Printable View
My simple answer is no. I do not trust them, as developers, to make a game that would appeal to me. I only realised this today. It was strange. Like meeting an old friend and realising that you have absolutely nothing in common, because you don't take crack and occasionally soil yourself in public. :(
I trust them as publishers, though. There are many great developers sitting under the SE banner, and I love playing a lot of SE branded games.
Anyway, what's your take?
Not anymore no, not since FFXIV, although they're starting to turn themselves around.
I think I lost it around 2006. I just take everything as it comes now.
But then again I can only really think of one game developer that I trust to buy on reputation alone.
Everyone pretty much already said my opinion. They've become a pretty atrocious development house as far as making fun games is concerned, at least with their big-name titles... it seems that the smaller and less supported stuff is where they get to do the most experimentation and do stuff that people end up finding really engaging.
They're a publishing powerhouse these days, though, for real. I hope the support they've thrown behind Eidos titles, as well as the strength of the old Enix brands, will bring the Square titles back to their old quality eventually. They just have so many commitments from what were (imo) bad decisions in the mid-2000s that they haven't been able to change their focus.
I trust them completely.
...to make as much money as possible by releasing games that are nowhere near their previous standards.
I don't think it is necessarily fair to criticize them for not being able to make games like they used to. Gaming has changed, even if they brought their 90s glory A game to modern games there is no guarantee that the spark that made 16 & 32 bit titles so good would translate to modern gaming.
So while I do think that SE has changed for the worst I also think that gaming technology has also changed underneath them to something they weren't as capable as working with at any point.
I haven't played any of the recent games. The last FF game I picked up was made well over a decade ago. When I look at the Final Fantasies released since then, I feel no inclination to play them. I don't feel the "FF magic" that I felt playing the games from the 90's. Nothing stands out to me or speaks to me in a way that makes me think that any of the recently released Final Fantasy games are worth my time.
Of course, I haven't done much research about them and this is all from first glances and impressions. But since I choose to focus on other games instead, I think it's safe to say that I don't trust them to make any more games that appeal to me. I think that it's entirely possible to be done in the future and I would have hope if they made some sort of revamp, but the answer is generally no at this time.
Have they even tried to make a modern FF that resembled a classic? Overworld map? Lots of towns and exploration? No it's just been a linear story now. 12 was the last greatest thing they made and even that wasn't the best it could have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloZer0
Probably part of the problem is how games are rated too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McLovin'
I believe most games with a large amount of exploration have quite a few bugs in them, and would take especially long to make. You can't blame them when it costs so much. They can't release something they aren't going to make money off of.
My point was that if you took a game like FF6 and just added better graphic it would look really stupid. You would have to add a bunch of dialogue and extra scripting to get the character interactions to look half decent, all the locations would have to be re-designed for different camera angles/ proportions and a bunch of stuff I'm sure that I haven't even though of.
A full modern day title written on less than 20,000 words of dialogue would look awfully stupid and un-natural. My point is that in order for SE to make games as 'good' as they used to they not only would have to maintain their old skills, but would also have had to develop a whole bunch of new ones in the process.
Nothing changed to me, I just don't like their retro minded games, standard medieval and overly focused on western games.
I don't mind Square that much because i have seen far worse. I honestly just think FF fans are spoiled by other games and nostalgia like usual.
I think Square's recent output as a developer has been awful. They were caught completely off guard with the jump to HD graphics and did not know how to scale their technology or development to adapt. But that's only a part of the problem. I don't think they have the right people leading their development. Tetsuya Nomura's character designs are so samey, and who the smurf knows what's happened with Versus XIII under his leadership.
Yoshinori Kitase, who has produced/directed the Final Fantasy XIII games, is far worse. I honestly don't know how much blame to ascribe to him versus Square in general, but his games have really strayed from the elements that made earlier entries in the series great, focusing on tropey characters and stupid plots to cater to the niche Japanese audience.
What I mostly want to know is what Hiroyuki Ito has been doing. He hasn't lead a project in the past five years--at least not anything that's been made public--but before that he co-directed XII, directed IX, and co-directed VI. He's also helped write and design the battle systems of several of their games. Basically, he's the smurfing man. If anyone can make another great game there, it's him.
Also, I'm not a big Dragon Quest fan, but it seems like the Enix side of the equation is still doing okay? People loved DQIX, and DQX seems to be doing okay, if not great, in Japan. They certainly haven't had the same quality drop off as Square's games.
Wha?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming Ice
Hhaha I remember when we interviewed Toriyama and Kitase, and a chick from penny arcade asked him how do they feel about fans near hating the recent games and what would they do to bring those die hard fans back? When it was translated he, toriyama, looked so offended. Kitase was like "What? o.o" And toriyama was all fumbling wiht what to say about it. They then gave some "well we are wanting to bring ff to a whole new era while throwing back some to the old fans but times have changed blah blah." It was funnnnyyyy
Haha. Ouch. x)
Why would you blame Nomura here? We had 4 different entries by different directors, Matsuno with XII, Toriyama with XIII, Tanaka with XIV and Nomura with non-main title which is Versus XIII, all of them suffered from same management problems or long development cycle or under delivering or some backlash so tell me why would a Hiroyuki Ito game would fair better with same management, teams or producers?Quote:
Originally Posted by AzarI think Square's recent output as a developer has been awful. They were caught completely off guard with the jump to HD graphics and did not know how to scale their technology or development to adapt. But that's only a part of the problem. I don't think they have the right people leading their development. Tetsuya Nomura's character designs are so samey, and who the smurf knows what's happened with Versus XIII under his leadership.
Yoshinori Kitase, who has produced/directed the Final Fantasy XIII games, is far worse. I honestly don't know how much blame to ascribe to him versus Square in general, but his games have really strayed from the elements that made earlier entries in the series great, focusing on tropey characters and stupid plots to cater to the niche Japanese audience.
What I mostly want to know is what Hiroyuki Ito has been doing. He hasn't lead a project in the past five years--at least not anything that's been made public--but before that he co-directed XII, directed IX, and co-directed VI. He's also helped write and design the battle systems of several of their games. Basically, he's the smurfing man. If anyone can make another great game there, it's him.
Also, I'm not a big Dragon Quest fan, but it seems like the Enix side of the equation is still doing okay? People loved DQIX, and DQX seems to be doing okay, if not great, in Japan. They certainly haven't had the same quality drop off as Square's games.
Wha?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaming Ice
It is worth to mention that a big budget game like Last Remnant suffered from management problems which lead to canceling PS3 version.
My point is Nomura, Matsuno ,Tanaka, Toriyama and kitase all managed to create wide range of successful titles in the past but all of them hit a wall, so why would we need to blame one or two leaders when the majority suffered from same problems.
Second point, Tetsuya Nomura didn't design characters in XII,XIII Saga and XIV with exception of the 5 lead characters in XIII. His role in the series has been greatly reduced to point that he might did more work in FFV and FFVI.
Definitely wasn't blaming Nomura for the XIII games, and I think you're right that management is probably the biggest problem at all. I think Ito has the capacity to make a great game, but no clue if he could pull it off given the state of the place in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinGundam
But I can definitely blame Nomura for a decade of characters with stupid costumes made out of belts and zippers and the utter mess that passes for a plot in the Kingdom Hearts series :P
I don't trust them anymore, no. It's not the XIII series that did it for me. It's XIV, all the cell phone games, and slapping 'Final Fantasy' on any two bit product they want to produce. The name carries no weight any more.
I need SE to produce a quality RPG without 'Final Fantasy' or 'Kingdom Hearts' in the title for me to really think the company has turned itself around. I think that's what's missing.
I'm not even joking when I say Square Enix hasn't ever put out a game that I've been satisfied with. Squaresoft did. Squenix never. Could be the changing of the times, could be that something happened behind the scenes after the merger. Whatever it is I certainly don't expect much from them anymore.
Wait? People think that games with overworld maps were not linear? It was just a much larger corridor, but a corridor nonetheless. Often, in the older FF titles that had an overworld, you could not really go far without either meeting a guard blocking a key pass or the geography blocking your way. At least most of the them started rather linear until it opened up with a vehicle (be is ship or airship) though those were often unlocked only mid to end game.
As for SE itself. I tend to only get games that I think I will like. I really enjoyed both Deux Ex: Human Revolution and the latest Tomb Raider. Both really enjoyable games. I also enjoyed the recent FF (X, XII, XIII, and XIII-2). Would I say they were flawless? No. But they were still decent games and I enjoyed myself.
Do you trust a bunch of poisonous spiders not to bite you when you head into your shower and the spiders are there too ?
Yeah no.
Are you serious? we are talking about SQEX.Quote:
Originally Posted by maybee
I think FF and Square fans are just melodramatic as always.
Trusting most devs in this day and age never seems to end well. :(
Obsidian have literally never made a single mistake, shutyerface. :colbert:
There are exceptions, which is why I said most! :p
ShinGundam must be Wada's son or something.
Not really. I don't trust SE but I was being a little silly. There was a huge spider in my bathroom and I was mad about it. Sorry about that. :ffvilaugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinGundam
Really ? I mean I used to trust SE and then they brought alot of quick-cash cellphone games, and FF XIII-2's horrible ending. Plus no Versus, not releasing some games to the West and down right lying about FF XIII's ending being about Light being happy and her smiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinGundam
I was being OTT about the Spider thing, but I am being serious about not trusting them.
Let me see.
FF10, liked.
FF10-2, great gameplay, story could have been better. Also loses points for messing up the great ending of the first game.
FF11, liked.
FF12, liked.
FF13, eh, I don't regret spending time on playing it, but that's about as much praise as I can give it.
FF13-2, hated the story, loved the gameplay
FF14, man what a clustersmurf that was.
All in all, they've made a few smurfups, but really, it's not enough to remove all faith in them as a developer.
I guess the main thing I trust them to do is not get stuck in one kind of style. Even if they don't always succeed, they do actually try new things out. That's something I feel like I can still trust them on.
And seriously, so what if they release cellphone games? It is a reasonably big market for portable gaming, whether you like it or not.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but oh well lol. Yes, I actually do really trust Square-Enix. In fact, I love the merger. I think it's really cool having Star Ocean, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and Chrono all under one company. Moreover, since the merger SE has made my favorite DQ game (VIII), 2nd fav Star Ocean (Last Hope), and one of my fav FFs (XII). I think people are too quick to point and blame the current producers/directors, but heck X-2 was made while Sakaguchi was still there. XIII isn't one of my favs, I liked it but I wouldn't want them to make XV or XVI in a similar fashion to XIII, but I know they won't because they never repeat themselves. That's why I love FF so much, they always change things up and keep it FF but fresh.
Why should I have to trust a purveyor of entertainment?
If they provide the service for which I am paying (entertainment), then I will support them with my money. If I'm not entertained, I don't buy. It's that simple.
This doesn't involve trust. So, my answer is that the point is moot.
If they made games I found entertaining, I would buy them and play them and probably post in forums about them.
Dragon Quest VIII was a superior product. That's really kind of the last thing they did that caught my attention. I haven't played IX but I don't like the sound of MMORPG gameplay. Apparently X has more...
I'm pleased when they make games that are interesting to me, but trust? I trust that the car isn't going to explode when I turn the ignition. Squeenix might make a buck off me, if they play their cards right.
Yes, I absolutely trust Square Enix.
They make great games and always have. Dragon Quest VIII and Final Fantasy XII were mega-masterpieces. And they made a ton of fun handheld games ever since with the classic Square music, mechanics, and charm. I truly feel so, so sorry for the many of you who obviously don't play them.
Final Fantasy XIII was a good game. The combat was decent, the sound production was off the hook, and the story had more character interaction than ever before in the series. Plus it was gorgeous to look at and run around in. I wish people would get over open-world games. Check the Steam group, I'm modding Oblivion to hell right now, but all open-world games provide are brief moments of wanderlust or solitude before shoehorning you into claustrophobic dungeons with worse level design and visual appeal than their Japanese counterparts.
Anyway, they have recent games that are tight as well, like Dissidia 2 and Tactics Ogre. Oh my smurf, Tactics Ogre. If you all want to burn me at the stake for praising a new project that happens to be based on an old game, knock yourselves out. But it was a new project by Matsuno himself and it has deeper gameplay, richer art and music, and better writing than any game any of you have played on your HD boxes.
No, really. It does. Square Enix, baby :cheers:
The team Final Fantasy, the team Dragon Quest, the team Tomb Raider, the team Drakengard ... they all are a part of Square Enix now. What is a name? What does Square, Enix, Eidos, Cavia, et cetera stand for? For a bunch of people. Just because they become a part of something else and also change their name or are a department of another company they do not become different human beings. Sure, there are some people like Nobuo Uematsu or Hironobu Sakaguchi leaving it but really, there are many great artists, Masashi Hamauzu or Utada Hikaru, there are so many people which can also impress you. And sometimes legends like N. Uematsu even work together with Square again.
I can see these things with many products. Final Fantasy, Silent Hill, Dragon Ball, et cetera. Seriously, just because something is not exactly the same you are used to and does not express what you have enjoyed before and which was probably not even a part of the product but just misunderstood by you, and yes, that happens, I just need to look at fans saying something against the new Final Fantasy VII parts, Dragon Ball GT, just because it is shown like this it is not worse. Often it is just something new or something with exactly the same charme but you just refuse to see it. I also don't like that you fight monsters in Final Fantasy XIII like this and say the linearity would be replaced by the feeling of freedom with random battles, I also don't like that Silent Hill Downpour only shows like no abstract demons or that Studio Toei's drawing of Cell in GT looks nothing like Akira Toriyama's but hey - that does not make something bad or a "total change of things".
I always trust Square. And they have never disappointed me. With no Final Fantasy. And Nier from their Cavia guys was something that touched me almost as much as Final Fantasy VII. And yes, it is from them, Square, there is no difference betweem them developing or publishing it. Cavia is just a name, like Square. Cavia is a part of Square now, so the people are. Square is not just team Final Fantasy. It is a company with many brilliant people thinking about games for us to enjoy. And half of my favourite titles are from the time after the fusion. So I think of team Tomb Raider and their new Tomb Raider and I will definitely buy it. Someone becoming a part of my favourite company just proves to me that they are very skilled people. Of course I have known Tomb Raider before already, but this one is a title which I'm really interested in.
I know many people hating one of Final Fantasy I-X, normally because of the anti-hype hype of the internet, of course. You would never satisfy everyone today. The RPG market is no little store anymore, it is a real super market.
I only don't like waiting for something I want. But at least I can feel like a kid under the christmas tree again this way.
And I don't care about anything anyone thinks about trusting or not trusting Square and so I won't answer to anything and recommend no one to try starting a discussion with me because I don't try it either. I don't like posts like "if you like this song more then you don't understand the orginal version of the other song because it is better" as it would be a fact. I am fine with people trusting them and not trusting them. I've grown up with it and my passion has not gone. And so Square's didn't. That's why I will always trust them.
Everyone has their own feelings.
Final Fantasy VI says it right:
THE WORLD IS SQUARE
Remember when FFVIII got lambasted by everyone and their uncle for being rubbish? Remember when FFX got the same treatment (by me, too, no less)? XII got a lot of criticism, too. Even FFVI fans are quick to lambast FFVII when given the opportunity. Modern gamers look back at games like FFII and FFIII with disbelief that they could be seen as good games.
Final Fantasy is arguably never outdone when it comes to reinventing itself. Square, Squaresoft, Square Enix... they innovate in every Final Fantasy game they create. It's always something new, it's never the same.
Gamers who enjoy one Final Fantasy game might not enjoy another Final Fantasy game. We have so many previous Final Fantasy games that at the time of FFXIII's release, you had fans of twelve very different games with different stories, different characters, different leveling systems, different battle systems, different minigames, different worlds. At the time of FFXIII's release, more than ever, the fans of these very different games were able to communicate with each other online. The world is huge, now. Everyone has their opinions. When FFXIII was released, the people all were hoping for a game more like the one they enjoyed most from the previous series.
What they got was Final Fantasy XIII. Like it or not, it was a different game. It had a different story, different characters, a different leveling system, a different battle system, different (if few) minigames, different worlds. Those who wanted FFVII got FFXIII. Those who wanted FFVI got FFXIII. Those who wanted FFX got FFXIII. It was a new game, and it has divided opinion just like the Final Fantasy games before it (VIII, X, XII, etc) - only now, more than ever, there are enough people online who could get together and rant about how it wasn't the game they wanted, and downgrade the rating to fit their rage at such an occurance. Final Fantasy XIII still got a decent rating compared to many games, though. Because it picked up new fans - FFXIII fans - along with those fans of previous FF's that were happy enough to see the game for what it was rather than for which previous FF it was not.
In the end, Square Enix released a Final Fantasy game.
With FFXIV, they did the same, but they buggered it up because it was buggy and laggy as hell. These are things that are actually inexcusable - FFXIII had no bugs whatosever that I've known about.
Still, Square Enix - in the case of both games - innovated. They tried new things. Success or failure, they did what Call of Duty, Uncharted, Far Cry, Starcraft and others did not. They didn't take what they knew already worked in previous games and create more of the same. They made something new. They started from scratch and worked their way up, even creating a new engine for both games. Like it or not, Square Enix will do what very few other games in this industry do and try to shake things up.
People criticise Square Enix, but these same people also criticise the industry for a lack of innovation. Perhaps they need to consider exactly what they want out of the industry. More of the same, or something new? If you want more of the same, it's out there in bulk. If you want something new in an AAA title, you have to look to the few developers out there that have the money and the balls to create such a thing. Those developers include Square Enix.
Do I trust Square Enix? Like Spooniest quite rightly pointed out, I don't have to trust them, it's not about trust. If they make a game I don't like, it doesn't mean I'm going to not trust them. I mean, if one of you lot were to like a movie I thought was crap, that doesn't mean I'm going to think that all movies you like are crap. Likewise, if you like a movie I think is amazing, I'll bet that there is a movie out there that you like that I don't. These things happen. It's a matter of opinion.
>>> Are these guys living in a bubble or something?? well, this explain many things..:luca:Quote:
Originally Posted by Freya
To be honest, a lot of the hate towards Square's latest games comes from those under the confused impression that RPGs are obligated to employ dialogue trees and exploration.
A lot of fans like XIII. Do we hail it the greatest game on the PS3? No, but it wasn't bad. Sure, it has a lot of naysayers on this forum, but so does XII. And X. And IX and VIII. Even FFVI and VII have their fair share of skeptics and outright haters.
All of the X-Wings and Tie Fighters in Star Wars were just little models moving around on a green screen. And there weren't even any real dinosaurs in Jurassic Park! It was all puppets and computer graphics! Don't even get me started on Independence Day; the real white house is still standing. What a rip-off.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan
My point being: Yes, it's an illusion, and technically it's a corridor. It still makes it feel much bigger to have it be in a real world. I never felt invested in FFXIII because there was never a bigger picture that came together; it was just a bunch of loosely-connected scenarios before you got whisked off to a newly themed area. I think a big part of the FF games is a feeling of connection to the characters and the world they're in, and that's something that I think has been lacking since FFX; even in that one, you can start to see it falling apart somewhat, but they tried to maintain that you were playing in some coherent world. XIII was just a bunch of whiz-bang stuff being thrown at you and loosely connected by a nonsensical plot and a bunch of combat in between.
While I was able to connect to the characters in FFXIII and able to connect to certain areas to some extent, I do agree that having an overworld really connects you to the world. It makes you feel like you aren't just stuck in one little part of it. The fact that we never know where on Gran Pulse we are, or how far away from the rest of Gran Pulse we are... it sucks. Who is to say there are not still people alive somewhere on Gran Pulse? These kind of 'mysteries' are what I wanted to be solved in FFXIII-2 and FFXIII-3, but it seems that won't happen and I'm kind of gutted. I would have loved for Gran Pulse to be the Gaia and the crystal tower-held Cocoon to be the Midgar. Essentially it feels like you're exploring the entire world, not wondering what is around the corner. For example, in Ivalice, I'd love to just wander off to the rest of the world but we're restricted to that specific region. It always bugged me. xD
I really hope that someday they create a Final Fantasy that focuses on 'discovering a new world' like it could have been for XIII-2. It's that sense of discovery that really excites me about these games. Even in FFIX, discovering the second continent has been a real breath of fresh air after playing previous games where everyone knew about every part of the world from the get-go.
Final Fantasy XII!
I thought the Gongaga reactor area, Fort Condor and Wutai were pretty non-illusive. In addition to that, there were many other places where you would get hidden/bonus conversations with NPCs if you went there earlier (or later) than you were supposed to. Even if these aren't significant cutscene events, it still gives you something back for not following the straight line that you may follow if you want to. Every little bit of lore/information/funny talk counts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoeberto
Do I trust Squenix? No...smurf no. I trust the creative forces behind a game until they lose my trust. I trust Steven Spielberg, Joss Whedon and Tarantino like I trust Hideo Kojima, Sid Meier or Miyamoto. Like wise I trust Square or Konami like I trust Paramount or Warner Bros.
There are exceptions like Disney when you look at their tentpole productions much like Final Fantasy is Square's tentpole production. The ones they care about more than anything. It doesn't mean there isn't turmoil during production and some bad projects that come out but they do try to do their very best with these as it represents the company as a whole.
>>> Trying to hide the sun with a finger?. sounds pretty SE to me..:luca:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
I stoped trusting them when they came out with X and KH and all that crap. I know many people here loved those games but for me, voice acting killed square games.
^ There is some merit to that.
I suppose I could add the level of character detail too. Just didn't leave much to the imagination like the old games or a book sorta deal.
I know someone who would agree with you on that. I still really enjoyed X but do think the voice acting has not helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
I agree absolutely about the voice acting. However I kind of see that all balled up part and parcel with improved graphics. I imagine it would look really stupid to have such realistic character model who just stood around silently 'talking'.
I feel that way too and it's probably why traditional JRPGs are so few and far between on console. Like where are super high-def SRPGs? Absent, for fear of showing a ton of ultra high res soldiers standing around a battlefield waiting to move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Well games would've evolved differently to accommodate them and not sure we would even notice it.
It might not be an RPG in the strictest of terms, but XCOM: Enemy Unknown certainly covers a lot of the strategy/tactical approach that is found in games such as FFTA. Move set number of spaces, have set number of actions you can do per turn, etc. etc. Essentially this is an HD SRPG without the deep, complex storyline or fantasy setting.
There is a major and important difference between tactical games like X-Com/Jagged Alliance/Xenonauts and SRPGs like FFT.
The difference is that FFT is more about classes and X-Com is more about actual tactics and troop placement.
I'm not going to die in FFT if I accidentally group all of my guys together and then the enemy chucks a grenade at a nearby combustible object. In X-Com and their ilk this is something to take into serious consideration.
FFTA was a blast and I loved it. There are next to no actual tactics involved, however.
As to the topic at hand, there is no one developer I inherently trust. I like several, but everyone is capable of mistakes.
I'm sure you can still see the similarities, though. I imagine any future SRPG would have AOE attacks involved. Just because they were not involved in FFTA doesn't mean that the next FFT game won't have them. I imagine the next SRPG will certainly take a long hard look at X-Com before they push it through and with good reason.
While FFT was all about classes, X-Com still had classes.
While X-Com was all about placement, placement/movement still came into play in FFT.
Well yeah SRPG and TBT are related genres, sure, but they've got very distinct lineages and play in very different ways even when they crib ideas from each other.
Re: classes in Xcom - yes but it didn't make much of a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Re: placement/movement in FFT - yes but it didn't make much of a difference.
It's been a while since I played FFT so correct me if I'm wrong but placement is about your chance to hit and the other guy's chance to hit you. Maybe some moves you can use. That's about it. FFT could have been made as a traditional style RPG and you wouldn't have noticed much difference.
In X-Com and similar games the entire point of the game is your position. The entire engine of the game and all of the mechanics are built around this idea. The entire environment is destructible and interactive. Cover matters. What you are using as cover matters. The order that you do things in matters. What you choose to do, or not do, in a soldier's turn could be the difference between whether or not that soldier is alive in the next turn.
When I played one of the FF Tactics games I had fun, sure, but I never once felt like my party was in danger. It was like Pokemon, it was about maxing out damage. X-Com is about survival.
You move your guys around on a grid, and it's turn-based. The similarities end there.
I dunno, I guess I just consider them about as similar to each other as I consider FFI and FFXIII similar to each other, yet nobody has ever really seperated the genre of I & XIII despite the very different battle systems. In the end, you're moving people around a map to gain the upper hand against your opposition (Strategy) and there is a story in which you play a role (RPG).
Now, FFT is a rather old, raw game where things like 'cover' and 'area of effect attack' were not implemented, while X-Com is a very recent game and does have those two things (and naturally focuses on ranged attacks given that it's a shooter based game). These things lead to very different tactics. I wouldn't argue that the games themselves are all that different in their genre, however I would definitely agree that one involves a lot more tactical focus and this changes how you play the game. There are considerable other factors that come into play, but the "moving around a [number] x [number] grid and turn-based gameplay with actions that take up turns is what I consider a SRPG. Some games might have more strategy and tactical focus than others, but that if anything is just a case of FFTA (the one I've played) being a 'softcore' game to X-Com's most definitely hardcore gameplay. You could easily turn FFTA into a similar game to X-Com simply by adding cover mechanics, area of effect attacks and an increased focus on ranged attacks.
This conversation is making me really antsy for a modern FFT, now. :( Imagine if they actually did those three things and created a Final Fantasy variant on X-Com. I would play the smurf out of that game.
EDIT: And the classes in X-Com definitely made a difference to me. :( I had my damage dealers (4x Heavy, 2x Assault), my healers (2x Support) and my ranged damage dealers (2x Sniper) that I would rotate depending on availablity. My normal X-Com squad consisted of 2x Black Mages, 1x White mage, 3x Warriors ;)
FFT does have summons and magic spells that will get you if you bunch your characters together. But I agree with BoB that the two aren't entirely comparable since FFT is a pretty old game.
The Fire Emblem series does take placement and the environment into consideration. Your troops can easily get surrounded if you don't plan carefully and usually it's only a couple hits until they are dead forever.
What an odd tangent for this thread to take!
I dunno, I guess I see a difference between games that emphasize the RPG side and games that emphasize the tactics side. I see them as a case of convergent evolution. They started out with different lineages but arrived at a similar place and so look similar... but the underlying mechanics are still different enough that it makes a big difference to me as a wargamer.
:gator:
Edit to add: I'm not saying one type of game is superior to the other type, I think both are fun in their own way, but as a strategy grognard I think that the distinction is important. Much in the same way a, say... biologist would get uppity about people getting alligators and crocodiles confused, or something. xD
Well, alligators and crocodiles are pretty damn similar. :p
Also, I've never even played XCom so I have no actual clue how similar it is to FFT. It sounds fun though.
Everyone should play X-Com. Microprose might be the one developer I trust. Too bad they aren't around anymore. RIP :(
So you trust a dead company more than current companies. Well I guess at least you know exactly where you've got them.
Well, I would have trusted them if they were still around, I mean.
I'm sorry, but this is way too good to be true :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
BeefJack | Cancelled X-COM remake was 'like Valkyria Chronicles'
I realize there aren't many Valkyria fans here, but the SRPG genre has definitely seen its progress in the last few years, and I cry a little on the inside that the third game is probably never coming to the West, neither is any future of the series.
What I referred to above was only that traditional RPGs have not been carried on into new technology. For example, SRPGs either forego HD realism entirely (like Disgaea) or move into a bold new direction (like Valkyria).
Wasn't initially going to get into this topic but certain future purchases have made me realize things and I can say that yes, I don't really trust SE anymore. The last two console generations have eroded my faith in SE to deliver the Triple A titles like the 90s generation, and while they do occasionally release a gem here and there, I feel FF has been surpassed by its competition. I can honestly say I am utterly indifferent to what FFXV is going to be, and if it turns out Toriyama and Kitase are helming the title, I'm seriously going to wait until after its release and get some reviews from friends who somewhat share my taste of the series cause I already know the media will just give it a 9 or 10, and most FF fans will suck up anything those two create and beg for more.
I guess I came to this conclusion because I was debating about which of the handhelds I may buy, a 3DS or a Vita, and the MegaTen series is really being represented on the 3DS, which is why it's most likely going to be in my near future. Then I thought, what would happen if Type-0 got released and I honestly realized that it wouldn't be enough to really sway me into picking the system up. If Versus XIII gets pushed into the next console cycle, I am just not interested or invested enough in the title to bother purchasing a PS4 for it.
This is not to say I have lost faith that SE can make fun games, but they have lost the ability to make games that really grab my attention. All the creators I loved in the company have either moved on or seem to have involved themselves in small pet projects that keep them out of the spotlight and while I am still interested in games like Bravery Default, its also not a high priority for me either. I've also never been terribly invested Kingdom Hearts and I've always been cold to Dragon Quest so there isn't much else for the company to offer to me to make them a high priority. This is not to say I've abandoned FF, but I've moved beyond the feeling that just because its a numbered FF, I need to play it. I've also taken Kitase's words to heart and realize that I've just naturally reached the point where I've "out grown" the series. I'll still keep an eye on it of course but I don't feel the need to be as invested like I was when I was younger. FFXV could be announced to be a Mass Effect knockoff third person shooter, and I don't think it would largely change my feelings for SE and the franchise at this point.
In short, SE has just lost the ability to compel me to buy a new console to experience the next part of the franchise.
That's exactly how I feel. I don't get the same feeling from them as I did before the merger. This may partially be because I didn't care much for Enix games in the past. I've always wondered if the Enix side of things has influenced Square releases a bit more. If so, that could explain some of the emptiness I feel when playing Squaresoft original franchises that I used to love.Quote:
Originally Posted by G13
When did Square and Enix merge again? Was it before or after FFX? What did FFTA fall under?
Those are the two "most recent" FF games that I really enjoyed, not counting remakes of older ones.
Square even made Final Fantasy X-2 before the fusion. The Japanese Final Fantasy X-2 has "Squaresoft" on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike
There is really no good reason to trust any corporation/company whose sole purpose is to make money and whose only concern is the bottom line.
I think this year or the next will give a good indication of where Square Enix is heading. You've got quite a bit being released, and needing to be released this year and the next along with a complete restructuring of the company. Whether you "trust" the company or not, you have to admit that it'll be interesting to see where it ends up in the next few years.
I think the merge really changed things at a faster pace. I believe Squaresoft would have eventually turned into what it is now on it's own, but still.
That said, I just finished the new Tomb Raider, and I'm happy they at least backed a good game. It's not excellent, but it's the best Tomb Raider since Tomb Raider 2 in my eyes.
Well, DE:HR was really good. Not made by Square Enix but it had their name on it. So maybe it semi-counts.
I'd fall under "I like what they did as Squaresoft more than now" label. I loved their PSX era games, a majority of them. Early PS2 were good. It was later in the PS2's years that things seemed to be different. I often wonder what it would have been like had that Management Fallout during FFXII (the loss of Sakaguchi-San and the like) not occurred.
Don't get me wrong, their later games aren't bad. I just find myself liking what they have already done over what they do presently.