Kitase talks about Action RPGs, is this FFXV's future?

[Wolf Kanno]

So Kitase had a short but provocative interview in Edge magazine recently and spoke about action RPGs like Dragon's Age are really popular and how one would be silly not to notice this trend. So of course, the gaming media has taken this as a possible hint that FFXV might be turned into an Action RPG. Despite Kitase not saying anything of the like.

Final Fantasy XV could be an action-RPG - Edge Magazine (http://www.next-gen.biz/news/final-fantasy-xv-could-be-action-rpg)

Square Enix Remains Hell-Bent On Ruining Final Fantasy - PS3 News (http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/10196.html)

So any thoughts? Do you think it might be a good direction? or do you think FF has finally "jumped the shark"? I'm not sure how I feel, I guess SE has been trying to make the series so fast and fluid that it might be nice to finally quit this foreplay with Action game elements and finally just take the plunge into the genre for FF. Its not like the series isn't about reinventing itself. On the other hand, I don't really care for Action RPGs as a genre, and they tend to have serious balancing issues.

[Del Murder]

I like the idea of a SE action RPG, but why make it FFXV? SE has had other intellectual properties besides FF in the past, some of them action RPGs. I wonder if Kingdom Hearts would qualify for a Final Fantasy title under SE's current business model.

I would prefer SE do its action RPG thing under a new name and make Final Fantasy XV a bit more traditional.

[Bolivar]

^ There's... really not much else to say other than that.

Ah, Kitase. One of my favorite game directors and most loathed producers. I'll have to read the full interview tomorrow (it's late) but hopefully his response is more in line with what Del suggested, that it's a trend the company can look into, NOT a reason to take Final Fantasy even further away from what it was for a solid 14-18 years. YES the series always reinvents itself, but there are many unwritten rules which players expected, and I would prefer they honor that. There's not a very good excuse not to, it just takes a little bit of elbow grease.

[chionos]

I like the idea of a SE action RPG, but why make it FFXV? SE has had other intellectual properties besides FF in the past, some of them action RPGs. I wonder if Kingdom Hearts would qualify for a Final Fantasy title under SE's current business model.

I would prefer SE do its action RPG thing under a new name and make Final Fantasy XV a bit more traditional.

Precisely. While Sakaguchi always said that it was better to have new characters and a new story and a new world for each new FF, I don't think he meant that FF should become what SE is trying to make it now, a brand with no core identity.

[ShinGundam]

To be fair, he doesn't seem to hint at anything at all, where did he said FFXV is action RPG ?

IMO, FF fans should worry less about the type of combat, more about structure of the world and narrative.


Precisely. While Sakaguchi always said that it was better to have new characters and a new story and a new world for each new FF, I don't think he meant that FF should become what SE is trying to make it now, a brand with no core identity.
Wrong, The thought of "let's keep using our outdated game design" won't save core identity.

[Slothy]

To be fair, he doesn't seem to hint at anything at all, where did he said FFXV is action RPG ?

He didn't come right out and say the next FF would be an action RPG, though in fairness it's pretty hard to argue that he didn't hint they could move in that direction.

I mean, you can't really say that when someone makes statements about how players in the global market are moving away from turn based games, followed by the statement "That's a trend, and you ignore things like that at your peril," that they aren't at least looking very closely at going that way.

Given the clusterfuck that was FFXIII's battle system, I can't really say it'd be a big leap for them to go that way.

Personally I'm iffy about the whole thing. Games like FFXII proved to me that turn based systems still have plenty of new things to offer, and I don't want to see an entire gameplay mechanic, particularly one which has been at the forefront in one form or another of a lot of games which are lauded as some of the best ever, simply die off because people are looking more towards action games.

In reality though, I'm sure it wouldn't die even if big franchises like FF move away from it. There are always smaller developers and indie developers. It's kind of the plight of chasing this big budget AAA ideal that leads to a more homogenous mix of top games. If you're going to spend multiple tens of millions of dollars making these things, then you have to either lok at where the market is going and ape what's popular or get ahead of the curve and define what will become popular. You can guess which is easier, and which the people investing those millions into a project are quicker to fund.

[VeloZer0]

It would be a lot more reassuring if SE hadn't demonstrated a complete inability to create good new IPs.


Wrong, The thought of "let's keep using our outdated game design" won't save core identity.
Turn based isn't outdated, it just isn't the only show in town anymore. The bar just has to be raised, not thrown in the garbage.

[ShinGundam]

OK, I am out of touch with majority of opinions at this point but i am more disheartened by the whole " Why not making it a new IP/SE new RPG" as if Squaresoft/enix hasn't produced different kinds of action RPGs before or an FF game is nothing more than turn-based/ATB as if the market wasn't filled with turn-based RPGs or the fact that people here ignoring the newer formula such as 2 numbered MMO games (FF11/FF14), one offline MMO (FF12) and 2 movies (FF10/FF13).

So i want a good reason, why an action RPG FF would be anymore offensive when FF experience ranged from a single player to a co-op multiplayer based to an MMO, from a game where positioning affects gameplay to no movement whatsoever, from completely active battles to an order based, and i can go on and on and on.



Turn based isn't outdated, it just isn't the only show in town anymore. The bar just has to be raised, not thrown in the garbage.
My personal view is the concepts of turn-based, world map, random encounters, etc aren't outdated but the execution of the game in terms of map design and structure of the world and narrative is really getting there.

[Wolf Kanno]

^ To be honest, the jump to an MMO experience has greatly divided the fanbase, to the point most of them don't even bother recognize either game as an actual entry. While said fans are not angry at the prospect of FF having an MMO title, a good chunk of the fanbase feels it was a stupid move to make it a numbered title. I've been noticing something similar happening with DQX among its fanbase. So while making an FF action RPG itself isn't something fans are angry about, its the fact that its being slated as a numbered entry which would make it move even further from the core elements that old time fans loved about the series. Its definetly going to be a dividing title if it was made.

Course I'm still banking on SE just turning FFVersusXIII (which is an Action RPG) into FFXV. Its been pretty much established that the new XIII mythos is being interpreted differently for each game, so how is that any different from how earlier games reinterpret plot points like the Crystals, Meteor, and Summoners?

As for the whole "Dungeon, World Map, Town, Dungeon" set-up, I honestly disagree with it being an old outdated relic. Otherwise, XIII wouldn't have gotten such a negative backlash from excluding these elements. Hell, games like Xenoblade Chronicles seem to have taken the formula to a higher tier by making all the elements more engaging and less monotonous, by reincorporating better NPC interaction, better quest systems, and better exploration. Hell DQVIII pretty much built the best compromise between old school world map systems and the newer ones. I feel the system works, its SE who has convinced themselves its old and outdated.

[VeloZer0]

OK, I am out of touch with majority of opinions at this point but i am more disheartened by the whole " Why not making it a new IP/SE new RPG" as if Squaresoft/enix hasn't produced different kinds of action RPGs before or an FF game is nothing more than turn-based/ATB as if the market wasn't filled with turn-based RPGs or the fact that people here ignoring the newer formula such as 2 numbered MMO games (FF11/FF14), one offline MMO (FF12) and 2 movies (FF10/FF13).
I think that a lot of people are upset about the dilution of the FF brand. Before having a "Final Fantasy" used to mean quite a bit more that it does now. Sure there were some shameless cash ins, but all and all if you bought a numbered FF entry you could be fairly certain of what you were getting. Now we are heading to a time where "FF" is just a euphemism for "Made by Square-Enix".

[Bolivar]

As for the whole "Dungeon, World Map, Town, Dungeon" set-up, I honestly disagree with it being an old outdated relic.

In the interest of fairness, what ShinGundam said was this:


Bolivar is the most insightful poster on this forum and Revenant Wings was a good game.

Haha, j/k. Seriously, it was this:


My personal view is the concepts of turn-based, world map, random encounters, etc aren't outdated but the execution of the game in terms of map design and structure of the world and narrative is really getting there.

I'm not sure what's meant by that, but if we're talking about XIII here then, yeah, they could put a lot more ingenuity into the execution of this stuff.

I read the article, and I think we're gonna have to wait until the full interview's posted to decide whether this article title is flame bait or not. There's a couple statements like "FF always changes, we'll always try something new," "we left the door open after XIII and XIII-2 to do something different," and "you can't ignore this trend" which, taken together, make it seem like they're considering it for FFXV. But these could have been at different points and just spun by Edge (they're Xbox 360 fanboys anyway...)

We'll see though.

[Depression Moon]

I didn't think Dragon Age was considered to be an Action-RPG, but a WRPG. I was thinking something like Kingdom Hearts is classified as an Action-RPG. As far as the subject goes, if they're referring to WRPGS then I don't think it's a good idea. I play Final Fantasy because it's a JRPG series and not a WRPG series. I probably won't try the game out if I find both XIII and Versus XIII to be bad.

When they mentioned at E3 that the only Japanese game shown from SE was XIII-2. I thought that was pretty sad. I'm thinking maybe people are playing less of these games is because they're less available on consoles. I would buy some if I knew of any for the PS3. White Knight Chronicles doesn't appeal to me and the other ones are for the 360, but no new ones have been made in a long while.

Also perhaps people are also tired of the same kind of stories presented in these games. Maybe not, because a lot of WRPGs seem to stay similar in story as well.

[VeloZer0]

I'm not tired of the types of stories they are telling, I am tired of having them half baked and poorly written. I don't think this message is getting through to SE though.

[Bolivar]

D.Moon, I can't say for sure, but from what I heard they made Dragon Age II way more in the style of a hack-and-slash. That may be what they're referencing since I know Dragon Age Origins was playable in FFXII style, something Bioware kinda started themselves with KOTOR. Oh, and play Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles.

Anyway, apparently there are a lot of great JRPGs today, they're just on handhelds. Which not a lot of people buy because advertising is less there, and the dedicated consumer base on them is kinda small. It's like a chicken-or-the-egg kinda problem. But I think we've already hashed out here already that small teams are more likely to succeed with a vision on games like RPGs. And you can't build a console game today with a small team. There's so many expectations of what an HD game has to do that a lot of the great writing and game design falls to the wayside. I've said a lot of this before, but I think the moral of the story is this generation isn't friendly for RPGs. But current gen games sell a lot of copies and make a lot of money and Square will gladly throw the integrity of their franchises to the flames trying to figure out how to tap into that. Right now I'd totally be down for FFXV being on the Vita & 3DS.

And by RPGs you all know what I mean. Yeah, there's a lot of popular "those" RPGs today, but all of those games blow.

[Flying Arrow]

I didn't think Dragon Age was considered to be an Action-RPG, but a WRPG. I was thinking something like Kingdom Hearts is classified as an Action-RPG. As far as the subject goes, if they're referring to WRPGS then I don't think it's a good idea. I play Final Fantasy because it's a JRPG series and not a WRPG series. I probably won't try the game out if I find both XIII and Versus XIII to be bad.

I'm curious as to your definition of a WRPG. The term refers to "Western RPG" but that really only seems to cover region rather than mechanics. Lots of games are considered WRPGs, but the term is only used to differentiate them from RPGs made in Japan. Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age are both WRPGs but are in no way shape or form of the same genre of game. I don't consider WRPG to be a genre, although I do consider JRPG a genre - not because of region, but because they all share very similar mechanics. There's no mistaking a JRPG for any other genre.

If you mean WRPG in the sense that it's tactical PC RPG a la the mid-90s-2000s, then yeah. I wouldn't call it an action RPG - although it's not completely turn-based either, IIRC.

Anyway, I don't mean to challenge you or anything. I was just curious.

As for the article, does it mention Dragon Age? If he considers Dragon Age the new wave of RPGs (it's really only a two game series and doesn't really have any imitators)... then I question if he even knows what he's talking about. FFXII was a lot like Dragon Age in a lot of ways, so if he's looking for inspiration on where to take the series then he needs to realize the FF series has kind of already been there.

Thing is, I don't really see a lot of overlap between a Dragon Age player and a Final Fantasy player, no matter how much Final Fantasy imitates Dragon Age. The general vibe I get these days is that FF (and JRPGs in general) has just stigmatized itself, especially in the eyes of those who have grown up/are growing up with Western RPGs.

The best comment from the Edge article:


Just give us a decent turn based JRPG with a full world to explore and a decent and involving storyline. It really is that simple.

Yes yes and yes. SE need to stop making excuses about why they can't do this or that and just make a damn fully fleshed out JRPG that people can sink their teeth into.

[Bolivar]

^ Word, no reason to settle and not shoot for the stars.

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

[Slothy]

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

[Bolivar]

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

I do believe that's the case.

I mean overall, beyond Dragon Age, we can see a trend of WRPGs bringing in more action elements. Mass Effect is a good example with how the second one moved the series closer to a shooter. And I know a lot of fans of the older Fallout games didn't like the perspective change Bethesda brought (not sure if you can really fault that, that's just how they make their games). It's bad this is all convincing one of Square's studio heads to move further and further away from RPG gameplay conventions, since the recent RPGs I've liked the most go all out with them.

[Del Murder]

It seems like the only reason that Square continues to make RPGs is because it is and has been an RPG company. I bet that if the current management were to start a new company from scratch today, it would probably not make RPGs. They are trying to make what is selling in the current market rather than stick to what they've been good at.

[chionos]

OK, I am out of touch with majority of opinions at this point but i am more disheartened by the whole " Why not making it a new IP/SE new RPG" as if Squaresoft/enix hasn't produced different kinds of action RPGs before or an FF game is nothing more than turn-based/ATB as if the market wasn't filled with turn-based RPGs or the fact that people here ignoring the newer formula such as 2 numbered MMO games (FF11/FF14), one offline MMO1 (FF12) and 2 movies (FF10/FF13).

So i want a good reason, why an action RPG FF would be anymore offensive when FF experience ranged from a single player to a co-op multiplayer based to an MMO, from a game where positioning affects gameplay to no movement whatsoever, from completely active battles to an order based, and i can go on and on and on.2
My personal view is the concepts of turn-based, world map, random encounters, etc aren't outdated but the execution of the game in terms of map design and structure of the world and narrative is really getting there.3

1. what in the world do you mean by "offline MMO"? offline =/= mega multiplayer online. And by "movie" do you refer to their linear storytelling? I consider this linearity to be part of the same problem so I would use this as further evidence of my own position.

2. Action and button mashing tend to flavor a game. Certain gaming elements tend to flow together better than others. Action RPG's are frenetic. JRPGs are regimented and systematic. Even the three FFs that clearly departed from the traditional battle system, FFXI, FFXII, and FFXIV, contain systems that keep them regimented and systematic. FFXI and FFXIV each have systems of delay wherein each action is on a timer and cannot be spammed, so they can't truly be said to be rtb, they're basically still atb. And FFXII, of course, had the gambit system. Having played them all (and a large number of action rpgs), I don't feel that these differences are as significant as the differences that action rpgs being.

3. If the FF model that's been used for 24 years is getting outdated, then imo it's not time to change what it means to be FF, but to be done with FF. This is part of a fallacy (fallacious imo, not by any objective reasoning) of modern thought where if you don't like the way a thing is, just change it instead of finding something else to like. Man I've really liked bleu cheese since I was 12, the first time I ever remember having it. It's so good. But now I hear there's this stuff called Gorgonzola Dolce. I've been eating bleu cheese so long it's getting kinda old. Should I switch to Gorgonzola Dolce? No, instead I'll just make bleu cheese more like Gorgonzola Dolce. So let's sweeten up that bleu, and soften it...ah that's better. Perfect. So would you like some bleu cheese? What? No, this isn't Gorgonzola Dolce, it's bleu cheese. It doesn't look like bleu cheese, or smell like bleu cheese, or taste like bleu cheese, but it's bleu cheese because that's what I've always called it.
It's like if roses were suddenly considered outdated and genetically manipulated to be like voodoo lilies. It's the opposite of the Shakespearean name dilemma. A rose, by any other smell, would name as sweet.

I think, after some careful thought, that my biggest problem with the changes happening to Final Fantasy are tied to the changing definition of Fantasy itself. Fantasy has been diluted by science fiction and by the loss of appreciation or knowledge of the distinction between high and low fiction. The long and short of the matter is that the connotation of Final Fantasy is changing. I'm oldschool basically, so to me Final Fantasy meant Sword and Sorcery High Fantasy. Dragons. Swords and shields. Castles. Dwarves and elves. And so on, you know what I mean. Furthermore SE established its own sort of vocabulary for fantasy games. Some of the staples being airships, crystals, chocobos, and moogles.
With the departure of Sakaguchi, as director, and Amano, as lead artist, after FFVI, the series began to move away from some of those elements and incorporate, among other things, sci-fi and low fantasy elements. Something about this transition carried with it the need to switch to a linear story and world, at least to SE. So along the way, 2 of the elements that defined Final Fantasy to me were lost: the sword and sorcery stylings, and the explorable world (complete with a world map, yes). High Fantasy is all about the exploration of another world completely separate from our own. Why invent a universe and then just show me 0.0000000001% of it?

So basically, how can you define Final Fantasy anymore? What is its identity? Does throwing crystals and airships and moogles into a game make it Final Fantasy? I personally don't think so. It's part of what makes FF FF, but it's not complete. And if there's no way to define Final Fantasy anymore under the current model, why continue filing games under this moniker? It leads to certain expectations that aren't fulfilled, cannot be fulfilled.

[Depression Moon]

I didn't think Dragon Age was considered to be an Action-RPG, but a WRPG. I was thinking something like Kingdom Hearts is classified as an Action-RPG. As far as the subject goes, if they're referring to WRPGS then I don't think it's a good idea. I play Final Fantasy because it's a JRPG series and not a WRPG series. I probably won't try the game out if I find both XIII and Versus XIII to be bad.

I'm curious as to your definition of a WRPG. The term refers to "Western RPG" but that really only seems to cover region rather than mechanics. Lots of games are considered WRPGs, but the term is only used to differentiate them from RPGs made in Japan. Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age are both WRPGs but are in no way shape or form of the same genre of game. I don't consider WRPG to be a genre, although I do consider JRPG a genre - not because of region, but because they all share very similar mechanics. There's no mistaking a JRPG for any other genre.

If you mean WRPG in the sense that it's tactical PC RPG a la the mid-90s-2000s, then yeah. I wouldn't call it an action RPG - although it's not completely turn-based either, IIRC.

Anyway, I don't mean to challenge you or anything. I was just curious.

I consider games like Diablo II, Baldur's Gate II: Dark Alliance, and Demon Souls as WRPGs. I've seen classmates play Dragon Age a couple of years ago and from what I remembered it looked similar to Demon Souls to me.

[VeloZer0]

I really don't know why people call Demon's Souls a JRPG. As far as I know the J refereed to a style, not a physical place of development. It would take an extremely xenophobic gamer to actually think labeling the country of origin was an important part of it's over all classification.

[Flying Arrow]

^ Yep, and that is a large chunk of the Western gaming population, if various gaming message boards are enough to go by (they probably aren't). Most people throw the J around as a derogatory statement. I partially blame internet personalities like Yahtzee.


Demon Souls as WRPGs.

Really? I'm curious again - how do you see Demon's Souls as a WRPG? I guess I'm just not understanding your definition of WRPG. Are you going by pure aesthetic? Dragon Age and Demon's Souls couldn't be more different mechanically, really.



And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

SE are so out of touch with what makes a good game that it isn't even funny anymore. The thing that's potentially depressing is the way in which Kitase referenced DA2. Did he simply point out that DA2 is the trend and hint that the FF games might follow suit? Or did he explicitly mention his experience playing it, and then outline why he thought it was a good videogame and why it would be a good inspiration for the FF series? It's disheartening to see how much business language goes into interviews and gaming articles these days and how no one (especially interviewers) ever go and call them out on it.

[Bolivar]

3. If the FF model that's been used for 24 years is getting outdated, then imo it's not time to change what it means to be FF, but to be done with FF. This is part of a fallacy (fallacious imo, not by any objective reasoning) of modern thought where if you don't like the way a thing is, just change it instead of finding something else to like. Man I've really liked bleu cheese since I was 12, the first time I ever remember having it. It's so good. But now I hear there's this stuff called Gorgonzola Dolce. I've been eating bleu cheese so long it's getting kinda old. Should I switch to Gorgonzola Dolce? No, instead I'll just make bleu cheese more like Gorgonzola Dolce. So let's sweeten up that bleu, and soften it...ah that's better. Perfect. So would you like some bleu cheese? What? No, this isn't Gorgonzola Dolce, it's bleu cheese. It doesn't look like bleu cheese, or smell like bleu cheese, or taste like bleu cheese, but it's bleu cheese because that's what I've always called it.
It's like if roses were suddenly considered outdated and genetically manipulated to be like voodoo lilies. It's the opposite of the Shakespearean name dilemma. A rose, by any other smell, would name as sweet.

I would hate to see FF go, but I think you made your point really well. Also, I really like bleu cheese :spin:


SE are so out of touch with what makes a good game that it isn't even funny anymore. The thing that's potentially depressing is the way in which Kitase referenced DA2. Did he simply point out that DA2 is the trend and hint that the FF games might follow suit? Or did he explicitly mention his experience playing it, and then outline why he thought it was a good videogame and why it would be a good inspiration for the FF series? It's disheartening to see how much business language goes into interviews and gaming articles these days and how no one (especially interviewers) ever go and call them out on it.

I think one reason he might've said this is because Kitase isn't just a developer anymore, he's a representative of the company who speaks on its behalf. Investors look to him to measure if the compnay's keeping up with trends or not, so this may have just been some boilerplate. It's similar to Bobby Kotick from Activision, who probalby doesn't hate video games and his developers, but the things he says at conference calls get taken at face value.

[ShinGundam]

^ Yep, and that is a large chunk of the Western gaming population, if various gaming message boards are enough to go by (they probably aren't). Most people throw the J around as a derogatory statement. I partially blame internet personalities like Yahtzee.


Demon Souls as WRPGs.

Really? I'm curious again - how do you see Demon's Souls as a WRPG? I guess I'm just not understanding your definition of WRPG. Are you going by pure aesthetic? Dragon Age and Demon's Souls couldn't be more different mechanically, really.



And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

SE are so out of touch with what makes a good game that it isn't even funny anymore. The thing that's potentially depressing is the way in which Kitase referenced DA2. Did he simply point out that DA2 is the trend and hint that the FF games might follow suit? Or did he explicitly mention his experience playing it, and then outline why he thought it was a good videogame and why it would be a good inspiration for the FF series? It's disheartening to see how much business language goes into interviews and gaming articles these days and how no one (especially interviewers) ever go and call them out on it.
Dude, This is an action RPG FF on PSP scale : FINAL FANTASY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK6zfhJUsNc)
I honestly not sure anymore, where did Kitase talk about DA stuff? I don't even.

[Roogle]

I hope that they make the right decision by reviving an older series and giving it action role-playing game elements rather than to try to put them where fans don't feel they belong. Final Fantasy has been a successful series, but one of its major was when many fans felt alienated by the fact that Final Fantasy XI was an online game. I, myself, remember being quite surprised at the announcement and wondered why they didn't simply create a game called Final Fantasy Online rather than insisting it as a proper title in the series.

[Rostum]

"There is always the possibility that we may end up with a first-person shooter FF." - Kitase

Kitase, you're an idiot.

[Laddy]

I honestly think that's a joke. An FF FPS would alienate the fans because shooters are fucking all over the place and the fans want an RPG. Shooter fans won't be able to get over the Final Fantasy name. It's the dumbest thing Square could do. As in, kill Final Fantasy dumb.

[VeloZer0]

It's the dumbest thing Square could do. As in, kill Final Fantasy dumb.

Well they have been trying so hard and still haven't managed to, it is about time they stepped up their game. :D

[black orb]

>>> News for SE:
RPGs with a decent story-plot are the future..:luca:

simple as that..