Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should Final Fantasy become a new type of game or should Final Fantasy not become a new type of game?

 

Xxain said:
 I am surprised that we don't know what qualifies as a triple AAA

I am surprised that some people still think their opinion = fact.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network

One thing is for certain, you can never know what the next FF will be like,they always reinvent the ip so lets hope the next game is the one that brings back the same greatness as classics did.



There is no doubt that FFXV failed as an open world game, the design was flawed in several ways there, huge areas of the map were devoid of any real content, the car couldn't be driven off road, you didn't get the flying car until after you beat the game making it largely pointless, Chocobo's were too slow to travel the large map in a reasonable amount of time. The world building is terrible as well, they did an awful job at making you feel the plight of the characters and making you feel like you were a part of that world.

As for the future of the franchise, they have 2 options ahead of them as I see it:

1. Press on with the heavily western action RPG inspired formula they were aiming for with FFXV, and try to do it right this time. (Regardless of what option is chosen for FF16, it does seem like 7 Remake will retain the action formula)

2. Go back to the classic turn based JRPG style and hope that it will still sell well in a rapidly changing market where there hasn't been a AAA turn based game since FF13 a decade ago (no, Pokemon and Persona are not AAA, AAA games by their very definition are made by large teams [as of the 8th generation, typically over 200 devs] and have large budgets [as of the 8th generation, typically over $50m development+marketing combined], Gamefreak has 143 devs split across multiple teams and Atlus has 280 devs split across multiple teams, therefore neither is AAA by definition)

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 01 February 2019

Xxain said:
I love having these debates but I'm going to ignore the Persona and Pokemon thing for another thread. I am surprised that we don't know what qualifies as a triple AAA and how many people are butthurt that your favorite series is not considered AAA, because in reality, it means nothing! just a way to define how much money is going into a particular IP that's all!. Got to go to work definitely will get back to this.

Its about production values (wich includes marketing and media outreach btw). Now you made up an arbitrary 50 million number also has absolutly no idea how much money went into the production of P5 and Pokemon and therefore is just making up nonsense, sorry but you are. You also talked about these games being B class, wich has to do with their quality not their production value and then seemed to forget that detail later on the discussion.

Anyway P5 and possibly Pokemon budgets might not be that big, but thats besides the point, they had better results with less money than FF XV did. Square should be looking to understand what those games did/do and improve upon it with their ginormous budget rather than trying to copy western style games  and waste money while making the series loose popularity (because wheter you want it or not, that's what has been happening to FF since XIII).

Last edited by DakonBlackblade - on 02 February 2019

Xxain said:
I love having these debates but I'm going to ignore the Persona and Pokemon thing for another thread. I am surprised that we don't know what qualifies as a triple AAA and how many people are butthurt that your favorite series is not considered AAA, because in reality, it means nothing! just a way to define how much money is going into a particular IP that's all!. Got to go to work definitely will get back to this.

I've been coming here for years and finally now made an account for this thread. I feel like your measuring success like some sort of shareholder. if budget and marketing are that important to you that's fine, but have you played P5? "AAA" or not, atlus shipped a completed product that was crazy good. square did not. I don't use money to gauge a games value, I use fun as a personal meter stick. It's crazy to think i enjoyed FF games more when they were churning em out like theres no tomorrow



Around the Network

Odyssey is a rinse and repeat grind all the way through, from mechanics to missions. Surprised it reviewed well, and glad you like it.



shikamaru317 said:

There is no doubt that FFXV failed as an open world game, the design was flawed in several ways there, huge areas of the map were devoid of any real content, the car couldn't be driven off road, you didn't get the flying car until after you beat the game making it largely pointless, Chocobo's were too slow to travel the large map in a reasonable amount of time. The world building is terrible as well, they did an awful job at making you feel the plight of the characters and making you feel like you were a part of that world.

As for the future of the franchise, they have 2 options ahead of them as I see it:

1. Press on with the heavily western action RPG inspired formula they were aiming for with FFXV, and try to do it right this time. (Regardless of what option is chosen for FF16, it does seem like 7 Remake will retain the action formula)

2. Go back to the classic turn based JRPG style and hope that it will still sell well in a rapidly changing market where there hasn't been a AAA turn based game since FF13 a decade ago (no, Pokemon and Persona are not AAA, AAA games by their very definition are made by large teams [as of the 8th generation, typically over 200 devs] and have large budgets [as of the 8th generation, typically over $50m development+marketing combined], Gamefreak has 143 devs split across multiple teams and Atlus has 280 devs split across multiple teams, therefore neither is AAA by definition)

I do not see turn base coming back, it is not popular anymore. It is to me though, but i'm not a youngster anymore.



SquirrelWhisperer said:
Xxain said:
I love having these debates but I'm going to ignore the Persona and Pokemon thing for another thread. I am surprised that we don't know what qualifies as a triple AAA and how many people are butthurt that your favorite series is not considered AAA, because in reality, it means nothing! just a way to define how much money is going into a particular IP that's all!. Got to go to work definitely will get back to this.

I've been coming here for years and finally now made an account for this thread. I feel like your measuring success like some sort of shareholder. if budget and marketing are that important to you that's fine, but have you played P5? "AAA" or not, atlus shipped a completed product that was crazy good. square did not. I don't use money to gauge a games value, I use fun as a personal meter stick. It's crazy to think i enjoyed FF games more when they were churning em out like theres no tomorrow

Guys! I am not going to keep repeating myself!!!!

"AAA" "B" "C" HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE GAME!!!!! It is totally possible for  B or C class game to be better than AAA games. 

I am not saying that Pokemon or Persona are lesser games compared to anything qualified as "AAA".  It simply means that the budget dedicated to triple AAA games and the intended target audience is much much much larger than B or C class games. Pokemon is the anomaly is this case as it in has become more than just a game series, It reach is power global, but the budget allotted to these games are like 20mill or less. The latest game used 3DS assets for crying out loud. FINAL FANTASY IS A GLOBAL BRAND meant to appeal to masses so it must make changes to remain competitive. PERSONA and OCTO can do as they please, because they are aimed at a specific crowd. They don't need to cater to trends.