"Innovative" Changes

With all these new "innovative" changes, do you think Square is taking a right step. All Final Fantasies followed a specific format. Now, they are breaking away from that format.

With FFXI we said good-bye to single-player fun and hello online world. That's great, but it shouldn't be part of the FF series, or if it should, change it's name. It's like making Final Fantasy Tactics turn into Final Fantasy 8. Final Fantasy XI should have been named FF: Online.

Now with 12, we're saying goodbye to the classic and loved Random Encounters. Another step away from the FF Formula.

The story-lines have been growing much more out there and far-fetched. 4 and 6 were argueably the best story-lines in the FF-series. 7 Was the last decent story. 8 took a turn for the worst. 9 was good because of 8's flop, but was good alone in its own right. 10 was different and took a step away from classic experience system and leveling, but i didn't like the sphere grid much.

Final Fantasy had a formula, and now that formula is being taken and changed too far to be counted. The games are no longer following the classic FF Formula, and I honestly believe that XII OR XIII will be the last of the FF series.

FFII wasn't like other FF games! It shouldn't be called Final Fantasy! Square shouldn't take creative liberties or experiment with game styles! I only liked these few games, Square should make more games like those 'cause I said so! I hate new school Square games, their old school games like FFVII and VIII are so much better! I'm starting a petition! MQ was a terrible game because everyone else says so and 'cause the characters aren't like Robert Smith! I want more FMVs and less gameplay! No wait.... I mean.... I hate FMVs! I want more gameplay and less cinemas! If Square changes anything about FFXIII I'll never play another video game ever again! I'm telling my mom.....

What's wrong with criticising Square's decisions? While I disagree with Indelacio's point about storylines, I do think that stepping too far away from the formula is a bad idea.

Don't think I'll miss the random battles, though. :)

final fantasy can be anything square wants it 2 be. i dont care what they change, i only ask one thing...that its GOOD. which is why i will buy an ff even if its a complete sci-fi setting as long as its good, BUT i wont buy a traditional ff if its as bad as ffII.

so stop complaining ppl. at the end of the day if you dont like it, go back to ffVI.

FFII was innovative in the way that they realized it was bad and went back to the FF system in III with slight modifications. Granted, i'm not saying gameplay should be exactly alike, but there is a certain model that the classic FF criteria follows, and to stray from that model is to make a game completely unlike Final Fantasy. Like i said, they might as well just have called FFT FF8, because essentially, that is what is starting to happen with drastic changes.

Games like FF2 and FF11, and recently FFX-2, are the experimentals. This is Square trying to find higher ground for its series. FF Tactics, FF:CC, FF:TA, all these are the results of Square's furtive attempts at finding a new area to take the FF series. We all know they cannot go on forever. Might as well invest for the future now. FFXI - the online experiment. FFX-2 - the sequel experiment. FFII - the crap that we will ignore, and was not innovative, as Indelacio stated, but pivotal none the less. Nowadays we rejoice when we see a traditional FF game, and we frown upon the crud that Square's other projects leave in our game shops. But how long is this going to be the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indelacio

FFII was innovative in the way that they realized it was bad and went back to the FF system in III with slight modifications.

---

Just like how they brought back the job system in FFV after the FFII-like circumstantial party members of FFIV.

Just like how they went back to having monsters yield money in FFIX after the salary system in FFVIII. (In fact, all the departures FFVIII made and all the efforts Square made to make FFIX as traditional as possible are too many to list here.)

Just like how they went back to the ATB and traditional experience systems in FFX-2 after the CTB and sphere grid systems in FFX.

Just like how they went back to a single-player game in FFXII after the multiplayer game in FFXI.

Just like how they could easily bring back random encounters in FFXIII.

Et cetera. You're overreacting to changes and innovations that the series would suffocate without.

But would it? The Mario series has been through numerous installments with very few changes, and remained as popular as ever. Granted, it's a whole different genre, but RPG's have a longer lifespan than platformers. I don't think that FF would suffocate without those changes. I honestly wouldn't care had the ATB or salary system never been introduced, and I'm not really bothered that I can't play FFXI right now.

*Prepares to be crushed*

I applaud you.

My reasoning for this arguement is the entire title. Final Fantasy denotes a formula that we've all come to establish and know, and each game is different, but that formula remains basic and unchanged. When you change that formula, you might as well change the title.

It's like rewriting Newton's Law to be similar to Darwin's Theory and still slapping Newton's Law on it. I like that they named FFT what they did, FFXI should have been FF:Online, FFXII should become FFXI, just my opinion. But FFXII is still straying too far from the formula.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Czanthor

But would it? The Mario series has been through numerous installments with very few changes, and remained as popular as ever.

---

Super Mario Bros. followed a completely different formula from Mario Bros. Super Mario World 2 followed a completely different formula from SMB, SMB2, SMB3, and Super Mario World. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine followed a completely different formula from SMW2. The changes have not only been important, altering the entire focus and execution of the games, but again, too numerous to list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Indelacio

But FFXII is still straying too far from the formula.

---

*trying to help*
This is Tasteys FF Formula

Tastey's must have list for good RPGs V 2.0

Tastey Qualifications

A.world map (Walkable, drivable)
B.Visitable towns with... (talkitive people, secret items, activatable events)
C.Shops with... (weapons, armor and items)
D.Some good whoop arse (Turn based or active single person)
E. Noble main charicter (People who are cool and collective)
F. Reasonable Price

Tastey Rating
(Ratings come from how many of the above are included)

1.um...so what is this crap?
2.eh....
3.ok
4.Good
5.Great!
6.THIS is an FF MASTERPIECE!

Examples
What pies rating system is before he buys a game ..
Game has A,B,C and D therefore it has 4 qualifications and is *4.Good*
Game has C and D therefore it has 2 qualifications and is *3. ok*
Game has C therefore it has 1 qualification and isn't verry good at all, so i shrug it off with an *1. um... so what is this crap?*

Games
FFI had
A,B,C,D,E and F (6. MASTERPIECE!)

FFIV had
A,B,C,D,E and F (6. MASTERPIECE!)

FFVII had (havn't played in a while correct me if wrong)
A,B,C,D,E and F (6 MASTERPIECE!)

FFVIII had
A,B,D,E and F (5. Great!)

FFX had
B,C,D and F (4. Good)

FFX-2 had
B and F (2. eh...)

FFXI Had
....I dunno it costs too much to play! therefore it gets a (3. ok)

KH had
B,D, E and F (4. Good)

You can see how They have been changing so much they have gotten rid of things that make FF something that we know and love..i mean...why get rid of having a cool main charicter? (ffx) why get rid of the walkable world map? (ffx, ffx-2, KH) WHY get rid of just BUYING weapons and armor? (ffviii)

Tastey's must have list for good RPGs is copywrite of Tasteyco. and hereby property of Tasteyco.
Needed license of permision of referance granted to those who send TasteyCo. lots of cash
TasteyCo. Copywrited to Tastey 2004-Eternity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TasteyPies

FFI had
A,B,C,D,E and F (6. MASTERPIECE!)

---

FFI did not have a noble main character. FFI had no main character at all.

Quote:

---

FFX-2 had
B and F (2. eh...)

---

FFX-2 had shops with armor and items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

FFI did not have a noble main character. FFI had no main character at all..

---

The main charicters were coolheaded, you never heard them say anything to make them look stupid..in fact you never heard them say anything at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

FFX-2 had shops with armor and items.

---

Yes but it did NOT have weapons

Let me break it down. No matter what Square does they catch heat. No one's content to just appreciate what each game has to offer. If they stray too far from the "original formula" (which, btw, meant turn based battles, ineffective shots, MP per spell level, personality lacking characters and completely redundant scenarios) people whine about how "it's not FF any more". I know how it feels because I was one of those people, but then I finally gave FFVIII a shot and realized my big mistake; if Square just cranks out the same game over and over, they might as well just not make more FF games. Seriously, just look at the Mega Man series. The ORIGINAL Mega Man series. Not Battle Network, not X, not Legends, the original Mega Man series (which has not seen a new game since 1997, I might add). No single game series in the history of gaming has recieved as much flak for having sequels that are too much like their predecessors. In fact, even with the addition of the slide technique, the bolt system and the aide of Rush, Mega Man 8 still plays quite a bit like Mega Man 1. Meanwhile, Final Fantasy isn't afraid to take risks. Compare FFI to FFVIII. Is there a lot that's different? Well, there's salary, junctioning, triple triad, ATB, limit breaks, no job system, fixed weapons for characters, GFs (summoning), chocobo, drawing.... the list goes on. But is anything the same? The combat should feel very familiar, as should simply navigating the world map, most of the spells are exactly the same, the control scheme is almost untouched (now you can challenge people to play cards.... that's pretty much the only difference....), the aims of the main villian seem the same, and there's only a few new status effects. All in all, it's different yet the same. As far as everyone's gripe with FFXII, well, let's just say I find it interesting that people can be so opinionated about a game that hasn't even been released yet.

Meh. I guess most people's real problem with the series changing too much is that some of these changes might soon become the norm, and we'd end up with a bunch of X-2 clones.

I think that the only reason I'm opposed to too much change at the moment is that the standard formula hasn't gotten old for me, yet. I still enjoy replaying titles from the series, even if it means repeating battle systems or story elements. Adding a new weapon upgrade system or salary system doesn't increase lifespan of a series. The only changes that I want to see are the battle system, world map, and storyline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

Super Mario Bros. followed a completely different formula from Mario Bros. Super Mario World 2 followed a completely different formula from SMB, SMB2, SMB3, and Super Mario World. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine followed a completely different formula from SMW2. The changes have not only been important, altering the entire focus and execution of the games, but again, too numerous to list.

---

Really? I'm not the biggest Mario fan, but I seem to remember the only major changes being the addition of new abilities, and creating new levels. I believe that the series could have done pretty well even without these changes.

How is Final Fantasy any different? Every edition, they update the battle system and give us a new world to explore. In fact, FF can vary it's story, too. Which is something that Mario has rarely done (Let Bowser keep Peach, for chrissakes!). Change is good, but changing the fundamental formula of a series isn't. I have no problems with FFXII, and I think it's shaping up rather well. I simply think that straying too far from the formula would be a mistake.

To all the people complaining about these changes: why don't you just admit that you only want to play (and pay for!) the same exact game over and over again with a few minor graphics updates? 'Cause that's basically what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Czanthor

I'm not the biggest Mario fan, but I seem to remember the only major changes being the addition of new abilities, and creating new levels. I believe that the series could have done pretty well even without these changes.

---

Okay, in Donkey Kong (the ORIGINAL Mario game), you ran up scaffolding to save your girlfriend (Pauline) from a crazy gorilla. You ran along, jumping, climbing ladders, and hitting stuff with a hammer occasionally. Then came Donkey Kong Jr., in which Mario was the BAD GUY. You played as Donkey Kong's son trying to rescue your father from a plumber who became vengeful..... or something.....

Then we got Mario Bros., which wasn't like DK at all. You ran around trying to flip enemies from below and the point was basically just to destroy all enemies. It was also 2-player and was the debut of Luigi. Then is Super Mario Bros., it went back to the Donkey Kong style, only level were actually more than one screen. In fact, the levels were HUGE in comparison, and while you were still trying to save a damsel in distress, you actually had to defeat her captor this time! In DK you just had to reach him. In SMB, you had to fight Bowser. Then came SMB2, which was actually NOT a Mario game at all, but was given a slight face lift when ported to America. For one thing, the characters did not control the same way at all. There was this weird momentum system that prevented you from running at full bore right away. Also, you could take quite a few hits before dying because you had a life meter. You couldn't stomp on enemies to defeat them, you had to hit them with something. There were many things to hit them with, such as vegetables pulled out of the ground (!), bombs (also pulled out of the ground), blocks which the levels were constructed from, koopa shells, and even other enemies. There was also the door system..... The door system allowed access to a sort of inverted version of the level you were currently playing, which contained coins and cherries, and was also, in some cases, the only way to progress in the level at all. Instead of getting items out of question blocks, you pulled them from the ground, and the invincibility power-up (starman) actually FLOATED UP FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN. There was an end level boss for pretty much every level, and after each stage you could play the slot machine to get extra lives (this is what the coins were for). A fairly radical departure. Then came SMB3, which was a lot more like SMB1, only much much much more expansive. There were all new enemies and abilities, completely different level types (quicksand and a genocidal sun in the desert, autoscrolling islands 3 blocks long and whole screens apart in the sky level, enemies 4 times the size of Mario in the giant world), and even an overworld map where you could prepare for levels with powerups and use the infamous warp whistle. Super Mario World didn't do a lot that was truely revolutionary (it gave you Yoshi and the spin jump, but took away almost all the SMB3 abilities and powerups), except that it was the first mario game where you could same your progress. This is a good thing because it was definitely a much bigger game than the previous titles. However, Super Mario World 2 was NOTHING like Super Mario World. For one thing, you controlled Yoshi instead of Mario. Mario was a baby riding on Yoshi's back in this game, and the object was to just get him to the end of the level using a relay system. You beat enemies by throwing eggs at them or eating them, and you couldn't actually die unless you fell off a cliff. The only way to lose other than that was to have Mario get knocked off your back and then captured by a bunch of.... umm..... propellor lizard things. In Super Mario RPG, well, it was an RPG, enough said. In Super Mario 64, once again things changed. The health system was brought back, and jumping on enemies didn't hurt them, STOMPING on them was how you beat them, and even then, that didn't always work. You also had to navigate by moving Mario around like a gymnast with all his crazy backflips and stuff. There was a much bigger emphasis on exploration, as you had to beat a level by going on various treasure hunts within it, instead of simply reaching one goal per level. Seriously, the Mario series is the best example of a series prolonging its life by completely changing from one game to the next.

Boy, did I pick a bad example. That's what comes from not doing your research. *dies*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

To all the people complaining about these changes: why don't you just admit that you only want to play (and pay for!) the same exact game over and over again with a few minor graphics updates? 'Cause that's basically what you're saying.

---

No. Screw the graphical update, and alter the ability/levelling system. That's what makes an FF, not great visuals or quirky little gimmicks. Change the battle system, and you change the game.

Here's another thing that irks me. Square has yet to actually use the third dimension for something other than graphics. Sure, we have all these pretty 3D graphics, but do they serve any purpose other than eye candy? I'd wager that FFVII, VIII, IX, and maybe even X could be played on the SNES if you took out the flashy graphics. All the characters would just be sprites that move around a bit to convey different emotions - or do you need to see Yuna in a thousand different poses in order for it to be good? Blitzball was the worst offender! Supposedly, it's a game that's played within a 3D sphere of water. BUT when you actually play the game, you're confined to a 2D plane within the sphere! That's like calling soccer "3D" when it's really just played on a flat surface.

So really ask yourself - why 3D? Is there anything that the third dimension brings to the gameplay table for FF? We're referencing Super Mario Bros. a lot, and the 3D of Super Mario 64 was a huge factor in the gameplay! 3D adds nothing to the gameplay for FF - our characters still line up in perfect lines against the enemy, just like in the original! How's that for realism?

It'd be interesting to see if they could do that and still use the same method of combat or if they'd have to completely change it. Would you still be able to select attacks from the menu or would you have to do something else?

If anyone can say that the story-lines have gotten better as the series went on, i refuse to believe it.

Graphics what? who cares, they're nice, and they should represent the system, but they don't make the game.

Gameplay, this is starting to really irk me, i expect a certain criteria for FF series. World Map that I can walk on, turn-based battles with ATB gauge, experience and levels, no sphere grid, random battles.

As for the mario brothers stuff.. Please, the same basic thing has happened over and over. With the addition of the N64 3-D world, it only changed directions and interface. It wasn't different. As with Donkey Kong and DK jr, those had mario, but they aren't mario games.
Like i said, they made different names b/c they changed the game entirely. FF is starting to change their games and straying from the formula. Paper Mario wasn't so innovative anyways, Mario Sunshine, please, Luigi's Haunted mansion, another different name. Also, note, the Mario Bros only had 3 on the NES, and a few on GB. Super Mario World, Yoshi Island, Paper Mario, note the name change, it didn't stay constant, it denoted a change of formula.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

So really ask yourself - why 3D?

---

Why indeed. Though perhaps a factor in it's success, FFVII's field graphics were a good example of 3D for the sake of 3D. High quality sprites would have been a better choice, in my opinion. As you say, it wouldn't have affected the gameplay on bit.

Blitzball was a wasted oppurtunity. The opening FMV was an excellent showcase for the mini-game, but the matches themselves were a huge disappointment. It could have been the defining mini-game in FF history, but instead it was a failure.

Different strokes for different folks. I don't think the changes in XI and XII are much different than the changes in the other games. Sure some of them aren't that good but I'll take the good with the bad any day.

I'm also sick of the 'God forbid Square change anything!' sarcasm. It's been done to death around here and I don't see any other purpose of it other than to belittle the person you are referring to. So please knock it off, everyone.