PDA

View Full Version : What is wrong with Turn-Based Combat?



Skyblade
12-19-2015, 02:41 PM
Since the announcement of the change to Final Fantasy VII Remake's battle system, I've found myself asking this question over and over, and I've finally found it crystallized in Jim Sterling's recent broadcast.

jpIlShZ2tEI

Can someone tell me, what is wrong with Turn-Based combat? What made these games the utter pariah that they are today? What makes companies like Square ignore the empirical evidence of releases like Bravely Default shattering all sales expectations? And why can't Square actually REMAKE a game without ruining the battle system that helped make it great in the first place?

Fynn
12-19-2015, 02:54 PM
It's not that it doesn't work, it's that real time is easier to process for people, which is why the mainstream puts pressure on action based combat.

Bravely Default did good... for a handheld game that was expected to be extremely niche. It had far from the cultural influence games like The Witcher and other RPGs had. Literally no one aside from old school RPG and anime fans played it. It was a love letter towards us. Whereas FFVII:R is means to reach a wide audience.

Compare this to movies, where slow, thoughtful, subtle independent titles can be more poignant and even rewarding from what has mass appeal, but in the past, slower movies WERE part of the mainstream.

Short answer: times are changing. Does that mean there's something wrong with turn based combat? Hell no. I want it there just like any other person. But the mainstream has little patience for that now that all games in it are so action-centered.

I'm actually okay with this, unless someone comes up to say turn based systems need to die and FF needs to quit making them. Yeah, let's just make all the games the same, because things that are different are inherently inferior and diversity should be eliminated :roll2

On that note, I'm still in the "yay" camp when it comes to the remake as I'm really curious what they'll make it work like. I usually prefer for remakes to do things differently because really, when will you try different things for a game if not in a remake?

Pumpkin
12-19-2015, 03:16 PM
I prefer turn-based, personally, but both are fine I guess. It's probably a more accessible thing like Fynn mentioned. I do miss turn-based though as it seems to be in less and less games

Shauna
12-19-2015, 04:00 PM
Nothing. The AAA game industry thinks there is though, so that's all that matters to them.

fat_moogle
12-19-2015, 05:15 PM
There's nothing wrong with it, but it could be seen as a little slow. Why else would Square Enix launch Final Fantasy VII on PS4 with the 3 X speed? I've just literally started playing the game with this setting.

Zeldy
12-19-2015, 06:30 PM
As a Nintendo gamer born and bred, I enjoyed the turn-based combat on FF7 as it was different and it set playstation apart, to me.

edit - i mean pre-paper mario ofc.

I'm disappointed they're ruining FF7 in that way. A game so perfect - it doesn't even require any work, I'll take the box hands over HD graphics any day.

Fox
12-19-2015, 08:50 PM
But the mainstream has little patience for that now that all games in it are so action-centered.


That was kinda Hatsune Miku's point though - where's the evidence for that?

Imagine if someone said: "Well, Call of Duty is still selling millions every year, but we've had first person shooting since Wolfenstein 3D, and it's therefore a dated mechanic that we need to stop using because the mainstream are sick of it".

Think back to Final Fantasy X. Very popular game, sold a lot, beloved to this very day. And that was the opposite of getting more realtime, that took away the ATB and slowed the pace. It was great and there was no issue with it as far as I can tell. X-2 then reintroduced the ATB in a very creative way, and pretty much the only thing consistently praised about that game is the battle system. Then... they just sort of stopped. And I can't figure it out. I can't see that crossover point where the 'mainstream' started being sick of mechanics that they've been perfectly happy with for nigh on twenty years.

Skyblade
12-19-2015, 09:10 PM
But the mainstream has little patience for that now that all games in it are so action-centered.


That was kinda Hatsune Miku's point though - where's the evidence for that?

Imagine if someone said: "Well, Call of Duty is still selling millions every year, but we've had first person shooting since Wolfenstein 3D, and it's therefore a dated mechanic that we need to stop using because the mainstream are sick of it".

Think back to Final Fantasy X. Very popular game, sold a lot, beloved to this very day. And that was the opposite of getting more realtime, that took away the ATB and slowed the pace. It was great and there was no issue with it as far as I can tell. X-2 then reintroduced the ATB in a very creative way, and pretty much the only thing consistently praised about that game is the battle system. Then... they just sort of stopped. And I can't figure it out. I can't see that crossover point where the 'mainstream' started being sick of mechanics that they've been perfectly happy with for nigh on twenty years.

"Adventure games are dead, the genre has been incorporated into others and will never be successful again!"

Then Telltale makes millions off of an abandoned genre that the mainstream ignored.

It's not as though the original PlayStation was over saturated with turn based games. Most of the titles for the system were action games, exactly the way the current console lineup is. But then FFVII came out with a turn based system, and became a gaming icon.

But now Square is abandoning a system that has proven wildly successful every time they've used it, and doing so on the one game that could benefit most from a turn-based approach. A remake of the game that showed the world how good slowing things down could be.

Fynn
12-19-2015, 10:26 PM
But the mainstream has little patience for that now that all games in it are so action-centered.


That was kinda Hatsune Miku's point though - where's the evidence for that?

Imagine if someone said: "Well, Call of Duty is still selling millions every year, but we've had first person shooting since Wolfenstein 3D, and it's therefore a dated mechanic that we need to stop using because the mainstream are sick of it".

Think back to Final Fantasy X. Very popular game, sold a lot, beloved to this very day. And that was the opposite of getting more realtime, that took away the ATB and slowed the pace. It was great and there was no issue with it as far as I can tell. X-2 then reintroduced the ATB in a very creative way, and pretty much the only thing consistently praised about that game is the battle system. Then... they just sort of stopped. And I can't figure it out. I can't see that crossover point where the 'mainstream' started being sick of mechanics that they've been perfectly happy with for nigh on twenty years.

I know it's bizarre, but at some point it just happened. I think at a time there were five EoFF newbies in a row that would begin their posting with a thread about how the turn-based systems are holding back FF. It's pretty weird.

So it's no wonder SE wants to do it that way since the remake is damage control for if FFXV does poorly (we all know it) so they just want to be sure they get the most money possible.

Skyblade
12-19-2015, 11:09 PM
But the mainstream has little patience for that now that all games in it are so action-centered.


That was kinda Hatsune Miku's point though - where's the evidence for that?

Imagine if someone said: "Well, Call of Duty is still selling millions every year, but we've had first person shooting since Wolfenstein 3D, and it's therefore a dated mechanic that we need to stop using because the mainstream are sick of it".

Think back to Final Fantasy X. Very popular game, sold a lot, beloved to this very day. And that was the opposite of getting more realtime, that took away the ATB and slowed the pace. It was great and there was no issue with it as far as I can tell. X-2 then reintroduced the ATB in a very creative way, and pretty much the only thing consistently praised about that game is the battle system. Then... they just sort of stopped. And I can't figure it out. I can't see that crossover point where the 'mainstream' started being sick of mechanics that they've been perfectly happy with for nigh on twenty years.

I know it's bizarre, but at some point it just happened. I think at a time there were five EoFF newbies in a row that would begin their posting with a thread about how the turn-based systems are holding back FF. It's pretty weird.

So it's no wonder SE wants to do it that way since the remake is damage control for if FFXV does poorly (we all know it) so they just want to be sure they get the most money possible.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the backup to be a game that plays differently?

Scotty_ffgamer
12-20-2015, 12:08 AM
Do we even know that VII isn't more atb based yet? Something like XII with the free roaming, though a little quicker paced.

Shauna
12-20-2015, 12:46 AM
I know it's bizarre, but at some point it just happened. I think at a time there were five EoFF newbies in a row that would begin their posting with a thread about how the turn-based systems are holding back FF. It's pretty weird.

Are these people just parroting what the industry is telling them, though? Because if that's the hot new trend of people on the internet, then you'll hear it from everyone.

Wolf Kanno
12-20-2015, 05:31 AM
Fans have been whining about turn based combat since FFVII and probably before that when the genre was still niche. FFX's combat was also criticized for being slow, which is why X-2 brought back ATB and sped it up to make it faster. Even Hiroyuki Ito has said that ATB was a just a means to an end and believes that action elements will eventually overtake the genre as a natural evolution. This is not to say ATB/Turn Base is dead, just that it was probably going to become niche eventually.

For some fans, with the advent of more realistic graphics, the idea of people standing around waiting for their turn to look silly, especially as graphics and visuals get better. It just takes people out of the immersion which is something gamers have been saying since VII took the graphical leap to 3D. Another factor to remember is that the current generation of gamers didn't really grow up with such a system like many of us did. Such systems have been slowly fazed out of the genre for the last 15 odd years and its been ages since we saw a true Turn Base title that was universally popular. Lots of niche love but not something on VII's scale. The advent of the new generation of WRPG that focuses more on exploration and utilizes real time combat has also meant that while some of us have no real issues with ATB/Turn Based combat, that style of gaming is not what a percentage of the demographic grew up on. Another issue here is that in the last few years lack of strong RPG games that feature this style of combat on console, the genre and the old ways of doing things have flourished on handhelds which has created a new stigma that Turn Base combat is fine, but only works on lower tech titles and could never really work on a modern console system like it used to. Had a long argument with a friend about this when he said that while he enjoyed something like Bravery Default, he couldn't really see it working as a high end AAA title on console. He basically said Turn Base is for handhelds and Action-RPGs are for consoles. While I disagreed, it's difficult to get a word in when arguing with him.

I pretty much knew with most of Squenix's trends lately that the VII remake would have a more Action-RPG style to it. I'm sure it will be a cross between Crisis Core with some elements of ATB involved, but it will feel closer to KH than classic FF. I feel Bravery Default is what launched SE into making Tokyo RPG Factory and if you really want to see ATB make it back to console, it will come down to how those games work out on the PS4 compared to the Vita, as well as World of Final Fantasy. It's interesting how SE is trying to make their new generation of games for both console and handheld. I'm not sure if its just them covering their bases dealing with Japanese and Western tastes on gaming preference, but I'm sure they are looking at it closely.

maybee
12-20-2015, 07:35 AM
Alot of the younger generation seem to prefer action based rpgs because they're just quicker and they're less complicated, and they have grown up with games like Kingdom Hearts and Crisis Core and just prefer that system- Square could be just aiming towards the teens and tweens because they're going to be the ones able to buy the games and play them the most and won't be affected by things like work, babies, married life etc.

Not to mention it's the younger ones who have been complaining about FF VII's graphics and refusing to play the OG because of the graphics, while adults don't mind/ could care less- so Square might as well try and aim for the younger fanbases, while throw the oldies a bone now and again.

TL;DR- We are old grandpa's and grandma's and times are changing.

Depression Moon
12-20-2015, 08:00 AM
Wolf Kanno is Pokemon not popular anymore?

I know Pokemon isn't as popular with people my little brother's age, but the anime is still ongoing so I figure maybe?

Ayen
12-20-2015, 08:40 AM
Well, if you look at the charts -shot-

Mirage
12-20-2015, 09:08 AM
Alot of the younger generation seem to prefer action based rpgs because they're just quicker and they're less complicated, and they have grown up with games like Kingdom Hearts and Crisis Core and just prefer that system- Square could be just aiming towards the teens and tweens because they're going to be the ones able to buy the games and play them the most and won't be affected by things like work, babies, married life etc.

Not to mention it's the younger ones who have been complaining about FF VII's graphics and refusing to play the OG because of the graphics, while adults don't mind/ could care less- so Square might as well try and aim for the younger fanbases, while throw the oldies a bone now and again.

TL;DR- We are old grandpa's and grandma's and times are changing.
Why is action gameplay less complicated?

When I look at Xenoblade and XCX I don't exactly see any lack of depth in the combat system or character development system

Wolf Kanno
12-20-2015, 10:07 AM
Wolf Kanno is Pokemon not popular anymore?

I know Pokemon isn't as popular with people my little brother's age, but the anime is still ongoing so I figure maybe?

It's also mostly a handheld exclusive, going back to my point about how turn-based combat is relegated to the land of handhelds while action-rpgs are console territory for some people.

Fox
12-20-2015, 04:15 PM
FFX's combat was also criticized for being slow, which is why X-2 brought back ATB and sped it up to make it faster.

Yes but now, FFXV and VII:R's real-time systems are being criticised for being too fast and not tactical enough. So does that mean actually, action RPG mechanics are out of date and need to be phased out?

I fully understand all the arguments about why turn based is not a popular system anymore, I just don't see much in the way of corroborating evidence for it. It's not like SE kept making turn based Final Fantasies until the sales started to plummet and then tried something new, they just tried something new anyway and since then the series has struggled (relatively speaking). On home console alone, Persona 4 sold almost twice what Persona 3 did in all its releases. XCOM: Enemy Unknown is turn based on PC and consoles and sold upwards of 4 million copies. Valkyria Chronicles sold more than twice as well on the PS3 than its sequel did on the PSP. Then you look at the modern handhelds and see huge success for... Persona 4 Golden. Pokemon. Fire Emblem. Bravely Default. Lots and lots of very successful turn based games. And these wouldn't work on console because...?

This looks to me like one of those cases where the cause is being assumed from the effect. "These popular games tend to be on handheld, therefore these games can only work on handheld". Well, I don't see any reason to think that. Show me cases where these games didn't work on consoles, and I'll reconsider. But the few examples we do have to look at so far point to the opposite - there is nothing wrong with turn based systems, and they can work and be successful if and when developers choose to make them.

Mr. Carnelian
12-21-2015, 03:08 PM
I think the reason why Square Enix are trying to make combat more 'real-time' is because they're trying to appeal to a young, Western market. For this market, turn-based is not the norm for console games, or even for RPGs.

Before I started Final Fantasy, my only experience with turn-based combat was Pokemon. Apart from Pokemon, I'd never played any JRPGs before FF. Coming across turn-based combat in FFX - which Formy had to persuade me to play, originally - was a complete surprise for me. If I'd known it was turn-based before starting, it probably would have put me off the idea.

For me, the norm in RPGs was the kind of system which FFXII had. Most young people in the West may well - like I did - associate turn-based combat with Pokemon. If they heard that the FF7 remake was turn-based, they'd just think, "Oh, that'll be just like Pokemon then. I won't bother getting that".

If Square Enix want the series to go on, they can't just appeal to established fans: they have to bring in new ones. And new, Western fans might be turned off by turn-based combat.

Fynn
12-21-2015, 03:18 PM
It's not really something they have to do, since games like Persona - console games with turn-based combat - are gaining more and more traction. It's simply a safer route, and it is understandable that they took it, since they are afraid for the future of the genre if FFXV does poorly.

Though really, we still have no idea what VII's system will look like. It has an ATB gauge and looks pretty action packed - but what does that really mean?

Fox
12-21-2015, 04:08 PM
If Square Enix want the series to go on, they can't just appeal to established fans: they have to bring in new ones. And new, Western fans might be turned off by turn-based combat.

But by a similar token... why do what everyone else does? I've lost count of all the Call of Duty wannabes that have fallen by the wayside trying to copy that success. If people want to play Call of Duty... they're gonna play Call of Duty, not your derivative.

So to say "Oh hey, all the Western RPGS are doing X and Y, let's do them same!" is hugely risky. It takes away something that made Final Fantasy unique in the western market (a market which, I feel compelled to remind everyone again, was perfectly happy to buy millions and millions of turn based Final Fantasy games) and forces it suddenly to compete more with Bethesda RPGs, Bioware RPGs, CD Projeckt Red.

Skyblade
12-21-2015, 06:39 PM
I think the reason why Square Enix are trying to make combat more 'real-time' is because they're trying to appeal to a young, Western market. For this market, turn-based is not the norm for console games, or even for RPGs.

Before I started Final Fantasy, my only experience with turn-based combat was Pokemon. Apart from Pokemon, I'd never played any JRPGs before FF. Coming across turn-based combat in FFX - which Formy had to persuade me to play, originally - was a complete surprise for me. If I'd known it was turn-based before starting, it probably would have put me off the idea.

For me, the norm in RPGs was the kind of system which FFXII had. Most young people in the West may well - like I did - associate turn-based combat with Pokemon. If they heard that the FF7 remake was turn-based, they'd just think, "Oh, that'll be just like Pokemon then. I won't bother getting that".

If Square Enix want the series to go on, they can't just appeal to established fans: they have to bring in new ones. And new, Western fans might be turned off by turn-based combat.

But when FFVII came out, turn-based combat was everywhere, everyone was super used to it, and it was the norm for the market at the time, right? That's why it was such a massive success?

Oh, wait, no, the PS1 was dominated by racing games, sports games, actions games, etcetera. It had almost no turn based games, and that didn't hinder FFVII at all. If anything, it enhanced it by showing off something different from the rest of the market.

These days, FFVII R and FFXV just look exactly like every other game on the platform.

Fynn
12-21-2015, 06:42 PM
I think the reason why Square Enix are trying to make combat more 'real-time' is because they're trying to appeal to a young, Western market. For this market, turn-based is not the norm for console games, or even for RPGs.

Before I started Final Fantasy, my only experience with turn-based combat was Pokemon. Apart from Pokemon, I'd never played any JRPGs before FF. Coming across turn-based combat in FFX - which Formy had to persuade me to play, originally - was a complete surprise for me. If I'd known it was turn-based before starting, it probably would have put me off the idea.

For me, the norm in RPGs was the kind of system which FFXII had. Most young people in the West may well - like I did - associate turn-based combat with Pokemon. If they heard that the FF7 remake was turn-based, they'd just think, "Oh, that'll be just like Pokemon then. I won't bother getting that".

If Square Enix want the series to go on, they can't just appeal to established fans: they have to bring in new ones. And new, Western fans might be turned off by turn-based combat.

But when FFVII came out, turn-based combat was everywhere, everyone was super used to it, and it was the norm for the market at the time, right? That's why it was such a massive success?

Oh, wait, no, the PS1 was dominated by racing games, sports games, actions games, etcetera. It had almost no turn based games, and that didn't hinder FFVII at all. If anything, it enhanced it by showing off something different from the rest of the market.

These days, FFVII R and FFXV just look exactly like every other game on the platform.

There you have it. SE is so worried about its damaged reputation that they're simply not willing to risk doing something different than the accepted mainstream, out of fear of losing what little hope for financial gain that they have left.

Right now, though, I'm just laughing my ass off because all my predictions from the FFVII article are just coming true XD

Wolf Kanno
12-21-2015, 07:13 PM
FFX's combat was also criticized for being slow, which is why X-2 brought back ATB and sped it up to make it faster.

Yes but now, FFXV and VII:R's real-time systems are being criticised for being too fast and not tactical enough. So does that mean actually, action RPG mechanics are out of date and need to be phased out?

Well there are a lot of problems with SE's handling of combat systems as of late, and part of the core issue is that SE is trying to appeal to both camps by blending Action-RPG combat with Turn-Based and frankly they have very opposing views on what makes combat fun. So trying to rectify this has been an issue for them.


I fully understand all the arguments about why turn based is not a popular system anymore, I just don't see much in the way of corroborating evidence for it. It's not like SE kept making turn based Final Fantasies until the sales started to plummet and then tried something new, they just tried something new anyway and since then the series has struggled (relatively speaking). On home console alone, Persona 4 sold almost twice what Persona 3 did in all its releases. XCOM: Enemy Unknown is turn based on PC and consoles and sold upwards of 4 million copies. Valkyria Chronicles sold more than twice as well on the PS3 than its sequel did on the PSP. Then you look at the modern handhelds and see huge success for... Persona 4 Golden. Pokemon. Fire Emblem. Bravely Default. Lots and lots of very successful turn based games. And these wouldn't work on console because...?

A few points to make here:

X-COM and VC are Tactical RPGs whose genre of combat systems have always been Turn Based and frankly neither game is close to being a core RPG. The combat is the main event in both games and the genre requires tactics and strategy. Neither sold very well in terms of the numbers SE is looking for.

Persona is easily the most financially lucrative property Atlus owns right now but again, when you compare the sales figure to the top ten selling RPGs of the last decades, they are laughable. It is not helped that fans of the games are also divided by the combat system as newer fans push for the system to be less complicated and more user-friendly while older fans want the series to go back to it's more unforgiving roots.

Fire Emblem and Bravery Default also have a numbers issues. The only reason why these two are special is because they did surprisingly well in Western countries despite being more Japanese focus. In fact BP sold better than Lightning Returns, but there is more to this than "Turn-Based is awesome".

Pokemon is the lone exception here as it's easily the best selling RPG in the world, but even Pokemon is heavily criticized for feeling old and stale, and Nintendo's heavy resistance to move the main series beyond the handheld market continues the stigma.


This looks to me like one of those cases where the cause is being assumed from the effect. "These popular games tend to be on handheld, therefore these games can only work on handheld". Well, I don't see any reason to think that. Show me cases where these games didn't work on consoles, and I'll reconsider. But the few examples we do have to look at so far point to the opposite - there is nothing wrong with turn based systems, and they can work and be successful if and when developers choose to make them.

A lot of this is that actually. The problem comes from last console generation. The best selling JRPG on the PSP was Crisis Core, an Action-RPG whose sales crushed every traditional turn based RPG released on the handheld. Mistwalker's Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon sold mediocre and their "old school" combat systems were heavily criticized, franchises like Tales Of, seriously flourished last gen while other JRPGs retreated to smaller scale handhelds because people were kind of sick of the old school mechanics and wanted something simpler and more reactive. The fact that one of the most popular JRPGs in Japan (doing well in the West as well last I checked) is Monster Hunter, an Action-RPG whose sales have been dominating in Japan, and has been one of the most influential games in Japan for several years. If you're whining about the flood MMO elements and crafting mechanics in the JRPG genre that have popped up in the last few years, it's actually this game's fault and not WoW.

Granted, there are a lot of factors that contributed to this problem, largely stemming from Japan's terrible design process finally catching up to them after all these years. The real problem here is that Western style RPGs overtook the market. Skyrim is one of the best selling RPGs last gen with universal praise, and Mass Effect is probably one of the best new IPs in the genre to come out in years. These WRPGs largely outsold the JRPG market except on handhelds and it really threw off some Japanese companies opinions. There has been discussions on why this was happening and part of the reasoning is because WRPGs are not limited to some traditional stuffy system. These games are more action packed and the shift of combat system created a more organic flow to exploration and interaction with the world. The ability to blend RPG elements with other type of gameplay gives them more variety whereas JRPG sometimes feel the same regardless of who made it. The better development process also saw these games getting quick releases with reasonable budgets, whereas SE floundered to get anything worthwhile out the door last gen. While there are certainly many high profile, universally praised JRPGs with more traditional combat systems that did well during this time frame; it becomes a different story when you look at sales numbers and demographics.

Bravery Default sold well, it's numbers are good for small companies but nothing compared to mainline FF or Skyrim's numbers. It surprised SE that it did well for a number of reasons: it outsold an FF sequel featuring a popular character, it did well in the West despite SE having so little faith in it that Nintendo had to actually publish the game to get it out here because SE felt it would bomb, and BP did better than the game its actually a sequel to, the mostly forgotten FF: 4 Heroes of Light which got reamed for being too old school and kiddy for modern gaming taste. Here's the thing though, just because the game did better than expected over here doesn't mean that Turn-Based is still "in". All it means is that there is still a sizable group of people in the West whom that style of game appeals to, but the numbers don't justify retaining VII's traditional combat system in favor of something that may have wider mass appeal. It simply means that there is a market for those types of games, but I wouldn't be surprised if the demographics show that BP was largely bought by older gamers who grew up with those types of games as opposed to a younger generation. Hell even Pokemon gets reamed for this as the series actually has its greatest appeal with both young children and older gamers in the 25+ range, leaving out the core demographics of tweens and teens that most companies shoot for.

My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with Turn-Based combat, its a style and preference that seems to be out of favor due to changing tastes. It's not going to vanish or anything, just take a backseat for a few more years before something comes along and puts it back into favor. The issue here is that the business side of all this is looking at how Skyrim, Fallout, Monster Hunter, Tales of, and Mass Effect have shifted the market in the last decade; and how SE can take a sure fire hit like VII and make it an even bigger hit with mass appeal for a younger generation that didn't grow up on stuffy PS1 Turn-Based RPGs. This is a marketing and business decision, nothing else. SE wants to make sure that VII doesn't just grab the nostalgic fanboys, they want to make a whole new generation become nostalgic fanboys, and to do that, they need to market the game to them. Despite the grumbling of some of the traditional fans, chances are, most of you will pick up this Remake despite the changes, and SE knows that. So why bother appealing to the demographic who will buy it regardless? The Compilation already proved these fans would grab anything regardless of quality, gameplay style, and medium. The smart business move here is to focus on the non-fans. This is the same principle that Hollywood uses for adaptions of books, TV Shows, and comics, why should gaming be any different?

Fox
12-21-2015, 07:49 PM
Bravery Default sold well, it's numbers are good for small companies but nothing compared to mainline FF or Skyrim's numbers.

Those numbers are meaningless without context though. Skyrim was a AAA production on the major home platforms with an absolutely massive marketing campaign behind it. Of course it's going to sell more than a 3DS RPG with a relatively tiny amount of advertising behind it. Also Bravely Default outsold Skyrim in Japan, so it really didn't do badly all things considered.

Also Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon didn't do as badly as you think. Their trouble was the platform they were on, because nobody owned an Xbox 360 in Japan which drastically limited the numbers. Both of those games outsold both Tales of Vesperia and Tales of Xillia in North America and Europe, with the scales only being tipped thanks to the Japanese market where pretty much everyone with a home console owned a PS3.

Wolf Kanno
12-22-2015, 12:27 AM
Bravery Default sold well, it's numbers are good for small companies but nothing compared to mainline FF or Skyrim's numbers.

Those numbers are meaningless without context though. Skyrim was a AAA production on the major home platforms with an absolutely massive marketing campaign behind it. Of course it's going to sell more than a 3DS RPG with a relatively tiny amount of advertising behind it. Also Bravely Default outsold Skyrim in Japan, so it really didn't do badly all things considered.

Yes, and Square doesn't want to market anything that doesn't look like a sure fire hit. As I said, Bravely Default only left Japan because of Nintendo and that was because the original turn based 4 Heroes of Light did poorly on the DS which is one of the best selling gaming units on the market. This also doesn't change that Demon's Souls and to a lesser extent, Dark Souls also sold relatively well with little to no PR outside of their console communities. Oblivion itself was a PC/360 exclusive that did better on console, and got nearly half of its sales as a port for the PS3 a year later. Marketing does give you results but it's speculative at best to think BP would have sold significantly better had it had actual marketing on Skyrim's scale. Hell Squenix is one of the worst companies in terms of marketing their titles besides maybe Nintendo. Again. 4 Heroes of Light actually had some marketing and did terribly despite being a pretty decent game. The other issue to remember is that Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Fallout, Mass Effect, and the Tales of franchises have pretty much outsold every non Action-RPG on the market in the last ten years. Only the mobile titles have probably turned more of a profit and that has nothing to do with preference and more about development and tech.

Square took a hit last gen with just about every game they released getting hit with mixed reviews and mediocre sales compared to previous generations. Combined with high cost of production, it's not a surprise that SE's best selling products are subscription based MMOs and mobile titles based off old properties. The last true Turn Based RPG that SE has made that broke 4 million in sales was Dragon Quest VIII and it did terrible in the West. Before that, it was FFIX. Squenix's best selling property that isn't FF or DQ is Kingdom Hearts, of which the pure Action-RPG console entries have fared much better than the more experimental handheld units.

In short: SE has simply convinced themselves that Westerners don't care about Turn-Based combat despite the numbers not really being there to support it. They believe their own hyperbole and sadly there is nothing we can do to change VII's fate. We can change the trend by still supporting games that offer old school combat but who knows.

Skyblade
12-22-2015, 12:44 AM
FFX's combat was also criticized for being slow, which is why X-2 brought back ATB and sped it up to make it faster.

Yes but now, FFXV and VII:R's real-time systems are being criticised for being too fast and not tactical enough. So does that mean actually, action RPG mechanics are out of date and need to be phased out?

Well there are a lot of problems with SE's handling of combat systems as of late, and part of the core issue is that SE is trying to appeal to both camps by blending Action-RPG combat with Turn-Based and frankly they have very opposing views on what makes combat fun. So trying to rectify this has been an issue for them.


I fully understand all the arguments about why turn based is not a popular system anymore, I just don't see much in the way of corroborating evidence for it. It's not like SE kept making turn based Final Fantasies until the sales started to plummet and then tried something new, they just tried something new anyway and since then the series has struggled (relatively speaking). On home console alone, Persona 4 sold almost twice what Persona 3 did in all its releases. XCOM: Enemy Unknown is turn based on PC and consoles and sold upwards of 4 million copies. Valkyria Chronicles sold more than twice as well on the PS3 than its sequel did on the PSP. Then you look at the modern handhelds and see huge success for... Persona 4 Golden. Pokemon. Fire Emblem. Bravely Default. Lots and lots of very successful turn based games. And these wouldn't work on console because...?

A few points to make here:

X-COM and VC are Tactical RPGs whose genre of combat systems have always been Turn Based and frankly neither game is close to being a core RPG. The combat is the main event in both games and the genre requires tactics and strategy. Neither sold very well in terms of the numbers SE is looking for.

Persona is easily the most financially lucrative property Atlus owns right now but again, when you compare the sales figure to the top ten selling RPGs of the last decades, they are laughable. It is not helped that fans of the games are also divided by the combat system as newer fans push for the system to be less complicated and more user-friendly while older fans want the series to go back to it's more unforgiving roots.

Fire Emblem and Bravery Default also have a numbers issues. The only reason why these two are special is because they did surprisingly well in Western countries despite being more Japanese focus. In fact BP sold better than Lightning Returns, but there is more to this than "Turn-Based is awesome".

Pokemon is the lone exception here as it's easily the best selling RPG in the world, but even Pokemon is heavily criticized for feeling old and stale, and Nintendo's heavy resistance to move the main series beyond the handheld market continues the stigma.


This looks to me like one of those cases where the cause is being assumed from the effect. "These popular games tend to be on handheld, therefore these games can only work on handheld". Well, I don't see any reason to think that. Show me cases where these games didn't work on consoles, and I'll reconsider. But the few examples we do have to look at so far point to the opposite - there is nothing wrong with turn based systems, and they can work and be successful if and when developers choose to make them.

A lot of this is that actually. The problem comes from last console generation. The best selling JRPG on the PSP was Crisis Core, an Action-RPG whose sales crushed every traditional turn based RPG released on the handheld. Mistwalker's Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon sold mediocre and their "old school" combat systems were heavily criticized, franchises like Tales Of, seriously flourished last gen while other JRPGs retreated to smaller scale handhelds because people were kind of sick of the old school mechanics and wanted something simpler and more reactive. The fact that one of the most popular JRPGs in Japan (doing well in the West as well last I checked) is Monster Hunter, an Action-RPG whose sales have been dominating in Japan, and has been one of the most influential games in Japan for several years. If you're whining about the flood MMO elements and crafting mechanics in the JRPG genre that have popped up in the last few years, it's actually this game's fault and not WoW.

Granted, there are a lot of factors that contributed to this problem, largely stemming from Japan's terrible design process finally catching up to them after all these years. The real problem here is that Western style RPGs overtook the market. Skyrim is one of the best selling RPGs last gen with universal praise, and Mass Effect is probably one of the best new IPs in the genre to come out in years. These WRPGs largely outsold the JRPG market except on handhelds and it really threw off some Japanese companies opinions. There has been discussions on why this was happening and part of the reasoning is because WRPGs are not limited to some traditional stuffy system. These games are more action packed and the shift of combat system created a more organic flow to exploration and interaction with the world. The ability to blend RPG elements with other type of gameplay gives them more variety whereas JRPG sometimes feel the same regardless of who made it. The better development process also saw these games getting quick releases with reasonable budgets, whereas SE floundered to get anything worthwhile out the door last gen. While there are certainly many high profile, universally praised JRPGs with more traditional combat systems that did well during this time frame; it becomes a different story when you look at sales numbers and demographics.

Bravery Default sold well, it's numbers are good for small companies but nothing compared to mainline FF or Skyrim's numbers. It surprised SE that it did well for a number of reasons: it outsold an FF sequel featuring a popular character, it did well in the West despite SE having so little faith in it that Nintendo had to actually publish the game to get it out here because SE felt it would bomb, and BP did better than the game its actually a sequel to, the mostly forgotten FF: 4 Heroes of Light which got reamed for being too old school and kiddy for modern gaming taste. Here's the thing though, just because the game did better than expected over here doesn't mean that Turn-Based is still "in". All it means is that there is still a sizable group of people in the West whom that style of game appeals to, but the numbers don't justify retaining VII's traditional combat system in favor of something that may have wider mass appeal. It simply means that there is a market for those types of games, but I wouldn't be surprised if the demographics show that BP was largely bought by older gamers who grew up with those types of games as opposed to a younger generation. Hell even Pokemon gets reamed for this as the series actually has its greatest appeal with both young children and older gamers in the 25+ range, leaving out the core demographics of tweens and teens that most companies shoot for.

My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with Turn-Based combat, its a style and preference that seems to be out of favor due to changing tastes. It's not going to vanish or anything, just take a backseat for a few more years before something comes along and puts it back into favor. The issue here is that the business side of all this is looking at how Skyrim, Fallout, Monster Hunter, Tales of, and Mass Effect have shifted the market in the last decade; and how SE can take a sure fire hit like VII and make it an even bigger hit with mass appeal for a younger generation that didn't grow up on stuffy PS1 Turn-Based RPGs. This is a marketing and business decision, nothing else. SE wants to make sure that VII doesn't just grab the nostalgic fanboys, they want to make a whole new generation become nostalgic fanboys, and to do that, they need to market the game to them. Despite the grumbling of some of the traditional fans, chances are, most of you will pick up this Remake despite the changes, and SE knows that. So why bother appealing to the demographic who will buy it regardless? The Compilation already proved these fans would grab anything regardless of quality, gameplay style, and medium. The smart business move here is to focus on the non-fans. This is the same principle that Hollywood uses for adaptions of books, TV Shows, and comics, why should gaming be any different?

First, don't use the term "universal praise" for Skyrim. I bought it, played it, and was bored out of my mind. Even if I'm the only one, the praise isn't universal. That game was garbage.

But, what's more, you're just pointing out that Square is continuing to shoot themselves in the foot. They don't know what the heck, they're doing, and they keep going for the "biggest sellers", thrusting themselves into an over-inundated market that they can't compete in. There are, as you say, TONS of action games out right now. Why would anyone get FFVII R? What makes it special compared to the thousands of available action games out there? Nothing.

This is something that Square had supposedly noted. "We tried to change Hitman to appeal to a more mainstream audience, and it didn't sell at all. Then when Bravely Default went back to its roots, it sold buckloads. We sort of figure we should keep the core of our genres in mind when developing." Never mind that lesson.

If Square doesn't want to make RPGs, then fine, they can quit making RPGs. But they should stop pretending that they're good at making anything else. Because, frankly, Square sucks at appealing to mainstream gamers.

Wolf Kanno
12-22-2015, 04:26 AM
First, don't use the term "universal praise" for Skyrim. I bought it, played it, and was bored out of my mind. Even if I'm the only one, the praise isn't universal. That game was garbage.

By "Universal Praise" I mean there is enough praise to drown out whatever dissenting voice there could be. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it can't be everyone else favorite game of all time, or until when the next greatest game of all time gets released.


But, what's more, you're just pointing out that Square is continuing to shoot themselves in the foot.
Crap, my subterfuge has been blown. :shifty:


There are, as you say, TONS of action games out right now. Why would anyone get FFVII R? What makes it special compared to the thousands of available action games out there? Nothing.


Well not a lot of Action RPGs are attached to genre-defining games that defined a generation and is still whispered in the hallways of forums and gaming news sites as some mythical beast that was once plentiful, but became the rare unicorn we all appreciate and wished we had one more chance to take a glimpse of. As I said, the fact it's a VII Remake is enough to get the fans on board, the changes are just to update the crappy relic for the new kids and if the old codgers don't like it, you've got plenty of fan mods to fix your problems on your old copies. The game is going to sell millions and probably be the best selling non-MMO entry in the franchise and solidify Action-RPGs as the sub-genre to be.

Ayen
12-22-2015, 05:21 AM
I think the reason why Square Enix are trying to make combat more 'real-time' is because they're trying to appeal to a young, Western market. For this market, turn-based is not the norm for console games, or even for RPGs.

Before I started Final Fantasy, my only experience with turn-based combat was Pokemon. Apart from Pokemon, I'd never played any JRPGs before FF. Coming across turn-based combat in FFX - which Formy had to persuade me to play, originally - was a complete surprise for me. If I'd known it was turn-based before starting, it probably would have put me off the idea.

For me, the norm in RPGs was the kind of system which FFXII had. Most young people in the West may well - like I did - associate turn-based combat with Pokemon. If they heard that the FF7 remake was turn-based, they'd just think, "Oh, that'll be just like Pokemon then. I won't bother getting that".

If Square Enix want the series to go on, they can't just appeal to established fans: they have to bring in new ones. And new, Western fans might be turned off by turn-based combat.

But when FFVII came out, turn-based combat was everywhere, everyone was super used to it, and it was the norm for the market at the time, right? That's why it was such a massive success?

Oh, wait, no, the PS1 was dominated by racing games, sports games, actions games, etcetera. It had almost no turn based games, and that didn't hinder FFVII at all. If anything, it enhanced it by showing off something different from the rest of the market.

These days, FFVII R and FFXV just look exactly like every other game on the platform.

There you have it. SE is so worried about its damaged reputation that they're simply not willing to risk doing something different than the accepted mainstream, out of fear of losing what little hope for financial gain that they have left.

Right now, though, I'm just laughing my ass off because all my predictions from the FFVII article are just coming true XD

Why would they risk doing something different when every time they do something different it blows up in their face?

Fynn
12-22-2015, 07:00 AM
I think the reason why Square Enix are trying to make combat more 'real-time' is because they're trying to appeal to a young, Western market. For this market, turn-based is not the norm for console games, or even for RPGs.

Before I started Final Fantasy, my only experience with turn-based combat was Pokemon. Apart from Pokemon, I'd never played any JRPGs before FF. Coming across turn-based combat in FFX - which Formy had to persuade me to play, originally - was a complete surprise for me. If I'd known it was turn-based before starting, it probably would have put me off the idea.

For me, the norm in RPGs was the kind of system which FFXII had. Most young people in the West may well - like I did - associate turn-based combat with Pokemon. If they heard that the FF7 remake was turn-based, they'd just think, "Oh, that'll be just like Pokemon then. I won't bother getting that".

If Square Enix want the series to go on, they can't just appeal to established fans: they have to bring in new ones. And new, Western fans might be turned off by turn-based combat.

But when FFVII came out, turn-based combat was everywhere, everyone was super used to it, and it was the norm for the market at the time, right? That's why it was such a massive success?

Oh, wait, no, the PS1 was dominated by racing games, sports games, actions games, etcetera. It had almost no turn based games, and that didn't hinder FFVII at all. If anything, it enhanced it by showing off something different from the rest of the market.

These days, FFVII R and FFXV just look exactly like every other game on the platform.

There you have it. SE is so worried about its damaged reputation that they're simply not willing to risk doing something different than the accepted mainstream, out of fear of losing what little hope for financial gain that they have left.

Right now, though, I'm just laughing my ass off because all my predictions from the FFVII article are just coming true XD

Why would they risk doing something different when every time they do something different it blows up in their face?

Wow. You really are new :p

Mirage
12-22-2015, 04:00 PM
Why would they risk doing something different when every time they do something different it blows up in their face?

If there is something SE is known for when it comes to FF, it's to change things up. And I'm glad they do, even when they fail, because the times when they don't, we get really damned good games. I'd rather have 50/50 good/bad games, than 100% average and forgettable games.

Ayen
12-22-2015, 05:25 PM
Why would they risk doing something different when every time they do something different it blows up in their face?

If there is something SE is known for when it comes to FF, it's to change things up. And I'm glad they do, even when they fail, because the times when they don't, we get really damned good games. I'd rather have 50/50 good/bad games, than 100% average and forgettable games.

Which they became less efficient at after the merge leading to more negative reactions from fans.

All I'm saying.

Fynn
12-22-2015, 05:39 PM
Ugh... Can we please stop bringing up the merger as the source of all evil in SE? What is this, 2002?

FF has always innovated, DQ has always sticked to the same formula. DQ is doing okay, FF is doing okay now thanks to ARR. Yes, the Fabula Nova Crystalis was a stupid idea that cost SE millions and its reputation, but one attempt AFTER the merger that has been very successful is anything Kingdom Hearts related and that is still their best selling franchise as of now. Even if you consider KH as being developed before the merger, the entire rest of the series is decidedly a post-merger creation and is making them big bucks despite trying loads of new mechanics like card systems, deck commands, and dream eaters and flowmotion.

Mirage
12-22-2015, 05:51 PM
oh no, a merger truther :p

Loony BoB
12-22-2015, 06:08 PM
People who think that SE don't innovate just as much as they used to baffle me. Looking at pretty much every game out there, SE is possibly the biggest risk-taker in all of AAA gaming. And people dramatically overstate how much relative innovation the older games had compared to the newer ones.

Fynn
12-22-2015, 06:14 PM
I actually agree with you for once, BoB :p

It actually was a risky move to rebrand Versus XIII into FFXV instead of just killing it and moving on, and the changes they apparently made for Lightning Returns (which I can't confirm myself, it's just what I heard) were quite bold too. In fact, the FFVII Remake changes are one of the few recent examples when they're trying to play it safe, because they are worried XV won't wirk out.

See, this is why it's important to always look at these things from a broader perspective

Mirage
12-22-2015, 09:50 PM
Do we even know that VII isn't more atb based yet? Something like XII with the free roaming, though a little quicker paced.

this post right here

we've seen some carefully edited gameplay alpha footage. It could be as ATB as FFX-2 is, just with free movement. Maybe moving would even eat up ATB time?

Fynn
12-22-2015, 10:25 PM
Do we even know that VII isn't more atb based yet? Something like XII with the free roaming, though a little quicker paced.

this post right here

we've seen some carefully edited gameplay alpha footage. It could be as ATB as FFX-2 is, just with free movement. Maybe moving would even eat up ATB time?

That kind of reminds me of BoF: Dragon Quarter. Except that was totally turn-based, not an action system, but you still lost action points the farther you moved.

Fox
12-22-2015, 10:44 PM
In short: SE has simply convinced themselves that Westerners don't care about Turn-Based combat despite the numbers not really being there to support it. They believe their own hyperbole and sadly there is nothing we can do to change VII's fate. We can change the trend by still supporting games that offer old school combat but who knows.

Well there's something we can happily agree on :)

It's funny you mentioned Kingdom Hearts as well... because I'd be just as annoyed of KH going turn based as I might be VII using a KH style system!

Ayen
12-23-2015, 12:36 AM
I see I'm still doing a trout job of explaining myself.

I meant people have responded largely negatively to a lot (which does not mean all) of the 'risks' and 'different' things they tried after the merge, so I can't really blame them if they suddenly don't want to be different now. I can still remember X-2 and XII getting trout on when they first came out same as XIII. All I meant.

Midgar Mist
12-23-2015, 01:32 AM
I prefer turn based, but have been forced to concede to action based, grown to like it more. Ive played all the good turn based games for ps1 and 2 and any others that might be good are too expensive or theres no PAL version.

Mirage
12-23-2015, 11:22 AM
I see I'm still doing a trout job of explaining myself.

I meant people have responded largely negatively to a lot (which does not mean all) of the 'risks' and 'different' things they tried after the merge, so I can't really blame them if they suddenly don't want to be different now. I can still remember X-2 and XII getting trout on when they first came out same as XIII. All I meant.

Trout isn't just one undiscernable lump of stuff. I don't remember anyone talking trout about the battle system in FFX-2.

A developer should be expected to be able to look at which parts that were well received, and which were not.

If people say a game's story is trout, you don't fix that by changing the battle system. If you do that, you are literally stupid and should be fired.

maybee
12-23-2015, 11:59 PM
What is this, 2002?


Hell yeah

Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got
I'm still, I'm still Jenny from the block
Used to have a little, now I have a lot~

http://www.talkshoes.com/files/2010/07/Jenny-from-the-Block.jpg

Ayen
12-24-2015, 12:13 AM
I can't wait to see Spider-Man and X-Men 2 in theaters. That trout is gonna be dope!

Rocket Edge
12-24-2015, 03:17 PM
It's ridiculous. I feel really strongly about this too, because I don't like the gameplay of action rpg's at all. Square-Enix proving once again that's there's no better company to alienate it's own fans.

Soft paw
01-06-2016, 12:32 AM
As most of us, I prefer Turn-Based system and still personally praise it as sort of an indispensable condition for a good RPG.

I know it is naive to think that but if only SE was able to please both generations, by adding the option to switch between Turn-Based and Real-Time systems.

Mirage
01-06-2016, 10:12 PM
They already did that.

Zanmato
01-07-2016, 06:18 PM
Here's my opinion:


As most of us, I prefer Turn-Based system and still personally praise it as sort of an indispensable condition for a good RPG.

I'm glad that Square Enix isn't afraid to implement drastic changes.
On the other hand, they shouldn't completely abandon what has brought them a great success.
They should swim against the current, not follow the herd.

Rostum
01-08-2016, 06:52 AM
It's ridiculous. I feel really strongly about this too, because I don't like the gameplay of action rpg's at all. Square-Enix proving once again that's there's no better company to alienate it's own fans.

Really? You don't like something so that must be an accurate representation of Square Enix's target market?

Also everyone, you do know they need to actually make money off this investment? Right? They need to expand interest beyond a relatively small fan base in order to even hope to find any kind of return on investment for a project of this size.

CactuarKing
01-08-2016, 04:49 PM
There is nothing wrong with turn-based combat. I personally enjoy it more than atb gauges constantly filling up.

Just to make it clear, I have no problem with ATB gauges and think they have been used well, but for me turn based like FFX and the ability to plan/strategise what to do without interruption is quite invigorating.

Skyblade
01-08-2016, 11:13 PM
It's ridiculous. I feel really strongly about this too, because I don't like the gameplay of action rpg's at all. Square-Enix proving once again that's there's no better company to alienate it's own fans.

Really? You don't like something so that must be an accurate representation of Square Enix's target market?

Also everyone, you do know they need to actually make money off this investment? Right? They need to expand interest beyond a relatively small fan base in order to even hope to find any kind of return on investment for a project of this size.

And your evidence that turn based combat has a "relatively small fan base" is?

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 12:55 PM
FF is doing okay now thanks to ARR. Yes, the Fabula Nova Crystalis was a stupid idea that cost SE millions and its reputation

Um what? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XIII#Reception)

Final Fantasy XIII sold over one million units on its first day of sale in Japan,[119] and had sold 1.7 million copies for the PlayStation 3 in Japan by the end of 2009, and 1.9 million by the end of 2010.[120][121] Square Enix had anticipated high initial sales for the game and shipped close to two million units for its launch.[122] The game sold more than one million copies in North America in its release month. In March 2010, Square Enix stated that Final Fantasy XIII was the fastest-selling title in the franchise's history.[123] By April of the same year, American game sales for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 reached an estimated 800,000 and 500,000 units respectively.[124] As of January 2013, the game had shipped 6.6 million copies worldwide.[3] According to Media Create, female gamers accounted for nearly a third of the game's Japanese fanbase.[125] As of July 2012, a combined total of 9.7 million units has been sold on consoles for both Final Fantasy XIII and its sequel Final Fantasy XIII-2.[3] The Steam version has sold about 500,000 copies as of January 2016

Fynn
01-13-2016, 01:02 PM
Lightning Returns sold pretty badly compared to what was anticipated. XIII sold well because it was a new FF, but critially, it was mixed at bes, so it's no wonder fewer and fewer people decided to buy the sequels. So it was around the time of FFXIII's release that a lot of fans started losing faith in SE

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 01:11 PM
We've been here roughly the same time and maybe you've also posted on other RPG boards as well but if not, I can tell you people were losing faith in them long before FFXIII. Mostly it had to do with the Compilation and people thinking FFXII was unremarkable. To this day, FFXIII at least gets a strong reaction from people, even if it's negative. My experience with people about FFXII at large is "meh."

LR's sales did suck though. I can easily understand why, too. But I think Square had lost a lot of good will with people long before the original XIII came out.

I also find it fascinating that, even after all these years, XIII on Steam sold half-a-million copies. That is some enduring popularity in spite of the negative impression the Internet gives about the game.

Fynn
01-13-2016, 01:16 PM
I've been on forums for just as long, and I know it began earlier. However, while XI was a successful MMO and people generally disliked XII back in the day, and that really was when a larger part of people starting losing faith in the series (with the release of VII it was more like some older fans were alienated, but so many new ones were attracted that instead of losing faith it was really just a case of the fanbase just changing, rapidly), it was around the time FNC started that things went really downhill. XIII was a disappointment, XIV was an embarassment, and XV has been stuck in development hell for ten years. THIS is the period when a huge chunk of the fanbase just started leaving, and Fabula Nova Crystallis is to blame, one way or another.

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 01:23 PM
I thought it was largely the fault of upper management. There was some guy in charge of Square who everyone online thought was a joke. He stepped down or was fired like a year or two ago. I never paid much attention to the politics but when discussing my own hopes that things will improve in future and FFVIIR will come out on time, someone pointed out Square is under a new guy and things are looking up.

But why can't the fanbase be changing again? Maybe XIII was the first FF for a lot of people and they liked it and it's mostly us old fogies who are raging at the youngins for having terrible taste. It seems very likely a new generation of gamers grew up with the XIII Trilogy and will also grow up with XV.

Fynn
01-13-2016, 01:25 PM
But XIII had nowhere near the influence VII had. Sure, there's some people for whom this was their first FF and who really liked it, but really, are there as many as with VII? Did FFXIII change the face of a genre, did it make JRPGs relevant again? Did it make other games want to be like it?

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 01:52 PM
No it didn't but FFX didn't do that either and it's easily the second most popular FF next to VIi by my estimation. Whatever your feelings on X, it was hugely influential both here and in Japan.

I like VII, I think it deserves its acclaim, but sometimes it's just a matter of right time and right place. FFVII was the first 3D FF and coming from the old era, it's friggin' night and day in terms of what you can see and do.

I honestly don't think XIII will have the sustained legacy of VII or X but i think it made its mark more than most any other title in the series.

Fynn
01-13-2016, 02:35 PM
It sure as hell gave us Lightning. I wonder how her modeling career is coming along...

And yes, i do know X was very influential as well, but many things that were copied afterwards (the linear approach mostly) have become discredited in recent years, so yeah :monster:

Mirage
01-13-2016, 02:35 PM
There is some interesting data you can extrapolate from sequel sales, for sure. FFX sold 8 million copies, and 5 million out of those 8 million customers thought FFX-2 was worth getting. If they had hated the first game, I would assume they would not be interested in the sequel.

FF13 sold about 7.5 million. FF13-2 sold less than 3 million. LR of course, sold less than 1.5M.


What this tells me is that a lot more of those who bought FFX enhjoyed their experience compared to those who bought FFXIII.


To compare: Mass Effect sold 3.5 million copies. Mass Effect 2 sold 3.5 million copies across the two platforms ME1 was released on, then an additional 1.5 million on PS3.

edit: to clarify, these statistics do not include re-releases and trilogy collections, such as the ME Trilogy pack for PS3, or the FFX/X-2 re-release on PS3 and Vita.

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 03:02 PM
That's an interesting observation. Of course it need not be said that sales aren't everything. Metal Gear Solid 2 sold much better than Metal Gear Solid 3 but ask ten people which was a better game and 11 of them will tell you Snake Eater was better.

The funny thing here is that all I heard when XIII-2 was released was praise for how it fixed all the problems of XIII yet sales dropped off even more. It's perplexing.

Fynn
01-13-2016, 03:12 PM
It's not, really, even if you consider the MGS thing (though I have not played this series yet, so I can't comment indetail), but it's like Mirage said. People who didn't like XIII, didn't buy XIII-2. A part of them may have been swayed by the changes they said they made, true, but the rest would give it a pass. Then some of those like XIII-2 enough to play LR. But looks like a lot of them were just done with the series by that point.

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 03:15 PM
Maybe they were like me and were just put off by fuckin' Lightning. I mean, I sort f like XIII and I really liked XIII-2 but I dreaded getting LR because it's a one character RPG and it's with my absolute least favorite character in the entire FFXIII universe.

I know "Lightning is so cool!" being forced down our throats annoys more than just me.

Mirage
01-13-2016, 03:36 PM
That's an interesting observation. Of course it need not be said that sales aren't everything. Metal Gear Solid 2 sold much better than Metal Gear Solid 3 but ask ten people which was a better game and 11 of them will tell you Snake Eater was better.

The funny thing here is that all I heard when XIII-2 was released was praise for how it fixed all the problems of XIII yet sales dropped off even more. It's perplexing.

Well, the MGS situation isn't as similar, because FF 10 and 13 are both the first installments on a new generation, and their sequels are both direct chronological sequels. MGS 2 and 3 are both on PS2, and the events of 3 do not take place after, or depend on the events in 2. There are overarching themes and and some degree of continuity in the Metal Gear universe, but they're not nearly as tightly connected as FFX/X2, FF13/13-2 and ME1/2.

Forsaken Lover
01-13-2016, 03:52 PM
Yeah but who knew that when they bought MGS3? I know people who still thoughti twas Solid Snake in the game.

I'm not disagreeing with your point. Sales going down after MGS2 is more of what you said for XIII because people were disappointed by both games and thus didn't care about the next installment.

Also I would think ME3 has the most sales of the trilogy since it's coming off 2, the absolute best ME game.

Mirage
01-13-2016, 05:09 PM
It's the best, but these games aren't the kind of games that people just jump straight into without playing them in order. At least I would never do that, or recommend it to people wanting to get into it.

Also was there ever any confusion over when MGS3 was gonna take place? I know people were fooled into thinking Snake was the main playable character in 2, but I never thought it was gonna be that guy in 3. It took place in the 60s, and solid snake existing before he was born would have been an impossibility.