By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 18 November 2014
Edit Thread
LubeMeUpUncleAlfred said:
sc94597 said:
LubeMeUpUncleAlfred said:

Like some said before; they hated FF12, but now they love it as they probably matured and wanted a certain something they couldn't get anywhere else; a game that aimed for the fences and did things well in specific areas other games never try for.  Some people on Steam that know of the hate that FF13 gets tried it out with a more open mind, void of expectations, and loved it.

The hype train does probably more damage to FF games than anything else.  But even those people that were so disappointed with FF13, like myself, still play FF13 every now and then and are still willing to go on because if there's one series that can get you intrigued beyond all hope because of the shear care in certain areas of which you can't get anywhere, it's the FF series. 

This makes sense for FF12, but how does it make sense for FF13? FF13 didn't try to be different or innovative like 12 was intended to be. FF13 tried to take a step back and fix the deviation FF12 had brought. It tried to go back to a turn-based system from a pseudo-real time system only to remove the strategy elements that make a turn-based system appealing. It tried to streamline the open-world gameplay of FF12 to an almost point A to point B linear system with not much of an overworld to speak of, eliminating any exploration aspects of the game. It didn't try to be unique nor did it try to be new. All it tried to be, was everything FF12 wasn't while retaining a lot of the crappy things that took from FF12 and adding a billion others. I understand why SQENIX would try to do it that way considering the hatred FF12 recieved, but they just went from one extreme to another. I think I am pretty open-minded these days when it comes to RPG's. I don't mind if they are turn-based, real-time or somewhere in between. I don't mind if they are relatively linear or relatively open-world. Nevertheless, I still can't find redeeming qualities in FF13. It's story is convoluted and childish. Its gameplay is dull, repetitive, and boring. There is no exploration at all. I guess the visuals and soundtrack are excellent, but that is all. That wasn't the case with FF12. There were plenty of things I liked about the game even when I would describe it as my least favorite FF (which I've since revised.) It had a nice large semi-open world that was believably deep. It had a decent story, albeit the pacing of the story was a bit off. The gameplay I wasn't very fond of at the time, but now I can appreciate it after playing MMORPG's and understanding the strategy elements of these type of games are more passive than active strategies. That is just my personal opinion though. 

On the contrary, everything in bold is a very different approach that most RPG series wouldn't dare try to do.   It's completely linear and restrictive and as a result makes a leap to be that way which is quite unique not just for the FF series, but RPGs.  

The negatives you mention can simply be spun like that.  And the thing is, it is kinda like that.  I don't know of any AAA RPG titles or open world/ semi-open world series that would do something like that and take such a huge risk to be that restrictive for a vision specifically tailored like this.

I heavily disagree about the battle system not requiring strategy too.  I don't know if you beat the game, but most people I hear this line from say that but never got to the end or even second half of the game.  There are a ton of bosses that will require you to carefully consider your paradigm set ups and you'll have to swtich them correctly or you'll fall behind and not be able to capitalize.  Several of the battles in FFXIII won't allow you to just attack passively either, you reallly have to go in for the kill or you'll die because of Doom or the Boss cures himself.

 

Now regarding bad vs. good.  We can't prove that.  One way or another you can't prove what is good or bad in a video game or any art form.  There's public opinion, but that's irrelevant regarding artistic strides.

 I personally find it to be an irritating approach overall like many others do, but yet there are times in FFXIII where I felt very satisfied like some of the boss battles.

There are many linear and restrictive JRPG's. They just weren't generally considered good (a few games do make up for it in other ways though.) That's why you don't know of them. Final Fantasy never was the epitomy of open-world JRPGs until FF12, but certainly it never was as restrictive as Final Fantasy XIII either. Having said that, it might be innovative for a Final Fantasy to be restrictive, but certainly that isn't true for RPG's and JRPG's in general. I will admit there are some bosses where you actually do need to play the game, but they were few and far in between. The core gameplay - the common enemies - could be defeated through auto-battle or a signle button repeatingly hit with only a minor loss in efficiency. With other games that have auto-battle you lose a lot if you choose to auto-battle (example that comes to my mind is the Shin Megami Tensei series.) So there is motivation for you not to choose to have the game play run for you and only show up for a boss battle here and there. There is a reason why Lighting's Return got the relatively better acclaim it had gotten. It wasn't entirely linear and there was an additional level of strategy to battles, albeit I've only played a bit of it at a friends so my knowledge of that game mostly comes from reviews. 

As for the bad vs. good, I didn't make it clear that I was expressing my opinion in these posts with the end tag, "imo", but it should be implicit to the discussion.