The End Is Nigh: Why Final Fantasy cannot last forever

It has long been feared that Square Enix, the kingpins of the traditional RPG, are soon going to be bereft of fresh new ideas for their Final Fantasy Games. Their award winning series originated with fresh ideas and stories, never before conceived. The SNES phenomenon was backed by such great games as these. We loved Final Fantasy VI for its great storyline, one of the best in the series, and great graphics, pushing the SNES to its limit. We loved Final Fantasy VII for its simarlarly great story, captivating 3D graphics and smooth story. We loved Final Fantasy VIII for its rewarding experience and for further pushing the Squaresoft benchmark in graphical quality. We loved Final Fantasy IX for its old-skool RPG content, bringing back what was great about the older games in a brand new PSone package. We loved Final Fantasy X for its stupendous benchmark in both sound and graphics on the next-gen console PS2. We loved Final Fantasy X-2 for its user-friendly, playful approach to the FF world, and for being the first true Final Fantasy sequel of all time. We loved Final Fantasy XI for being online, letting players shape their own destinies, fulfilling Auron's famous saying from Final Fantasy X, "This is your story."

However, Square is starting to take the bite and realise that Final Fantasy cannot go on forever. They are slowly starting to spin-off the series in efforts to prolong its lifespan. This has been apparent all the way back in 1998, when Final Fantasy Tactics was released, a tactical game as the title suggests, and quite different from the average FF title. 2001 saw the release of another Final Fantasy spin-off. This was a whole new approach, and Square's first real indirect admittance that it was running out of ideas. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, however, did not flop at the box-office, and was met with mixed comments, some positive, like "the reason to see this movie is simply, gloriously, to look at it" from the Chicago Sun Times; and some negative, like "what makes (it) a final failure is a predictable, nonsensical plot, laughably lame dialogue, and a surfeit of cloying environmentalist piety" from the New York Post. 3 November 2003 saw Square's return to Nintendo, clawing out an action orientated title called Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Yet another distraction. Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, was a version of FF Tactics on the PSone, for the Gameboy Advance on 8 September 2003, with new plots and systems. Square also released various other RPGs over the years, like Chrono Cross, Xenogears and, more recently, Kingdom Hearts, a children friendly collaboration with Disney.

Final Fantasy XII is probably going to be Square's last great story. Soon, graphical quality is going to overshadow the actual content of the game, and more and more spin-offs, on different consoles are imminent. Square's interest in the next Xbox console is a hint, along with the forthcoming movie sequel to Final Fantasy VII, which is of course, Advent Children. A revolution is needed within those offices of the developers we love and trust. New ideas and fresh concepts need to be considered. The Final Fantasy series has been going on for around 14 years now, and it is still the best loved RPG series of all time. Surely something this great will one day fizzle out of the big leagues? Either Square open a secret chest filled to bursting with new ideas and stories, or Final Fantasy, the reason that I play videogames, why the Eyes On FF forum exists and why I am writing my opinion here today, dies a slow, painful death.

What do you think?

I think your way to analytical :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think your way to analytical :)

---

Well, that's the way the truth has gotta be, y'know.

I don't know, it depends upon the gamers. I agree that fresh ideas for RPG's are harder to come by these days, but more and more gamers today are happy with a game that has lots of eye-candy. As long as Square keeps pushing the limits of hardware in terms of graphics and attaches somewhat decent gamplay and a story to it I think that they'll be okay for a while still.

I reckon there's still quite a few new FF's out there.

The Spirits Within definitely was a flop, and that's an awfully gentle choice of terms. It cost $137 million to produce and only made $32 million worldwide. Still, you seem to be confusing "running out of ideas" with just having a bad idea.

And how is the fact that they're making non-FF titles evidence of the decline of the series? They've been doing that throughout their entire company history.

I'd agree that it seems the process of new games has slowed, but all that is really needed is an influx of new game creators, people with fresh ideas for stories and the like. There are more and more people goin into comupter programming and game creating fields as a career. So perhaps, who knows, one of us may eventually create a an entirely new, unique Final Fantasy! Hopefully, video games, and especially RPG's don't go the way of Summer Movies, all action, no story.

Take care all.

I'm confused as to how FFT was non-FF. That's beside the point though.

FF is P. Diddy. Whenever the name is mentioned, hype is automatically generated. People jump all over it. They want to see what this new product is like and either praise or bash it. If FF is dying, why does every gaming magazine have to have a 5 page feature every time a new FF game comes out? Why does it still get featured on so many covers? Why is it ALWAYS occupying spaces on every top 50 list? Why does EVERY SINGLE LITTLE RUMOR about a new game get its own special? Seriously, think about it. There's a difference between a series dying and you not liking the direction a series is going in.

There have been twenty James Bond movies over the last forty years. These twenty movies have a total of approximately 3.7 "new ideas" between them, and yet they've always been highly successful.

The FF series, with a whole new world and core cast for nearly every title, is home to far more diversity, and a similar mixture of high and low opinions when compared to the Bond flicks.

Of course, the series is going to end some day. It simply cannot endure forever, and may well have ceased production within the decade.
However, it's got life in it yet... not to mention a strong heritage and a discerning following of fans.

You used we far too broadly. This is your opinion, not ours, keep it that way.

Spin-offs have nothing to do with the downfall of the series. There is no evidence that the series is going to end anytime soon. The only reason that Final Fantasy can't last forever is because, it, like all other games, will eventually be overshadowed by newer, better games and series. As stated, Final Fantasy is still one of the most popular series out there, so it's going to stay in the spotlight for a bit while longer.

By the way, Kingdom Hearts wasn't "child friendly." I used to babysit a 5th grader who had the game, he couldn't beat the Alice in Wonderland, but he could go through and beat Lord of the Rings: Two Towers.

You speak of FFT as if it's a bad game. You also say that it was at this point that Square began to "run out of ideas." I don't think Square would be running out of ideas when they push aside the RPG and try something else. Just because Square shows it's best colours in RPGs doesn't mean all other genres they attempt are terrible.

You go on to say FF:TSW wasn't a flop. It was. Didn't make much profit. It did score decent reviews but heaps of people didn't bother to see the movie.

What's next? Oh. You then said that it was obvious that Square was running out of ideas because they started making non-FF games. The examples you gave were Chrono Cross, Kingdom Hearts and Xenogears. I find it funny that you picked probably some of the best Square games ever made to support this argument. Not to mention that the prequel to Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, is considered by many to be on par with FF6 and 7, perhaps even better. Also Square has been making non-FF games long before FFVI (which is far back as your timeline seems to go) I especially have many fond memories of Super Mario RPG among other Square old-school greats. This was mentioned before but Kingdom Hearts is anything but a game for children. True, they can enjoy the cute little Disney characters but let's see if my 8 year old cousin can beat Sephiroth. Nup.

Of course, Square has got to die sooner or later. It might be in a few years time. It might be after humans slowly fill up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and global warming kills us all. Can Square really run out of ideas? I mean, society and peoples views will change over time. Thus Square would have to adapt to the constantly changing environment in both the gaming industry and the world in general to satisfy the needs of the consumer. In other words, if Square gets enough demand for one thing, they'll make it. e.g. People wanted FF to go back to its roots after FF8 because it was a bit...shall we say, "out there." Then Square came back with FF9.

Wait.... hang on...... I just realized something..... NashX, you contradicted yourself in there.....

On the one hand, you're criticizing Square for trying new things with the spin-offs such as Tactics and Crystal Chronicles. On the other hand, you're saying Square needs to give us fresh new ideas.

Ummmmm.... Okay.....

i cry when i hear this topic :cry:

Its a sad topic, but inevitable...
But I think they're starting to run outta ideas (just thinking, with all the sequals and prequals their making.) but ya never know, do ya?

Final Fantasy will go on, simply because people will buy it for the name, regardless of what the game is like. Whether they change the formula or not, they're still very good games, and well worth buying.

Isn't there a thread just like this in the FFXII forum?

I'm confused. You say that square is running out of new ideas when they make a game like Tactics. Yet by making tactics there trying a new idea.

That's exactly what I'm saying, Spirit Wolf. Running out of new ideas would mean the games no longer offer ANYTHING new. So the games would all have a painfully similar story, combat system and characters, if not THE same.

Isn't this great? I've turned everyone against me!! MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now everyone is saying that I am stupid, contradictory and just a regular old fuddy-duddy...wait...does anyone say fuddy-duddy anymore?

I have expressed an opinion, and obviously raised some interesting questions. I am simply say that FFXII may do well. FFXIII may not be so great. How far can Square go? FFMCXXVIII seems a bit, well, unlikely.

Yeah, but wouldn't it be fun? Just imagine how confusing it would be to keep the series straight at that point!

[q=NashX]I have expressed an opinion, and obviously raised some interesting questions. I am simply say that FFXII may do well. FFXIII may not be so great. How far can Square go? FFMCXXVIII seems a bit, well, unlikely.[/q]I think everyone agrees that the series can't go on forever, it's just that some people disagree with your reasons for saying so. Arguably, the series could be killed by either a lack of creativity - no new ideas, nothing innovative to capture the attention of people who're seeking a new experience. Alternatively, they could ruin their success by making radical, wild, ad hoc departures from what's "tried and true". Creativity is a real "balancing act', sometimes. There's got to be something that people can recognise and identify with, but you can't just churn out a carbon-copy of what worked in the past.

I'm hoping that the creators will end the series on a high note, instead of trudging along with game after game, until all potential for greatness has gone and the series grinds into a halt of anonymous mediocrity. Better to have a strong finish than to make desperate bids to get that last dollar out of the buyers.

what square really needs is some vibrant, new, young writers with big imaginations and noble hearts. that is what has made the past final fantasies so great. they arent just any video game, they have novel-esque depth to them. Final Fantasy much like an interactive classic novel, and so long as they havethat going for them the series will never die, but, as bad religion put it "all thats benign corrupts in time" and that is the truth with everything.. nothing can last forever.

I agree with everything you said up there NashX.

And I do think that "The Spirits Within" was nothing but garbage. Square spent too much time on the graphics, not the storyline or the dialouge. I had heard it took them a couple of years just to do Dr. Aki Ross' hair!

Final Fantasy, I do think, is starting to mess up, as the great plots of the older FF's, and the great ideas are slipping away.

I think it would be better if Square came out with new ideas instead of doing Final Fantasy all the time.

They have. Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Front Mission, The Bouncer and many others have all been developed by Square.

No to mention Xenogears, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Holy Sword Legend, Kingdom Hearts, etc. Saying that Square only does Final Fantasy is like saying that Ford only makes trucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Czanthor

They have. Vagrant Story, Parasite Eve, Front Mission, The Bouncer and many others have all been developed by Square.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

No to mention Xenogears, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Holy Sword Legend, Kingdom Hearts, etc.

---

In your face, GAW.

Stop treating this discussion like a competition. It makes you come off as awfully immature, and goodness knows we don't want to think of you that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

Stop treating this discussion like a competition. It makes you come off as awfully immature, and goodness knows we don't want to think of you that way.

---

Sorry you feel that way. Shall we stop this now, if it makes Kawaii happy?

NashX certainly has some interesting points although I don't know if I agree with all of them. I don't think Square trying things like FF-Tactics and Crystal Chronicles is proof of decline. With Tactics (PS & GBA), Square simply wanted to apply a FF style story and setting to a Tactical RPG but probably couldn't sell it simply as the next FF cause of its differences to FF's before it. As SpiritWolf said, it's hypocritical to say you want originality, and the complain when Square give just that. As for Crystal Chronicals, Square, I think, wanted to produce a slightly different style of FF for GC and also create an FF that friends could play together. As for Squares other games, they, like any other games company, wanted to do something other than their most popular game series, just like Konami want to do more than just Metal Gear Solid. Also, Square wanted to do RPG's not bound by FF tradition. What I do agree with NashX on is that graphics ARE beginning to overshadow substance. It's probably why most of the games I'm interested in buying are on GBA. Producers (and gamers) by and large, are more concerned with skin deep, shallow appearences than in plot or gameplay. It saddens me. It's only a matter of time before RPG's on the home consoles become little more than the Dungeons and Dragons style hack and slash "I'm gonna mash up that troll bad, innit?" games I've heard so much about. Maybe even as shallow as the flurry of war games that exist today. I play RPG's (and games in general) purely for plot and gameplay. I've never cared about visuals and it saddens me that they are swollowing up all I hold dear about games, especially RPG's. It's only a matter of time before the same happens on handhelds.

I'm not saying that FF has reached that point yet, although Square do obsess over visuals. It's just a general feeling I get. I can sense a general wrongness in gaming and from time to time, it worries me. As for Square running out of ideas, I don't think so.They've never waivered there. Even Square's return to their roots with IX felt fresh and original. Even in their sequel X-2, Square provided originality, when some, myself included, suspected rehash. In regards to the upcoming FFXII, I probably won't notice any rehash if there is any, cause I live in the UK where the PS's Tactics game never came out, but Square's return to the PS version of Ivalice will probably be as original as anything before it. Although I have my concerns, I also have faith in Square, and in their RPG rival companies, Capcom and Konami. If my sense of the end is warranted, then I don't think it's here just yet.

Nothing lasts forever. I attribute any decline in the quality of the newer games to a decline in myself. I'm getting older and was an oldschool fan, so it is only natural that I think those were the golden age. It's a kid's business and there are plenty of kids who will think FFXII, FFXIII, FFXCMIV are the best ever.

Del Murder-I'm not sure I totally agree with what you say, although there's some truth in it.

I remember first playing RPG's around 1998, I was 11,12 at the time. I began with a borrowed copy of Suikoden by Konami, and after that I was hooked, Then, from the same person, I borrowed the tactical RPG Vandal Hearts, also by Konami. It was a different style to Suikoden, but I enjoyed it just as much, and wished there were more Tactical RPG's around. Then, Final Fantasy VII reached the UK. At first, I played on my friends copy. Then, having finally gotten enough money for a game, got my own copy. Me, like a lot of others, felt it was the best RPG, no the best game ever made. My friend eventually got his PS chipped to play American games and so I was able to play games like Breath of Fire III, which is now my favourite game ever. When it came out in the UK, I showed no hesitation in naming it as a gift idea at Christmas when I was asked for ideas back in 1998-99. I suppose those 3 years would be my golden age. After that legendary couple of years in the history of RPG's, FF8 came out, and many were disappointed. Not me, it wasn't FF7, but it was still highly enjoyable, if a bit easy. Then things went quiet. It seemed the excitement within the gaming world over RPG's was beginning to fade. I kept an eye out however, and other classics were released, such as Breath of Fire IV came out and FFIX. Then demand for the earlier FF's arose, and Square released FF's 4,5 and 6 for PS. I found time amonst GCSE's to start playing FF4 and liked it just as much as the RPG's I had begun with, with the possible exceptions of FF7 and BoF3. I have fond memories of the "golden age", but also know that what I see AS the "golden age" isn't quite as golden as I thought. Not that it wasn't a special time for RPG's, as they got more press and more importantly, respect, than ever before. I just know that the best time for RPG's was mist likely the SNES era, which I missed due to the fact I was in the wrong country to experience it, I was ignorent overall, and was probably too young at the time to be able to play RPG's. However, I'm getting the feeling that I'm seeing the second coming of the true golden age now, not on home consoles obviously from what I said in my last post, but on the GBA, partially cause of SNES-GBA remakes which allow relative newcomers such as myself to enjoy classic games, but also cause developers are putting plot and gameplay first. As for my "golden age", I think that was simply the twilight of the true one, ending with the game most consider to be the One game to rule them all, Final Fantasy VII. Personally, I think it isn't so much that people remember their first times with RPG's the most fondly, although that happens, it's when you come in, the quality you're presented with AT the start, the games openly available to show you what RPG's have to offer. The gamers seeing RPG's for the first time now or soon in the future are possibly only going to know flashy visuals and not quality, which is sad. They will probably remember the flashy games as the best because most likely they possible won't know anything else. However, games seem to be drawing in a more shallow kind of gamer as it is anyway, so possibly my theory is wrong, although I sincerly hope not.

I guess there are exceptions to everything, kiddo.

Hey! I just turned 18!!!!

We're all still kids in Del's eyes.

Yet, I think Del raises an important point. It's nearly impossible to be completely objective about games because we all have our favorites and deep down, probably long for more of the same. That being said, whenever a new game comes out and it doesn't quite fit our comfort zone of gaming, it may turn us off at first.

Take care all.

Captain- There's truth in that, although I see the flaw in that way of thinking. Sure, I like the idea of another Breath of Fire III style game, but know that it would seem awfully derivitive if one came out. Same goes for FF7. I long for BoF3 again from time to time, but I know there can't sensibly be another one, so I solve the problem simply by pulling the BOF3 CD out of my CD wallet every so often to play it again.

Perhaps we should be more broad to figure out this equation. Of course, you can't specifically get the exact same game made, for if you did, as you said it would lack a lot of variety and would feel almost stale. However, perhaps if we broke it down into the two styles mentioned: Old School Versus New School, it'll make more sense.

Old School, I suppose would categorize all the Final Fantasies made from I through VI and I suppose you could lump IX in there as well.

New School, on the other hand would categorize FFVII, VIII, X and X-2, as well as XI I suppose.

Now, the question is raised, what exactly are the differences?

Take care all.

Good point, what ARE the clear differences between old and new school. Old School is a genre in itself, not merely a style of character and area design. Here's my definition:-

Old School is generally a type of RPG set in a Anime style european fantasy setting. Most RPG's people think of as "Old School" fit into this category. Of course, there are exceptions such as FF6, but generally, my definition applies. Such games include FF's 1-5 and Breath of Fire's 1&2 and possibly 3&4 cause it's done in the same style. Old School RPG's are often less forgiving on the player, as they often give you fights to remember (A good thing in my book). By comparison, most "New School" RPG's are way too easy, even FF10.

As for New School games, they tend to consist of a different kind of setting to many RPG's of the "Old School" genre and are often appear highly destinctive. Games like FFVII, FF's X-X2, Breath of Fire-Dragon Quater and the .hack games fit into this category. Developers seem overly concerned about not using ideas which have been popular many times before in case people cry "rehash!". The downside with New School that visuals often overshadow actual quality on occasion and these games are often way too easy, such as FFVIII and X-2.

Now, I'm not saying that old school RPG's are unoriginal, not at all. The Breath of Fire games are a highly creative idea. There were probably dozens of RPG fans out there who wanted to play as a dragon before then. Also, on that note, it's the characters that make the story more than the setting. Sure, setting counts for a lot, but the stories obviously focus the characters first. You can have the most distictive and creative setting imaginable but still have a derivitive storyline if the characters are unoriginal.

Maybe the reason Old School can be easily defined as mostly RPG's focusing on medieval european anime fantasy is cause those kinds of setting were (and still are) popular in Japan. Plenty of people use these kinds of settings, even now. Square don't seem to give themselves enough credit over FFIX, simply thinking they've rehashed old material when this isn't the case. Besides, a setting can be reminicent of medieval europe without being unoriginal. Look at Breath of Fire III and FFIX to see what I mean.

Anyway, that's my definition. I'm interested to hear what others think on the subject.

I'll repeat myself "People, You are funny!" I think FF will last as long as humankind will play RPGs.

I have no idea what your post says because it is to long and I dont want to read it!!!!

Quote:

---

I have no idea what your post says because it is to long and I dont want to read it!!!!

---

Then why post at all? If you aren't willing to read at least the most recent posts in a thread shouldn't you not be posting in it?

Anyways, as far as the originality is concerned, I'm not particularily worried. They have just now introduced new races to what has usually been primarily human worlds. Ronso, Banga, Hypello, Nu Mou, all of these concepts just show that what we've seen so far is the tip of the iceberg. SquareEnix has shown a level of creativity that is unmatched by any other major gaming company out there (Xenogears, for example, was probably the best storyline I have ever seen) and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so for years to come.

Personally, I'm not worried over the alleged lack of originally cause in the world of Japanese RPG's, it doesn't exist. As I said before, my concern is that visuals and the people who do cry "rehash!" will overshadow quality. It's not that Square can't come up with good ideas, far from it, they've been coming up with classics for years and show no intention of stopping. The problem is that their efforts may eventually become too centered on keeping the shallow minded graphics merchants and the whiners who insist that something remotely sci fi or european fantasy based is a rehash. As long as Square focus on plot and gameplay first and foremost, there shouldn't be a problem, it's just that the feeling I get suggests that Square and others are concerning themselves too much with spoilsports.

Actually, I think we're getting to a point in the gaming community where the game concepts are starting to catch up to the hardware. collision detection is getting much better, as are controls. Developers are learning the machines they develop on until the last time they hit "compile". It's not that graphics are overshadowing gameplay, it's that they're more spectacular than the FF engine you've been playing for years now.

Actually that's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that like all big name pop-artists, Square could crank out ANYTHING they wanted, slap the FF name on it, and there's a pretty good chance that it'll sell well. They don't need to come up with good stories or gameplay, that's how strong the FF name is.

Read my Sig

and make final fantasy tactics 2 for ps2 so many ideas using the same history as the first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NashX

In your face, GAW.

---

Find something better to dowith your time okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryûkishi

Stop treating this discussion like a competition. It makes you come off as awfully immature, and goodness knows we don't want to think of you that way.

---

When did we all get mature?

We are not adults here people. And if we were then we wouldn't play FF or at least we would and then people would call you Immature, and goodness knows wouldn't that be ironic?

COMPETE MY PRETTIES! COMPETE TO THINE HEARTS CONTENT!

No offense though.

DJZen- I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Regardless of visuals that are being used, the gameplay isn't going to change because of it. Ever. There's no logical way they can. What I'm saying is that the focus is evidently drawing away from quality. I'm currently playing the FF Legend/Seiken Densetsu remake "Sword of Mana" on GBA, which, unless I'm mistaken, is over a decade old. I am seriously impressed. The story and the gameplay is exceptional. I haven't seen anything this good since perhaps FFX-2, and maybe not even then. The last game I was this impressed with was FF4 when it was rereleased on the PS (Another Old School game), and before that only FF7 and Breath of Fire's 3&4. The point is I can see that this kind of innovation is worryingly rare nowadays and the only explanation is that there has been a gradual decline. Why? Extreme overemphasis on visuals which is begining to cause a lack in innovation and overall quality. I'm not saying recent FF's and RPG's in general are bad, it's just they could be so much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seryn Kai

DJZen- I think you may have misunderstood what I said. Regardless of visuals that are being used, the gameplay isn't going to change because of it. Ever. There's no logical way they can. What I'm saying is that the focus is evidently drawing away from quality.

---

Okay, now I'm very confused.

So.... you're saying that the gameplay isn't changing, but the focus is going from gameplay to graphics, even though the gameplay isn't changing? I'm not sure I understand.....

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that graphics on their own don't influence a thing, but quality is being influenced by visuals indirectly simply because of neglect of gameplay and plot. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in my last post.