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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Done With Final Fantasy

IFireflyl on 28 January 2015

Darc Requiem said:

Zackasaurus-rex said:
This seems a bizarre time to make such a silly decision. Type-0 is incredible, and FFXV is set to be divine. We've also had great spin-offs like FF Explorers, Dissidia, Theatrhythm, and Bravely Default/Second.

So were XIII, XIII-2, XIII-3 and XIV and not one delivered.  The decision doesn't seem "silly" at all.

I agree with this statement. You can only be let down so many times before you start to lose hope. I am leaning towards giving Final Fantasy XV a chance based on the overwhelming opinion that Final Fantasy XV should be better, but if it fails me there will be no more Final Fantasy games in my future.

Darc Requiem said:
Personally Final Fantasy started going down hill for me with FFVII. The last time I felt the "Final Fantasy magic' was when I played Lost Odyssey.

Lost Odyssey felt more like Final Fantasy to me compared to everything after Final Fantasy X. I loved that game, and I feel like it is underappreciated.



 

Around the Network
Brainslug on 28 January 2015

Wait, are you saying that there's something distinctly "NOT" Final Fantasy about a game that is about 4 pretty boys that look like they could be a boy band on a road trip in their luxury car?

Isn't that what made the series immensely popular about Final Fantasy 1 through 10 (X)? I'm confused.



Nem on 28 January 2015

I understand. Unlike those jizzing for FFXV, while i think it looks interesting i have no illusions. The series will not go back to its past glory. Square just doesnt have the talent anymore. Besides Nomura, its all B lines.



Darc Requiem on 28 January 2015
Cloudman said:
thatguymarco said:
Meh, I was never into FF, XV , Type-0, and Crysis Core (and 9, but then I heard that it had the bs random encounters and decided that it sucked by default) are the only ones that have remotely interested me. And I've played 2 main line tittles so far, I just loath them.

If I can offer advice is that you move on to other games that try to capitalize on the classic FF formula, after all, FF is just a name, you can find similar clones if you want your FF-fix just that bad.

How about Bravely Default? That seems like the old classic FF.


You know what, I was wrong. The last time I felt the Final Fantasy magic was when I played Bravely Default.



Materia-Blade on 28 January 2015
pokoko said:
The Fury said:

It's weird. FF12 was a fantastic game but it just wasn't 'Final Fantasy'. But what is Final Fantasy? Each one is different but it has it's stables. People say it needs to change and evolve but why does it need to do that? Is it not the gameplay/format of these games we love.

There is a reason FIFA, Madden and CoD sells millions each year. Basically they are the same game. FF doesn't need to reinvent itself or change, just needs a slightly different magic system and a new story with okay graphics and we'd all be happy.

Someone on this website said it best, along the lines of for some reason FF games (and 13 in particular) became about being the pinnacle of graphics and innovation when beforehand it had never been. This is why 13 failed and XV is taking so long.

Also, raah rah, not another FF thread. etc.

That somewhere along the line was FF7.  Massive budget, focus on style with giant swords and spikey hair, and the best graphics in videogame history.  Considering how much money that game made, it's pretty easy to see why they followed that path.

FF7 graphics weren't even close to the best of videogame history at the time.



Around the Network
DigitalDevilSummoner on 29 January 2015

Every thread like this makes me wonder; don't you people realize every single numbered FF game is supposed to be a completely different game ?! I mean it's kinda funny -even stubborn- that you bank on that every future FF will be crap.

And another thing; if you didn't like FF XII on account of its gameplay then you just like a particular type of rpg; not FF. Because FF always tried to do something different -every time limited by the technology of the then current technology.

FF is not necessarily a turn based or active time rpg. It's a fresh rpg every time.



The Fury on 29 January 2015
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Every thread like this makes me wonder; don't you people realize every single numbered FF game is supposed to be a completely different game ?! I mean it's kinda funny -even stubborn- that you bank on that every future FF will be crap.

And another thing; if you didn't like FF XII on account of its gameplay then you just like a particular type of rpg; not FF. Because FF always tried to do something different -every time limited by the technology of the then current technology.

FF is not necessarily a turn based or active time rpg. It's a fresh rpg every time.

No, it's not. It's a fresh world, story, characters and how the magic system worked but for the first 10 (plus sequel) games all combat was done in a self contained arena with a turn based combat whether by traditional (X being more traditional) or ATB. The reason many liked FF was because of it's combat system, this is what made it popular because it was done so well. all they've done since is change that which made it Final Fantasy. Adpting to change it like an MMO or Kingdom Hearts won't change the fact we want a self contained battle with ATB. Assassin Creed is still just jump around and stab people, CoD is stil an FPS shooter, Tekken is still a 3D combat fighter, Street Fighter is still a 2D fighter (look at how their 3D versions did and let me know if they are still making them?).



Hmm, pie.

VXIII on 29 January 2015
The Fury said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Every thread like this makes me wonder; don't you people realize every single numbered FF game is supposed to be a completely different game ?! I mean it's kinda funny -even stubborn- that you bank on that every future FF will be crap.

And another thing; if you didn't like FF XII on account of its gameplay then you just like a particular type of rpg; not FF. Because FF always tried to do something different -every time limited by the technology of the then current technology.

FF is not necessarily a turn based or active time rpg. It's a fresh rpg every time.

No, it's not. It's a fresh world, story, characters and how the magic system worked but for the first 10 (plus sequel) games all combat was done in a self contained arena with a turn based combat whether by traditional (X being more traditional) or ATB. The reason many liked FF was because of it's combat system, this is what made it popular because it was done so well. all they've done since is change that which made it Final Fantasy. Adpting to change it like an MMO or Kingdom Hearts won't change the fact we want a self contained battle with ATB. Assassin Creed is still just jump around and stab people, CoD is stil an FPS shooter, Tekken is still a 3D combat fighter, Street Fighter is still a 2D fighter (look at how their 3D versions did and let me know if they are still making them?).

This post is contradicting itself in my humble opinion. You expand the limits/rules and then reduce them as you see fit with no clear logic or reasoning behind it. All you are saying is " they are the same, except they are not".

With that said, I don't think anybody can argue that XV is a "traditional" FF, it is even more different and daring than usual... As it meant to.



The Fury on 29 January 2015
VXIII said:
The Fury said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Every thread like this makes me wonder; don't you people realize every single numbered FF game is supposed to be a completely different game ?! I mean it's kinda funny -even stubborn- that you bank on that every future FF will be crap.

And another thing; if you didn't like FF XII on account of its gameplay then you just like a particular type of rpg; not FF. Because FF always tried to do something different -every time limited by the technology of the then current technology.

FF is not necessarily a turn based or active time rpg. It's a fresh rpg every time.

No, it's not. It's a fresh world, story, characters and how the magic system worked but for the first 10 (plus sequel) games all combat was done in a self contained arena with a turn based combat whether by traditional (X being more traditional) or ATB. The reason many liked FF was because of it's combat system, this is what made it popular because it was done so well. all they've done since is change that which made it Final Fantasy. Adpting to change it like an MMO or Kingdom Hearts won't change the fact we want a self contained battle with ATB. Assassin Creed is still just jump around and stab people, CoD is stil an FPS shooter, Tekken is still a 3D combat fighter, Street Fighter is still a 2D fighter (look at how their 3D versions did and let me know if they are still making them?).

This post is contradicting itself in my humble opinion. You expand the limits/rules and then reduce them as you see fit with no clear logic or reasoning behind it. All you are saying is " they are the same, except they are not".

With that said, I don't think anybody can argue that XV is a "traditional" FF, it is even more different and daring than usual... As it meant to.

I don't contradict anything. Maybe I should have put it more about the basics of the game. All the games I mentioned still have the same basic gameplay as they've always had. I can't see how FFXV will ever have that in terms of FF. This evolving of the combat is just removing what used to make and FF game and FF game, else why not call this new game 'Kingdom Hearts: More Realistic Edition' and be done with it.

To extend your point, all FIFA games are basically the same, it's football, you have a certain perspective and you kick a ball about. 'X' is pass, Circle is shoot, this has been the same since 1995. I can pick up FIFA15 and still know that this basic gameplay exists. Yet, each entry adds gameplay features, new ways to play, strategy even, new graphics. They do not completely change the way the gameplay works.



Hmm, pie.

IFireflyl on 29 January 2015
Materia-Blade said:
pokoko said:

That somewhere along the line was FF7.  Massive budget, focus on style with giant swords and spikey hair, and the best graphics in videogame history.  Considering how much money that game made, it's pretty easy to see why they followed that path.

FF7 graphics weren't even close to the best of videogame history at the time.

Yes they were. Final Fantasy VII was released in January of 1997. The graphics were insanely good for its time for a game that size. I don't know if it can be said, empirically, that it had the best graphics of its time... but if it didn't have the best graphics, it was close.

VXIII said:
The Fury said:
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Every thread like this makes me wonder; don't you people realize every single numbered FF game is supposed to be a completely different game ?! I mean it's kinda funny -even stubborn- that you bank on that every future FF will be crap.

And another thing; if you didn't like FF XII on account of its gameplay then you just like a particular type of rpg; not FF. Because FF always tried to do something different -every time limited by the technology of the then current technology.

FF is not necessarily a turn based or active time rpg. It's a fresh rpg every time.

No, it's not. It's a fresh world, story, characters and how the magic system worked but for the first 10 (plus sequel) games all combat was done in a self contained arena with a turn based combat whether by traditional (X being more traditional) or ATB. The reason many liked FF was because of it's combat system, this is what made it popular because it was done so well. all they've done since is change that which made it Final Fantasy. Adpting to change it like an MMO or Kingdom Hearts won't change the fact we want a self contained battle with ATB. Assassin Creed is still just jump around and stab people, CoD is stil an FPS shooter, Tekken is still a 3D combat fighter, Street Fighter is still a 2D fighter (look at how their 3D versions did and let me know if they are still making them?).

This post is contradicting itself in my humble opinion. You expand the limits/rules and then reduce them as you see fit with no clear logic or reasoning behind it. All you are saying is " they are the same, except they are not".

With that said, I don't think anybody can argue that XV is a "traditional" FF, it is even more different and daring than usual... As it meant to.

I don't see how the post is contradicting itself. The poster states that the main (numbered) Final Fantasy games from Final Fantasy 1 to Final Fantasy X-2 had a self-contained arena for the battles, and that the battle system was a form of turn-based (either directly turn-based, or ATB which is a variation of turn-based). The poster goes on to say that the combat system is what most people loved about these games. The believe that the poster is saying that the world, story, characters, and magic[/summon] system was different per game, but that the games all had the same feel of Final Fantasy, and that this was due [mostly] to the battle system.