Chrkeller said:
Feels like you are taking your personal opinion and applying it as fact. the market has spoke quite loudly about Square and about E33. Plus you are pulling a Soundwave and fighting arguments nobody made. Nobody said Square doesn't know how to make rpgs, I said they can't make great ones in context of E33 being better (see sales and reviews). I am happy to discuss further, but you should work on debating in good faith. E33 was cheaper, faster development, sold more, won more awards and is higher rated than what Square has done in a long time. There is no conspiracy, E33 is better than anything Square has done in a long time. And while you are entitled to your opinion.. Claiming a remake of a 1988 NES game is better than E33.. I mean, if you say so. |
While it's true E33 is indeed better than anything Square have ever released, I disagree with the notion Square has any lessons to learn here, or has to change how they make their RPGs
Simply put, E33 is almost exactly how Square make their turn based games: The narrative beats, combat system and gameplay loop. The Blueprint for E33 is Square's turn based games. What E33 changed is the inclusion of reaction in the middle of the battle which is, mind you, by far the most divisive element of the game at least among E33 target audience: The JRPG community
Two teams following roughly same route can still have varying degrees of quality in the end, overall Square output in terms of turn based RPGs are still in the positive side
what they really need to fix is their mediocre action RPGs
