Wada Discusses the future

[Flying Arrow]

So, my point is that, from what I can see, the quality of FFs has been up to scratch since Wada has taken over. There has definitely been innovation in story-telling techniques, gameplay mechanics and graphical design, and XIII looks like it will continue the trend.

And, to be honest, FFVII wasn't a huge break from previous FFs. The main area of improvement was in the graphics allowed from the PS, allowing for a more personal story to be told. But the ATB system was almost identical from VI (the actual battle system and not the mechanics behind it). The materia system was probably a backward step. Weapons and armour were fairly standard. Game progression fairly linear. Apart from the side-games, which were quite fun and entertaining, the real innovation of VII (outside of graphics) was the presentation of an epic story.

I'm not here to gang up on anyone or argue about "streamlining" or design choices; I just want to chime in on a point I feel needs to be raised when talking about the differences of cinematic presentation throughout the FF series.

The key idea is presentation - it's the centerpiece of every single game ever, all the way back to Pong. Gamer perspective is possibly the most important factor in determining the player's experience. I believe that the innovation of VII (and VIII and IX) is that, while no less "linear" than X (or I-VI), it remains interesting from screen to screen. Each camera angle is painstakingly picked and offers a completely different point-A-to-point-B experience. Whether it be a winding path or a small puzzle, the carefully-directed explorable artwork of VII-IX is what carries those games as cinematic experiences and is exactly what makes them unique and interesting as "cinematic" games (whether or not the player enjoys it is a different story, however).

X, XII, and now XIII, on the other hand, places the gamer in completely different shoes. Occasionally X busted out the PS1-era explorable artwork (don't ask me for examples, because I can't remember specifics) but for the most part it was a behind-the-back experience like a lot of current 3D games. With this player perspective, everything is seen, and surroundings exist as more of a gameplay environment than carefully directed scenes (or screens). The main problem that some seem to have with X is that for everything that can be seen in these environments, not much can be done. Of course, it's not like the explorable artwork of VII-IX were huge interactive playgrounds either, but the cinematic intrigue seems to be missing from the newer entries.

What I feel separates the PS1-era and the PS2/3 era FFs is how Square has defined "cinematic" for each. Cinematic for the PS1 involved explorable artwork and careful screen direction, whereas as the PS2/3 games are "cinematic" because of the frequent story-based cutscenes, which are usually presented completely differently than the gamer-controlled bits (not so in the PS1 games). Enjoyment of either is all based on taste, of course, but I just wanted to perhaps raise a point about what makes each generation of Final Fantasy tick.

(NOTE: XII is also a completely different experience than X and seemingly XIII, but mostly because of level-design choices rather than cinematic, I feel. Enjoyment of either style, again, comes down to taste).