By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Well, this approach works for DQ because the intention behind the franchise in the first place was to provide gamers with an easy access into the genre; mechanics that are not complicated but still challenging and fun. I think this is why DQ's gameplay mechanics and storytelling have evolved very little over the years; so that players would still find it familiar and would avoid the frustration of a learning curve. Of course, most of this is based on my own observations.

Anyway, I think DQ's concept of maintaining a very traditional and minimalist core works fantastically for it, but would not work nearly as well for FF. Since the SNES era, FF has placed storytelling and character development at the forefront and that explains why the franchise has changed and evolved so much over the years, primarily adapting a more cinematic approach to accommodate for its need to tell stories.

I love both DQ and FF, but they are very different and the fact that FF did not emulate the DQ formula does not mean that it failed, but rather that it developed its own distinctive personality and goals, for better or for worse.

Finally, it bugs me when people refuse to let go of the past and accept FF for what it is... the franchise NEVER stayed in the same place twice, even back in the NES days. We now have this idea of what "traditional" is like based on the technology available back in the day, but the industry would have ceased to exist if ALL developers still made games the same way they did back then. The industry always needs innovation and CHANGE to survive, and whether you accept it or not, FF was a part of this innovation for at least three generations. So, to sum it all up... DQ is amazing and essential to the RPG genre, but so is FF in a totally different, yet indispensable, way.