chosen that one.

 

[Razberry Knight]

Final Fantasy has been a little low, and thats mainly because we havent received large ammounts of games that resemble old-school FF or rather "traditional" FF.

FOr example, most of the spin offs that we've been receiving are action-base style games with Compilation of FF7, Crystal Chronicles series, and Dissidia series, and even Fabula Nova Crystallis series with LR, Type-0 and even the upcoming XV.

Back then we would get very few spin offs, and they would still stick to traditional or just something resembling it. Something like Final Fantasy Tactics.

Now these action-based games aren't bad, but its slowly making us forget about what makes FF an FF. I still believe there is room for action-RPG in FF, i do believe they need to bring more games such as FF Dimensions and Bravely Default.

WE have little Final Fantasy atm to distract ourselves from the horrible series that is XIII except for XIV, but not everyone wants to pay monthly and i dont blame them.

 

[Linnaete]

The only thing that seems to have "died" is Square's ability to be competent and to come out with a game in recent years that I have played and responded overwhelmingly positive to. ARR: FFXIV could well be excellent and a fantastic callback to preceding Final Fantasy titles, but I'm not about to, nor can I justify doing so, invest monthly for an MMO heavily inspired like many of its ilk by WoW. Type-0 could be great, but unless I can import it, make an ISO and get the English fan translation patch for it, I'll probably never know.

What is "real" Final Fantasy and what isn't doesn't bother me. I think Sheechiibii has illustrated quite well the banality and problems of these kind of labels especially when there's virtually no objective metric. Besides, it has mystified me a bit that FFX is considered a "real" FF game when so often I see people bring up a traversable world map and pilotable airships as series staples. While there are merits to listening to fans, being dictated by the loudest ones would be fatal especially when your game series ends up staler and more conservative than the most by-the-numbers military FPS games.

Sakaguchi did great things, but his desire to turn Square into a Japanese Pixar pretty much showed where his real passions probably are - aside from Hawaii and surfing. Had the guy remained, he would have continued to make mistakes, albeit perhaps much different ones to which Wada had made, but the Gooch would still have to be faced with the onslaught of the HD generation eventually, where old ways of thinking would have to change. Mistwalker has only been able to make games because it has had Microsoft and Nintendo as publishers pouring money onto him to fund projects. And the rather muted positive acclaim to Mistwalker's endeavours suggests to me that a Sakaguchi Square-Enix would just be as fallible and prone to critical errors. In fact, I do wonder how a Sakaguchi-led Square-Enix would have turned out. I suspect for better or worse, it wouldn't be the major publisher and developer it is now, but a more humble mid-tier one squeezed from all sides.

Make a good game, Square. Make something I can play and say "gee, wow. They still have it in them. Good work, guys". I don't have the same sentimentality of what FF should be like, nor do I make specific demands for it to go back to its roots, whatever that means for me. I know you are still capable of it, because you have programmers who presumably aren't a bunch of brainless chimps (the people in charge perhaps notwithstanding...). You did make FFXII after all, despite its myriad of embarrassing development problems, and that was the last major game from them that I felt to be bold and a new benchmark in its own way.

My choice, if I can add it in, would be: "Sakaguchi isn't Jesus and would have also screwed up in his own way. It bothers me not how "Final Fantasy" a modern Final Fantasy game is so long as it's a good game."

 

[Shu]

Well I'm not going to delineate, due to the real question was Sakaguchi's departure the end of SE for FF, but let me open up by answering another question.

The word's Final and Fantasy, I've never really understood to a degree. Though to have the word fantasy you need some type of good story line and premise. Are Final Fantasy titles always going to be able saving the world? Whether it be by stopping a meteor, stopping some summoner from taking power, stopping some corrupt government from enforcing their will, Final Fantasy has always followed a few staples.

There has to be some dramatic event that catalyzes a group of diverse people to come together to stop whatever the effect of the event will cause in the future. Now I believe Final Fantasy should be known purely for it's story alone. Why? Well without any real in depth story, there is no RPG in my opinion. I've played a handful of awful RPGs where instead of the focal point being the story, it was the combat system or graphics. The bread and butter was not there to capture the person playing the game. To me that's more of a gimmick, which is Nintendo's staple, not SE's.

I can go with half ass combat, heck I could even go with more turn based instead of action turned base (FFXII and on play style).

So back to the subject, do I think one man can dictate the death of Final Fantasy? No, I do not. Do I think that Final Fantasy needs loads up help in the writing department? Yes. I believe they have been lack luster since X. Lightning's story line is boring, yet they are milking it. It's all cinematics these days. The play style is also pretty clunky, even if the combat is pretty fun, it still lacks a lot. I expect FF to bring back my nerdiness to the nth. I expect to be completely driven emotionally to want to continue. I expect nothing less out of a true final fantasy. They need to evolve, and stop sticking to old story lines. They need to think about putting current day situations into the games, and stop going off of Kingdom's or Crystal's or Summoners or Lu'ci Fal'ci.. etc etc.

 

[Sheechiibii]

They need to think about putting current day situations into the games, and stop going off of Kingdom's or Crystal's or Summoners or Lu'ci Fal'ci.. etc etc.

Isn't that the complete opposite of what a fantasy game is though? They've said that XV will be based on reality, but it still has to have some form of fantasy to it, otherwise you really couldn't call it a fantasy game at all. I would agree with you about the story, but I don't think story makes a 'true Final Fantasy' game (I don't think there is such a thing) because not all of the games have had incredible or even good stories.

 

[spoonyrogdrumps]

Hmm...I don't like any of the three options lol. I would say that Sakaguchi's departure certainly meant a big change for Final Fantasy, but I don't think it's the end or that the games are never going to be as good.

Returning to it's roots? I don't know whether that would be such a good thing. The Final Fantasy games were all about change, every new numbered title has a different story, different world, different battle styles. It's always been that way, and it still is now. Every new numbered title is going to be different from the last, and that's what's important because it means every time you get to play something knew, and if you liked the last instalment or not, you know things are going to be different this time.

I mean, how can you even describe 'its roots' when all of the games have been so varied over the years. Some had great stories, some did not, every one has had a different levelling system, a different battle system, a different world and characters. They're all so different. Other than gimmicks like the Chocobo (not in all games I-X), Moogle (not in all games I-X), controllable airships (not in all games I-X) etc. You get my point I'm sure. Even the iconic Final Fantasy staples have not been in all of the games that Sakaguchi made. So what exactly made Final Fantasy's 'former glory' I always thought that the reason Final Fantasy games were so great was because of their immersive story and constantly fresh gameplay. But great stories have not always been the focus of Final Fantasy games either.

Seriously. People speak about Final Fantasy not being Final Fantasy enough, but can anyone actually give a definition of what makes a 'real' Final Fantasy game?

If there'd been an option: "Sakaguchi's departure isn't the end Final Fantasy can still be great" I would have chosen that one.

You would fall under number 2 as "return to former glory" can be interpreted many ways.

And, good comments so far. I also agree with Fleur that had Sakaguchi stayed different mistakes would have been made but mistakes none the less. A rotation of creativity is always needed to keep things fresh.
Some people will look at option 2 and say it limits vision....but does it....
Sakaguchi is not there...he's not the Jesus...just the springboard. Glory days does not suggest the return of Sakaguchi, but refers to what made Final Fantasy as an IP for it's main series single player installments, and the fact that they were just better games.

Final Fantasy is more than a name for a RPG. It is the mechanics on which the IP was built.
It's a RPG with party based combat that is tactical. Most RPG's East or West are Tactical based not action based. If it's not tactical based it's not an RPG but a different genre entirely.
Each installment tells a story individual to it's own.

If the IP strays from it's core mechanics on which it was built it becomes a different IP entirely.

I also agree with Sheech. A story doesn't make a Final Fantasy. An IP is based on it's mechanics not it's story. It's the mechanics. Story however is valid but the word narrative even more so. So "former glory" is also a "good story and narrative". Not rehashing stories but just a good story and narrative in and of itself.

 

[Shu]

Isn't that the complete opposite of what a fantasy game is though? They've said that XV will be based on reality, but it still has to have some form of fantasy to it, otherwise you really couldn't call it a fantasy game at all. I would agree with you about the story, but I don't think story makes a 'true Final Fantasy' game (I don't think there is such a thing) because not all of the games have had incredible or even good stories.

That's where you and I differ though. I'm not going to relive my FF days, or going to one up anyone and said I've played them all. Though I will say I've seen the most success in Jrpgs revolve around a good story. If this fella left, in which took a lot of the stories out, then I don't see why someone else can't take his place. Also Lost Odyssey was a pretty good story line, though I will not get into the game since it has nothing to do with the overall debate here.

Let's just say this.. You take FFVII. In many ways this game was more advanced than any of the games that game after it. Why? I think a lot of it had to do with the story line and the realism + fantasy combined within itself. FFVIII was pretty out there, comparing it to the rest of the Final Fantasy Franchise. To me it kind of stood out from the series aside from the Game Play Elements. FFIX went back to the roots in my opinion. FFX was where things started going a little off the tracks and then FFXII was.. the drastic spiraling down of a story line. FFXIII was actually more fun, but I think they involved more story line here. I admitted it could get boring from time to time, but that's actually due to the story being a bit predictable.

I think if they truly focus.. Final Fantasy could in fact make a turn around, the only question is.. when.

 

[Razberry Knight]

i personally believe ff12's story wasn't bad, but poorly presented. and unlike 13, didn't need logs to tell the story. i think 12 was aiming for a different type of story (while still being part of ff series). it sort of reminds me of Star Ocean 3, but thats about it.

But i get what Sheechiibii is saying. Story is important in every RPG, and since FF is an RPG, you can't realy say its what makes FF "FF". Final Fantasy will always need a good story, but thats because Final Fantasy is an RPG game, not because its a Final Fantasy game.

 

[Sheechiibii]

You would fall under number 2 as "return to former glory" can be interpreted many ways.

It doesn't say 'return to its former glory' it says 'return to its roots'. Which I don't think is possible (I don't think Final Fantasy has ever had a definitive 'root') or would be a good thing (change is good).

If it's not tactical based it's not an RPG but a different genre entirely.

There are many RPGs that are action orientated instead of tactically orientated. Battle systems are not what make an RPG an RPG. Playing the role of a character inside their own story is what makes an RPG an RPG, doesn't matter what the battle style is. The trouble with tactical battle styles is that it's hard to do and make work with new games. It's slow and it's unrealistic, which worked fine in the old games where everything was slower and less realistic, but these days everything looks so real, and works so quickly that a battle style like such would be totally out of place. Final Fantasy games have never been defined as Tactical RPGs as far as I know, they're just labelled as Fantasy RPG or RPG. All of the battle styles have been different, and obviously as the games become more realistic the battles have to as well in order for them to work.

 

[Razberry Knight]

There are many RPGs that are action orientated instead of tactically orientated. Battle systems are not what make an RPG an RPG. Playing the role of a character inside their own story is what makes an RPG an RPG, doesn't matter what the battle style is. The trouble with tactical battle styles is that it's hard to do and make work with new games. It's slow and it's unrealistic, which worked fine in the old games where everything was slower and less realistic, but these days everything looks so real, and works so quickly that a battle style like such would be totally out of place. Final Fantasy games have never been defined as Tactical RPGs as far as I know, they're just labelled as Fantasy RPG or RPG. All of the battle styles have been different, and obviously as the games become more realistic the battles have to as well in order for them to work.

this is exactly what i'm saying. but when i said this when i initially joined this forum, people disagreed. i think thats why paradigm shift exist, to show a way to make it look more realistic, but doing it half-way didn't work, you controlled only one member, but the ATB bar loaded incredibly slow.

 

[Sheechiibii]

this is exactly what i'm saying. but when i said this when i initially joined this forum, people disagreed. i think thats why paradigm shift exist, to show a way to make it look more realistic, but doing it half-way didn't work, you controlled only one member, but the ATB bar loaded incredibly slow.

Yeah I get what they were trying to do with XIII's battle system, but I just don't think they got it right. FFXII worked way more, because even though you controlled only one character (although you could control them all if you wanted) you got to tell the ai exactly what to do and when, so it wasn't so different from controlling the whole team. XIII felt like it took a step backwards with the battle system because it took away all control of the other characters in the party.

 

[spoonyrogdrumps]

It doesn't say 'return to its former glory' it says 'return to its roots'. Which I don't think is possible (I don't think Final Fantasy has ever had a definitive 'root') or would be a good thing (change is good).



There are many RPGs that are action orientated instead of tactically orientated. Battle systems are not what make an RPG an RPG. Playing the role of a character inside their own story is what makes an RPG an RPG, doesn't matter what the battle style is. The trouble with tactical battle styles is that it's hard to do and make work with new games. It's slow and it's unrealistic, which worked fine in the old games where everything was slower and less realistic, but these days everything looks so real, and works so quickly that a battle style like such would be totally out of place. Final Fantasy games have never been defined as Tactical RPGs as far as I know, they're just labelled as Fantasy RPG or RPG. All of the battle styles have been different, and obviously as the games become more realistic the battles have to as well in order for them to work.

In the poll it says roots but my post also says former glory as well as roots. If one were to just look at the poll without looking at my post you wouldn't fully understand as the length of the polls text is limited. Change is fine. If you change an IP too much though the IP needs to change. Final Fantasy does have a root of a tactical RPG, where you have a party system etc etc. I've said it before but I'll say it again. It's roots are based in it's mechanics which is turn based combat which is tactical in nature involving HP,MP, status aliments etc. You can add action elements to turn-based battle systems. FF XII did it sorta but it wasn't turn-based. It's not hard to make it work with new games. Are you a game programmer? I know I'm not but I have read enough to know it's not that hard to do turn-based battle for a programmer. It's a matter of choice. FFXIII didn't have a bad battle system in my mind but they could have done more with it to make it more challenging where your not just pressing X a lot and it didn't allow you to make choices for each character and therefore wasn't turn-based. It was too easy. It was like Final Fantasy with a low level learning curb. It matters a lot on what the battle style is.
I will rephrase it as I was wrong that if it's not tactical it's not RPG. If it's not tactical it's not Final Fantasy. The mechanics of Final Fantasy I-X have been tactical turn-based combat. That is the root of the combat mechanic of Final Fantasy I-X. They are however still different from each other. They change the way the turn-based combat is implemented. One series had a job system. Another Materia and so on. If they change turn-based to action it goes away from the IP that was Final Fantasy. Am I saying that if turn-based combat isn't there it becomes less and less of a "Final Fantasy" than yes. Again, I don't mind change, but, if they want to do something different, make a new IP for it and don't drag the name of Final Fantasy into the mud. My belief and many others is that Square Enix was trying to use the Final Fantasy name to make money and to do things easier. Hard work pays off and when they don't make good games the content suffers. If they wanted to do something different that's fine but it needed to be a new IP. There was nothing wrong with the way Final Fantasy was made. FFX was a graphical leap and the only thing they didn't do was add a world map that you could traverse in the 3-D environment. These little mechanics affect the whole IP once you start changing things. The more you change the more it becomes a different IP. "Final Fantasy" XV will most likely not be the true IP that was Final Fantasy because they have already changed to much. Smart game devs know that when you change the mechanics of a game to much the IP changes with it. The fact that Final Fantasy had 10 core single-player games (I-X) under one IP was unusual and still is.

And Razzberry you are right and are on to something. FFXIII was too easy and a lot of people hated it. Well they hated it for other reasons but that was one. And yes XIII was a step backward I agree Seech
In-fact Square could very well just make a new IP that's called Final Fantasy. It's what we know as reboots to franchises. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. They can do away with the numbered thing and they can announce the re-boot to the franchise and make it a post apocalyptic shooter..I wouldn't care what it was. That wouldn't be very smart but they could because it would be a reboot which is clause for new IP mechanics. Another thing. FF XV could turn out to be a great game, but it wouldn't be the IP of Final Fantasy since they are numbering XV. Even if XV ended up being a good game it still wouldn't be the former glory of the original IP. It would make more sense to rebrand XV as a reboot of the franchise and just call it Final Fantasy. I could have added another poll option for a new IP point of view but then it wouldn't be Final Fantasy then.

 

[Sheechiibii]

In the poll it says roots but my post also says former glory as well as roots. If one were to just look at the poll without looking at my post you wouldn't fully understand as the length of the polls text is limited. Change is fine. If you change an IP too much though the IP needs to change. Final Fantasy does have a root of a tactical RPG, where you have a party system etc etc. I've said it before but I'll say it again. It's roots are based in it's mechanics which is turn based combat which is tactical in nature involving HP,MP, status aliments etc. You can add action elements to turn-based battle systems. FF XII did it sorta but it wasn't turn-based. It's not hard to make it work with new games. Are you a game programmer? I know I'm not but I have read enough to know it's not that hard to do turn-based battle for a programmer. It's a matter of choice. FFXIII didn't have a bad battle system in my mind but they could have done more with it to make it more challenging where your not just pressing X a lot and it didn't allow you to make choices for each character and therefore wasn't turn-based. It was too easy. It was like Final Fantasy with a low level learning curb. It matters a lot on what the battle style is.
I will rephrase it as I was wrong that if it's not tactical it's not RPG. If it's not tactical it's not Final Fantasy. The mechanics of Final Fantasy I-X have been tactical turn-based combat. That is the root of the combat mechanic of Final Fantasy I-X. They are however still different from each other. They change the way the turn-based combat is implemented. One series had a job system. Another Materia and so on. If they change turn-based to action it goes away from the IP that was Final Fantasy. Am I saying that if turn-based combat isn't there it becomes less and less of a "Final Fantasy" than yes. Again, I don't mind change, but, if they want to do something different, make a new IP for it and don't drag the name of Final Fantasy into the mud. My belief and many others is that Square Enix was trying to use the Final Fantasy name to make money and to do things easier. Hard work pays off and when they don't make good games the content suffers. If they wanted to do something different that's fine but it needed to be a new IP. There was nothing wrong with the way Final Fantasy was made. FFX was a graphical leap and the only thing they didn't do was add a world map that you could traverse in the 3-D environment. These little mechanics affect the whole IP once you start changing things. The more you change the more it becomes a different IP. "Final Fantasy" XV will most likely not be the true IP that was Final Fantasy because they have already changed to much. Smart game devs know that when you change the mechanics of a game to much the IP changes with it. The fact that Final Fantasy had 10 core single-player games (I-X) under one IP was unusual and still is.

And Razzberry you are right and are on to something. FFXIII was too easy and a lot of people hated it. Well they hated it for other reasons but that was one. And yes XIII was a step backward I agree Seech
In-fact Square could very well just make a new IP that's called Final Fantasy. It's what we know as reboots to franchises. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. They can do away with the numbered thing and they can announce the re-boot to the franchise and make it a post apocalyptic shooter..I wouldn't care what it was. That wouldn't be very smart but they could because it would be a reboot which is clause for new IP mechanics. Another thing. FF XV could turn out to be a great game, but it wouldn't be the IP of Final Fantasy since they are numbering XV. Even if XV ended up being a good game it still wouldn't be the former glory of the original IP. It would make more sense to rebrand XV as a reboot of the franchise and just call it Final Fantasy. I could have added another poll option for a new IP point of view but then it wouldn't be Final Fantasy then.

Yeah, I did read your OP, but I can't really vote on the poll if I don't agree with what it says there...I didn't mean to say that it would be hard to make the combat turn based, it wouldn't be hard to do that, it would be hard to make it work with the realistic style and environment of new games. Because turn based is not a realistic battle style. At all. It doesn't look realistic, it doesn't feel realistic. I love it, and it would work if they used a less realistic style of game, went for a more anime-look but Final Fantasies have always been about doing something new and different and making an impact. They're not going to do that if they stick with old playing styles when it doesn't work these days.

I fail to see how updating the combat is 'dragging Final Fantasy into the mud' it really isn't. On the contrary, I think them sticking with something that doesn't work any more goes totally against what Final Fantasy was always about – Change. Updating. Doing something new and innovative. That's not going to happen if they stick with an old battle formula that just does not work in new games any more. Imo that would drag Final Fantasy into the mud a lot faster than any action battle system would.

You right. There was nothing wrong with the way Final Fantasy was made. But that was then, and this is now. To make a new game as if it's still 1999 is a failure for any company that is trying to be different and innovative and ahead of the times. Which is something Final Fantasy always seemed to try and do. Isn't that the precise reason why FFVII was hailed as such a good game? Because for its time it was something great? That's never going to happen for Final Fantasy is they don't move with the times.

 

[spoonyrogdrumps]

Yeah, I did read your OP, but I can't really vote on the poll if I don't agree with what it says there...I didn't mean to say that it would be hard to make the combat turn based, it wouldn't be hard to do that, it would be hard to make it work with the realistic style and environment of new games. Because turn based is not a realistic battle style. At all. It doesn't look realistic, it doesn't feel realistic. I love it, and it would work if they used a less realistic style of game, went for a more anime-look but Final Fantasies have always been about doing something new and different and making an impact. They're not going to do that if they stick with old playing styles when it doesn't work these days.

I fail to see how updating the combat is 'dragging Final Fantasy into the mud' it really isn't. On the contrary, I think them sticking with something that doesn't work any more goes totally against what Final Fantasy was always about – Change. Updating. Doing something new and innovative. That's not going to happen if they stick with an old battle formula that just does not work in new games any more. Imo that would drag Final Fantasy into the mud a lot faster than any action battle system would.

You right. There was nothing wrong with the way Final Fantasy was made. But that was then, and this is now. To make a new game as if it's still 1999 is a failure for any company that is trying to be different and innovative and ahead of the times. Which is something Final Fantasy always seemed to try and do. Isn't that the precise reason why FFVII was hailed as such a good game? Because for its time it was something great? That's never going to happen for Final Fantasy is they don't move with the times.

Did you ever think the reason they are calling FFXV a fantasy based on reality is because people are obsessed with realistic game circumstances. Every thing being pushed now is real time real time real time Final Fantasy was a niche market and needed to stay a niche market. Turn-based isn't supposed to be a realistic battle style. They do things new for sure but they don't leave an impact like I-X did. They did plenty of new things through-out the games from I-X. I-X did update the combat and changed things around while still sticking to the original IP. Turn-based combat can evolve but not like what they did in XIII cause that's not evolved turn based any more than XII was. In turn-based you have your characters which each have select-able rolls and each can be controlled. The turn based model has an infinite amount of possibilities since it's tactical based. Action games are easy compared to tactical based combat. If they turn these games into action games which they are trying to do I won't be a part of it. Who dictates the times....Do you remember reading the article about Toriyama and his thought that people just want to play call of duty so lets turn Final Fantasy into call of duty. There are plenty of Western RPG's that have the style your looking for. JRPG's have always been a niche market but now I just laugh at them because they are trying to be something they're not. The combat system of the Final Fantasy IP isn't the worst problem that Square Enix has had. It's how it presents it's game-play, it's pacing of the game, it's controls, the game design layout which includes a world map that you could traverse, and an art style that screamed Japan. Final Fantasy always had a world map. Final Fantasy and it's narratives used to be poetic and well written. Now it looks like it was written by a kid in grade school. How does it not work anymore. It was working and they didn't need to stop. Square Enix just wanted more market share of people who played call of duty. They don't need to make games as if it was 1999, That's like saying in 1999 they don't need to make Final Fantasy as if it was 1990. FFVII still adhered to the original IP and of everything that I've been saying. They can change the IP and still call it Final Fantasy as a rebooted​ franchise while my Final Fantasy goes to pasture.

 

[Razberry Knight]

Did you ever think the reason they are calling FFXV a fantasy based on reality is because people are obsessed with realistic game circumstances. Every thing being pushed now is real time real time real time Final Fantasy was a niche market and needed to stay a niche market. Turn-based isn't supposed to be a realistic battle style. They do things new for sure but they don't leave an impact like I-X did. They did plenty of new things through-out the games from I-X. I-X did update the combat and changed things around while still sticking to the original IP. Turn-based combat can evolve but not like what they did in XIII cause that's not evolved turn based any more than XII was. In turn-based you have your characters which each have select-able rolls and each can be controlled. The turn based model has an infinite amount of possibilities since it's tactical based. Action games are easy compared to tactical based combat. If they turn these games into action games which they are trying to do I won't be a part of it. Who dictates the times....Do you remember reading the article about Toriyama and his thought that people just want to play call of duty so lets turn Final Fantasy into call of duty. There are plenty of Western RPG's that have the style your looking for. JRPG's have always been a niche market but now I just laugh at them because they are trying to be something they're not. The combat system of the Final Fantasy IP isn't the worst problem that Square Enix has had. It's how it presents it's game-play, it's pacing of the game, it's controls, the game design layout which includes a world map that you could traverse, and an art style that screamed Japan. Final Fantasy always had a world map. Final Fantasy and it's narratives used to be poetic and well written. Now it looks like it was written by a kid in grade school. How does it not work anymore. It was working and they didn't need to stop. Square Enix just wanted more market share of people who played call of duty. They don't need to make games as if it was 1999, That's like saying in 1999 they don't need to make Final Fantasy as if it was 1990. FFVII still adhered to the original IP and of everything that I've been saying. They can change the IP and still call it Final Fantasy as a rebooted​ franchise while my Final Fantasy goes to pasture.

i'm ot going to lie....FF games since 11 have been putting way too much emphasis on realism. However, the fact that FFXV is called an fantasy based on reality makes me believe that reality is only an option in FF.

 

[Sheechiibii]

Did you ever think the reason they are calling FFXV a fantasy based on reality is because people are obsessed with realistic game circumstances. Every thing being pushed now is real time real time real time Final Fantasy was a niche market and needed to stay a niche market. Turn-based isn't supposed to be a realistic battle style. They do things new for sure but they don't leave an impact like I-X did. They did plenty of new things through-out the games from I-X. I-X did update the combat and changed things around while still sticking to the original IP. Turn-based combat can evolve but not like what they did in XIII cause that's not evolved turn based any more than XII was. In turn-based you have your characters which each have select-able rolls and each can be controlled. The turn based model has an infinite amount of possibilities since it's tactical based. Action games are easy compared to tactical based combat. If they turn these games into action games which they are trying to do I won't be a part of it. Who dictates the times....Do you remember reading the article about Toriyama and his thought that people just want to play call of duty so lets turn Final Fantasy into call of duty. There are plenty of Western RPG's that have the style your looking for. JRPG's have always been a niche market but now I just laugh at them because they are trying to be something they're not. The combat system of the Final Fantasy IP isn't the worst problem that Square Enix has had. It's how it presents it's game-play, it's pacing of the game, it's controls, the game design layout which includes a world map that you could traverse, and an art style that screamed Japan. Final Fantasy always had a world map. Final Fantasy and it's narratives used to be poetic and well written. Now it looks like it was written by a kid in grade school. How does it not work anymore. It was working and they didn't need to stop. Square Enix just wanted more market share of people who played call of duty. They don't need to make games as if it was 1999, That's like saying in 1999 they don't need to make Final Fantasy as if it was 1990. FFVII still adhered to the original IP and of everything that I've been saying. They can change the IP and still call it Final Fantasy as a rebooted​ franchise while my Final Fantasy goes to pasture.

Final Fantasy always tried to be more realistic than anything else out there, it was known for a long time as being the most realistic looking games to come out at the times. I mean, even look at the cutscenes in almost all the FF games. They have always tried to give the games as much realism as possible, and with the new consoles it's possible to do so much more than they could with the old consoles. The battle systems have to adapt to catch up, because that's what Final Fantasy has always done, it's changed and adapted to try and stay at the top of the times.

Final Fantasy is not what I'd call a niche market, it's been one of the best selling game franchises for a long time. That is not 'niche'. Turn based battle was an unrealistic battle style in a game that didn't look realistic or feel realistic, because at the time it was impossible for the systems to handle more. It's not impossible any more, and having an unrealistic battle style in an otherwise realistic game environment is daft.

Final Fantasy games have always been about being Fantasy RPGs. They have never been defined by their battle style, changing their battle style is just one of the many changes the FF series has constantly been undergoing since it was first introduced.

Actually it's a lot like what you're saying. Until FFVII all the Final Fantasy games had sprites in them. Does that mean that FFVII onwards are not FF games because they stopped using sprites and 2D environments and changed with the times? No of course not, they made changes to move with the times. Final Fantasy has always, always changed and updated to keep the franchise in demand. If the games had stayed exactly the same since FFI then sure, you'd have a point but they haven't, they have changed constantly with every single instalment.

 

[spoonyrogdrumps]

i'm ot going to lie....FF games since 11 have been putting way too much emphasis on realism. However, the fact that FFXV is called an fantasy based on reality makes me believe that reality is only an option in FF.

Final Fantasy always tried to be more realistic than anything else out there, it was known for a long time as being the most realistic looking games to come out at the times. I mean, even look at the cutscenes in almost all the FF games. They have always tried to give the games as much realism as possible, and with the new consoles it's possible to do so much more than they could with the old consoles. The battle systems have to adapt to catch up, because that's what Final Fantasy has always done, it's changed and adapted to try and stay at the top of the times.

Final Fantasy is not what I'd call a niche market, it's been one of the best selling game franchises for a long time. That is not 'niche'. Turn based battle was an unrealistic battle style in a game that didn't look realistic or feel realistic, because at the time it was impossible for the systems to handle more. It's not impossible any more, and having an unrealistic battle style in an otherwise realistic game environment is daft.

Final Fantasy games have always been about being Fantasy RPGs. They have never been defined by their battle style, changing their battle style is just one of the many changes the FF series has constantly been undergoing since it was first introduced.

Actually it's a lot like what you're saying. Until FFVII all the Final Fantasy games had sprites in them. Does that mean that FFVII onwards are not FF games because they stopped using sprites and 2D environments and changed with the times? No of course not, they made changes to move with the times. Final Fantasy has always, always changed and updated to keep the franchise in demand. If the games had stayed exactly the same since FFI then sure, you'd have a point but they haven't, they have changed constantly with every single instalment.

Razz had a break through she's not going to lie That's not really too sarcastic as you agree now on that, but your second part is tied into Sheech's comment here and other comments you've made in just the XII hang ups section. Let's both not get big heads here as neither one of us is qualified to say what battle system works, what needs to adapt what doesn't. Most people don't even know what fun is until they try it. I like to call it a best selling niche. It's a very big niche but in the big scheme of things it's still a niche. Ok Sheech I'm with ya there they wanted to make the games look realistic. I understand your emphasis. They have been defined by more than just battle style. It was also the layout of the game meaning the traversal world/world map and spacing of the game. Your right Sheech the battle system changed even through I-X but still kept it's core model. I understand the desire of real-time combat. You want a Final Fantasy with a health meter, a magic bar and limited options for characters, a willpower stat, etc and Press this button to swing your sword. The great thing about tactical turn based combat was not just your customized character but the commands of each character, every choice you made impacted battle and it's outcome. You would have to think ahead. "I need this character to set up defense this turn because x enemy is doing this attack that could wipe out my party and this character etc, or the work you had to do to build your character. What's laughable is XIII is like that but it eliminated the hard work for you. You didn't have to think ahead. You just see your health go down and change paradigms. All RPG's are Fantasy's. Video games aren't real. FFVII and so on to X were 3D worlds with updated graphics including texture and character models. They have changed but the IP didn't change in I-X, X being a stretch with no traversal map. The idea should not be how can we have tactical combat in this action game where we put a bunch of numbers up on screen to convince them it's tactical. It should be how can we add action elements to this turn-based based combat. Maybe have the L2, R2 buttons dodge and give basic attacks to counter changes in the environment of where battle is taking place while still going through each character selecting commands while the joystick could be some form of movement to get more people interested in what already was doing well, not alienating the fan-base. It's not just about combat style. It's about how character leveling is done. It will be interesting to see what they are calling FFXV and it's finished product....If it ever comes out. At this point we just don't know enough. I think it's possible for a turn based-action battle system, time just needs to be taken to develop it. Dirge of Cerberus wasn't successful and it was action based. Square Enix has yet to make a narrative worth telling with Final Fantasy. The battle system and narrative are just as important. I wouldn't take one without the other. The Elder Scrolls is an action rpg and you just control one person. Go swing your sword. The tactical turn-based combat may be older but I have yet to see the level of tactics like that used by other modern action rpg's.