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

Forums - Sony Discussion - FINAL FANTASY XVI Story Trailer

Trailer looked gd. Reminded me so much on ff12 which was one of my fav ff games



Around the Network

I don't know, probably alone on this one but I really like turn based combat, especially in FF games. The game looks good but the fast paced action oriented Gameplay seems off. Such a shame the series went in this western oriented direction.



Think for yourself, question authority

abroZ said:

I don't know, probably alone on this one but I really like turn based combat, especially in FF games. The game looks good but the fast paced action oriented Gameplay seems off. Such a shame the series went in this western oriented direction.

No, I agree with this. The combat has gone to hell since FFXIII and FFXV, where they dumped strategy and patience for flare effects, Bayonetta and DMC-like jumping and shouting and full-on anime style chaos. Not to mention all but taking party control away.

To me, that setting looks very bland, very little color, stereotype biomes, every corner of the world speaks mostly the same dialect and language, story follows royals etc. Standard Final Fantasy fare, down to the hairstyles and armors. For me, the franchise died after FFXII; it was the last one with decent characters, fun combat and a pretty good story overall. FFXII did real-time right, and mixed it with pausing/turn-based. The Gambit system was a fantastic addition in such a system, and miles beyond the sheer lack of autonomy and control of FFXIII and XV. This new style of combat looks like Metal Gear Rising or something, it holds zero appeal to me. I feel like a bitter, old fart, but it's the truth of it. I understand that franchises need to evolve to remain relevant, but this isn't a very good solution. Considering the games are now multi-platform and the industry is bigger than ever, sales appear to reflect this notion.



abroZ said:

I don't know, probably alone on this one but I really like turn based combat, especially in FF games. The game looks good but the fast paced action oriented Gameplay seems off. Such a shame the series went in this western oriented direction.

Probably alone? Classic.

Half the player base here want a FF ATB game again. What FF has the potential for (and this is a bad thing) is to become just another action RPG. It's just currently got the luck of having a bit more money thrown at it. 

I current really want and FF game that looks like this and FF15 but plays like FF5-9. I'm not being given that however. People say ATB is dead, and point to the new FF release sales as evidence, ignoring the fact SquEnix aren't making a ATB FF game to compare sales to.

Anyway on topic, the game looks a vast improvement over the first trailer we saw and based on what action we have seen, each time it feels like a boss rush as there seems very little in the way of exploration and general grind combat. Whatever my faults with FF7Re-make-money, it still had a decent enemy and exploration stuff. 



Hmm, pie.

FF is all about reinventing the wheel with each game. Each FF is supposed to have a brand new story, characters, setting, new gameplay and new shiny graphics of course.

I know most gamers are used to their comfort zone like yearly CoDs or Mario Kart and what not. Believe me, I am too with my Warriors games and JRPGs.

I just think it is refreshing for a game company to take their biggest ip and constantly take risks, especially a Japanese company, which are famous for not taking risks.



Around the Network

The character movement during combat looks too fast. Every time there are two, three seconds of gameplay, I don't know what the hell is going on. And I loved Sekiro, finished it as well. And I would say that is a very fast game. One of the best combat systems in any game ever. Because I felt always in control. FF16 looks all over the place for me in regards to combat. Perhaps there also is not enough impact for me with the player characters strikes. And everything glitters and sparks. The effects are out of control. And the numbers are too big. I don't need any numbers actually. The less hud and numbers and on-screen prompts, the better. It is perhaps customisable. But I am worried I will not like how it plays.
World, lore, story, characters look interesting enough. And I am a sucker for FF anyways. So I will buy it, but I hope future demos, previews and reviews can lay my doubts to rest.



Farsala said:

FF is all about reinventing the wheel with each game. Each FF is supposed to have a brand new story, characters, setting, new gameplay and new shiny graphics of course.

I know most gamers are used to their comfort zone like yearly CoDs or Mario Kart and what not. Believe me, I am too with my Warriors games and JRPGs.

I just think it is refreshing for a game company to take their biggest ip and constantly take risks, especially a Japanese company, which are famous for not taking risks.

I agree with the idea but when that 'risk' is just making another button mashing action RPG in a sea of button mashing RPGs, what is the risk? Weirdly, FF is become more like the latest iterations of Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile (or have they become like it?). The distinct gameplays that separated them becoming blurred lines really. Only difference is budget.

FF does indeed changes a lot of things but from 1 to 13, pretty much all of them were the same basic gameplay when it comes to their battle system (ATB or turn based, even FF12 and 13 had some kind of staggered input). 

I fine for them to try things but at the same time still long for the standard gameplay that appealed to me when I first played the series. Just like I would if Tekken changed to 2D plane fighter instead of 3D or Halo changed to 3rd person instead of first person. They are still fighters and shooters  and still Tekken and Halo but might not be what appealed in the series to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I'll probably get this, as i have faith in the team directly involved. I mean any FF project without Nomura is a good thing. :P



Hmm, pie.

The Fury said:
Farsala said:

FF is all about reinventing the wheel with each game. Each FF is supposed to have a brand new story, characters, setting, new gameplay and new shiny graphics of course.

I know most gamers are used to their comfort zone like yearly CoDs or Mario Kart and what not. Believe me, I am too with my Warriors games and JRPGs.

I just think it is refreshing for a game company to take their biggest ip and constantly take risks, especially a Japanese company, which are famous for not taking risks.

I agree with the idea but when that 'risk' is just making another button mashing action RPG in a sea of button mashing RPGs, what is the risk? Weirdly, FF is become more like the latest iterations of Star Ocean and Valkyrie Profile (or have they become like it?). The distinct gameplays that separated them becoming blurred lines really. Only difference is budget.

FF does indeed changes a lot of things but from 1 to 13, pretty much all of them were the same basic gameplay when it comes to their battle system (ATB or turn based, even FF12 and 13 had some kind of staggered input). 

I fine for them to try things but at the same time still long for the standard gameplay that appealed to me when I first played the series. Just like I would if Tekken changed to 2D plane fighter instead of 3D or Halo changed to 3rd person instead of first person. They are still fighters and shooters  and still Tekken and Halo but might not be what appealed in the series to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I'll probably get this, as i have faith in the team directly involved. I mean any FF project without Nomura is a good thing. :P

The difference for me is that it is still different enough to try and be a fresh take on the JRPG genre. Take a Souls game. Always been an action rpg with tough bosses with the same gameplay. Take Disgaea, always been tactical rpg with the same gameplay. Take WoW, always MMORPG with the same gameplay. Take Dragon Quest, always turn based JRPG with same gameplay.

FF is always a JRPG, but the gameplay/ systems are often wildly different. Do the same thing in FFVI as FFVII as FFVIII and something will be messed up. Same as FFX, FFXII, and FFXIII. Or even FFXI and FFXIV.

FFXVI is only their 2nd attempt in the FF series with a more action oriented pace. So I consider it a fresh take on the genre, as compared to a Souls game or Disgaea game that does the same thing every time (even if I do like it).



Farsala said:

The difference for me is that it is still different enough to try and be a fresh take on the JRPG genre. Take a Souls game. Always been an action rpg with tough bosses with the same gameplay. Take Disgaea, always been tactical rpg with the same gameplay. Take WoW, always MMORPG with the same gameplay. Take Dragon Quest, always turn based JRPG with same gameplay.

FF is always a JRPG, but the gameplay/ systems are often wildly different. Do the same thing in FFVI as FFVII as FFVIII and something will be messed up. Same as FFX, FFXII, and FFXIII. Or even FFXI and FFXIV.

FFXVI is only their 2nd attempt in the FF series with a more action oriented pace. So I consider it a fresh take on the genre, as compared to a Souls game or Disgaea game that does the same thing every time (even if I do like it).

Systems are different agreed but not the battle system itself, to me, losing the base gameplay means it's not really FF for me other than in name. Just like a Souls game wouldn't be that for many people if it became a turn based RPG. The new stories, magic system, weapon system etc, is what changes each time. A new spin on their standards but it still had the same combat.

The last few games have tried to remove that combat and strangely enough my appeal has also gone down. Not saying they aren't great games or I don't like Action RPGs but I'm just not looking for an action RPG in FF. Of course, 6 years between each iteration also isn't the best.



Hmm, pie.

I'm excited for the game, and it will sell well no need for the concern.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."