Petition to Square Enix to create a new 16 bit FF game

[Slothy]

Call me a sceptic, but I don't understand just how degrading the graphics is going to improve their abilities for storytelling and gameplay. If they have it in them, then they have it in them. If they don't, they don't. I honestly don't imagine that when they came up with the storyline for FFXIII that they intended on half-arsing it. I actually believe they would have come up with the story before the graphics were made. I don't think they would do this any differently regardless of the systems they are designing for. You make the story before you put together the graphics.

The thing is that even if you have what you think is a good story in the beginning, maybe it won't translate well into a 40 hour game. Now you have to tweak it. But maybe you've already spent a year working on a lot of the level design and art assets. Do you scrap a big chunk of it and start over or try to make it work in with some re-writes. God help you if you leave play testing until the end of development and find out that the pacing is atrocious or a level isn't rating very well with testers.

So yeah, game development is a much more complicated beast than it can initially seem. And one of the things that limiting what the developer can do could help with would be letting them prototype, test, and figure out what works much faster. Not to mention making it easier to scrap things that just don't work.

I also happen to believe that when you can't cover up a lackluster story with fancy graphics, cutscenes, and flashy animation and effect it makes it a lot harder to pass off a turd as something decent. But if you have the talent and experience to nail pacing, story, characters, gameplay, etc. in a game with tougher hardware and software limitations, then you can more easily scale that experience up. Again, it forces you to get to the fundamentals and make the entire package work together to convey a great experience since you have so many fewer tools to work with to get that experience across.

[champagne supernova]

I actually believe they would have come up with the story before the graphics were made. I don't think they would do this any differently regardless of the systems they are designing for. You make the story before you put together the graphics. For me, that's logic. Maybe I don't understand the game development industry enough.

As far as I'm aware, that is the process Square take. Certain other genres may develop graphic systems and gameplay first (FPS, strategy games) and then add story to tie the gameplay sections in. But a RPG's gameplay and locations are driven by story, so they get nailed before production gets scaled up.

I don't know about dilution. There's FF Legends & FF Crystal Chronicles along with the three XIIIs and I think Square-Enix need to keep the FF experience under one brand and generate new IPs, instead of having FF being split into different brands.

XIV was a monumental mistake though. Fortunately it gets to be rereleased on PS3 when they've hopefully fixed it, and if there are enough positive reviews, it can still become a commercial success.

[Slothy]

You caught me with that edit BoB. I wasn't saying the series was far too diluted in terms of quality or sales. The former is arguable, though XIII's shoddy development history and the mess that is XIV certainly seem to indicate that Square does not have its tit together in that area. The latter certainly isn't terrible for the main series, though it's worth noting that with the exception of FFXIII making a jump of about 1 million units sold over XII, the sales for the main entries have been steadily declining since VII.

I was mostly getting at the sheer number of titles released in the last several years with FF in the title, whether it needed to be there or not. It started with Tactics Advance and Crystal Chronicles, and kept on going with a sequel to X, the FFVII compilation, an almost endless stream of remakes and re-releases, and now the multiple entries around FFXIII. Some of which are barely even connected but still have XIII attached all the same. At this point, whenever I see Square announce a new game, if I see FF anywhere in the name I kind of groan a bit and move on. Most of the various sequels, prequels and spin-offs haven't been very good and it gets old seeing the FF name pop up related to some new title that doesn't even have to made as an FF game. In fact, it's kind of gotten to the point for me that I would (and have) actually stand up and take more notice of a new IP or entry in another franchise from Square than a new title slapped with the FF name to help make sure it sells well enough to be worth it. I'm also willing to bet I'm far from the only one who feels this way.

[Bastian]

Why don't they use it as an in-house training exercise for their staff? Or why does it have to be a FF? Why can't Square-Enix develop a completely new IP for this rather than diluting the FF brand.

...HUH? Because... I want a FINAL FANTASY game. That's the whole point of this discussion. I don't want a new IP (unless you consider Final Fantasy Legends a new IP). I want more Final Fatansy games from what I consider the "golden era" (snes). Squeenix has hear these pleas across the seas and thus created FF4:TAY and then FFLegends. We still haven't gotten FFLegends over here.

How is this "diluting the FF brand"? In my opinion, the brand was destroyed by all games post FF6. I want FF to return to its roots. You all can keep playing your current gen FF, but I also want my retro FF. Besides, the brand is already diluted. FFT, FFCC, the Disidea games, the Chocobo games. I think that SE should simply continue what they were doing with FFLegends and make that a legitimate spinoff series and bring it to the States.

[Mirage]

What's so important about it having "final fantasy" in its title? I really don't understand this. Could you try to explain?

[TrollHunter]

I think just having a fantastic rpg from square in general would be awesome. Putting the label "Final Fantasy" on it doesn't seem necessary in the slightest.

[Loony BoB]

Ah, you mean dilution as in all the spinoffs. In which case I agree. I love FFTA, so it's hard to see that as a bad thing (I see it as a game that would more appropriately be named FFT2, with FFT being a series in it's own right), but the sheer number of spinoffs such as chocobo racing, dirge of cerberus, X-2, XIII-2, etc... it can be annoying. Still, for the most part I ignore spinoffs and it doesn't bother me. I only invest in spinoffs where I really, really, really liked the original game. Because anything that gives me more lore is something I'm interested in. =] I can't heeeeelp it, I'm an addict.

Vivi22: Surely they can avoid that problem by putting together more simple graphics initially, sort of like a skeleton game (think 3D stick figures) and then, once they are happy with the gameplay, they can work on the graphics and FMVs before releasing the game. I mean, I just can't really comprehend the idea that they would do the things they can't change before they do the things that they expect they might want to change. I'll reiterate that with FFXIII, they intended on the lack of gameplay options. It wasn't poor abilities or anything that they need to take time out to work on or anything - it was just, put simply, a stupid decision made by management.

Speaking of management, if XIV has shown us anything, it's that the likes of Tanaka who have been around since day one may not be the people to turn to when it comes to pushing FF to the future. Sometimes you need a newer more open minded person leading in order to get the best results. The people who are considered geniuses when it comes to the retro games have not always done so well in recent times, and a changing of the guard is a healthy thing. It's not always that SE have lost their way, it's sometimes a simple case of SE's top dogs being around too long and not moving with the times or having a good understanding of what makes people enjoy a game. You don't fix this by putting out a retro game. You fix it by changing the producers/directors, the people who control the direction of the game, the key decision makers. Or, you change it by simply changing. You note the things that people didn't like and you adjust accordingly. Bad experiences can be a good thing if people are capable of learning from mistakes. We can only really wait and see, though.

In my opinion, the brand was destroyed by all games post FF6.

Ah, and thus everything is explained. You don't just want nostalgia, you have it in your head that everything that is a 3D Final Fantasy is somehow a destroyer of all things FF. I don't think we can help you there. You're definitely in the minority. I mean, some people might prefer the retro games but I've yet to find many people at EoFF over the past 12 or so years that have insisted that every FF from VII onwards was bad.

For you to say that the SNES was the golden era would be a matter of personal preference, as there would be nothing to back up your claims when you consider ratings and sales. If you go by ratings, the golden era began with FFVI and ended with FFXII - all single player games in this period got metacritic ratings above 90. For me, there is no true golden era, every game is judged on it's own merits.

[champagne supernova]

Ah, you mean dilution as in all the spinoffs. In which case I agree. I love FFTA, so it's hard to see that as a bad thing (I see it as a game that would more appropriately be named FFT2, with FFT being a series in it's own right), but the sheer number of spinoffs such as chocobo racing, dirge of cerberus, X-2, XIII-2, etc... it can be annoying. Still, for the most part I ignore spinoffs and it doesn't bother me. I only invest in spinoffs where I really, really, really liked the original game. Because anything that gives me more lore is something I'm interested in. =] I can't heeeeelp it, I'm an addict.

The compilation and the direct sequels actually annoy me less than something like Crystal Chronicles, Tactics Advance etc, because at least they are related materially to the main entries. Tactics should be its own series, as should Crystal Chronicles. Same with Versus XIII and Agito XIII. If they can't be considered traditional FFs, call them something else. It would be like Kingdom Hearts was actually named : Final Fantasy with Disney Characters.

If you go by ratings, the golden era began with FFVI and ended with FFXII - all single player games in this period got metacritic ratings above 90. For me, there is no true golden era, every game is judged on it's own merits.

And XIII wasn't a train wreck; it has a meta-critic rating of 80-plus.

[Loony BoB]

Yeah, I liked it.

I don't mind FFT being a seperate series still with the FF name. I can imagine it would have done well as it's own IP anyway, mind you, but perhaps it's because it still has so much to do with FF in it that makes me see it as a Final Fantasy game regardless. It's just not a main series game because it's a tactical RPG and they wouldn't suit the main numbered series. Also, FFXII is in the same world as FFT/TA so it makes sense to keep the FF name for all of them.

[Slothy]

Vivi22: Surely they can avoid that problem by putting together more simple graphics initially, sort of like a skeleton game (think 3D stick figures) and then, once they are happy with the gameplay, they can work on the graphics and FMVs before releasing the game. I mean, I just can't really comprehend the idea that they would do the things they can't change before they do the things that they expect they might want to change. I'll reiterate that with FFXIII, they intended on the lack of gameplay options. It wasn't poor abilities or anything that they need to take time out to work on or anything - it was just, put simply, a stupid decision made by management.

A lot of companies already do a lot of playtesting. Valve in particular are quite well known for playtesting pretty much everything they make constantly throughout development, both internally, and by bringing in people from outside the company to play them and get feedback in a multitude of forms (as in not just asking them to explain what they think of it, they'll literally measure things like where you're eyes are on the screen, how long you fixate on things, and I believe they even recently talked about measuring how sweaty people's palms get during different scenes, all to measure reactions players don't even realize they're having). The trouble is, many Japanese developers don't do a lot of playtesting. Now they may test things internally to some extent throughout development, but they rarely do it as extensively as a lot of the better western developers are doing or moving towards doing these days. There can also be a bit of a problem with a cinematic heavy JRPG I'd imagine in the sense that those take a ton of time to render, and how do you even prototype that in a way that will have the same impact on the player as the final version? Being able to render it all in real time in the engine certainly helps a lot these days, but it doesn't make any difference how quickly you can prototype something if you never play test it (and yes, I absolutely believe that you should be playtesting the story throughout production, as well as the gameplay. Pacing is every bit as important as having good gameplay systems). And you also have the question of how many resources you throw into prototyping before you move on. It's all a bit of a delicate balancing act.

Even if you cover all of your bases by doing quick iterations and constant play tests, you could still end up with a section of game added later on which it turns out through testing isn't fun, or that part of the story is rating poorly with players. Maybe the only way to change it is to alter something else earlier on that has been mostly finalized now. Game development is a very organic process and developers sometimes have to be ready to scrap something, even if it's already finished, if it means making a better game. But this is why play testing and being able to make changes quickly is so important. Some companies like Valve and Naughty Dog have this stuff down almost to a science.

And that was one thing that came through in almost every interview I read post-release for FFXIII, and in the postmortem that got put up on Gamasutra (aside from them apparently dicking away a few years with no real direction while they tried to make an engine without really knowing for sure what they would be doing with it): they didn't heavily playtest anything. And internal playtests (assuming they even did much of that) can be very misleading because often you're too close to something to realize that you may have made it too hard, too easy, or that most players don't like it, etc. In fact, I would be willing to venture a guess that had they done some external play tests much earlier in development, they may have realized most people didn't really like the long corridors, lack of exploration, and lack of NPC interaction, possibly before it was too late to make changes.

[Mirage]

And XIII wasn't a train wreck; it has a meta-critic rating of 80-plus.

You say that as if game scores aren't terribly inflated, the "actual" scale is more like this:

0-75 = terrible game
76-89 = average game
90-100 = good game

Oh, do I miss the days when an average game actually got an average score, meaning 50-60%. A score in that range these days is practically the same as saying the game is awful and not worth buying at all.

[champagne supernova]

XIII left out quite a lot of content, so it can't be blamed that the set-pieces etc forced it to be a certain game.

What is the biggest criticism of the game? The linearity until Pulse. Why did they make it linear? They wanted a fast-paced story and allowing players to wander off would remove the immersion in the storyline - probably a massive counter-reaction to XII. Were they right? No, they went too far. But it was a design choice made early on and was so fundamental to the way they wanted the game to be made that it couldn't be undone.

For me, the linearity isn't a problem. I love exploring (Oblivion is something I still sink hours in, even after I've done most the side-quests), but it worked. It is a problem, but not one that ruins the game. The other problem I have with it is that the battle system, while looking immensely slick and stylish, is worse than XII in playing itself. There is no ability to customise attacks etc and you basically feel like an Army General above the battle. I think that additional options to add more depth could be included, even if they weren't necessary.

Oh, the fact that abilities were filtered down to the player at such a slow rate also annoyed me. And that equipment was basically useless.

You say that as if game scores aren't terribly inflated, the "actual" scale is more like this:

0-75 = terrible game
76-89 = average game
90-100 = good game

Infamous has a MetaCritic rating of 85. Infamous 2 has a MetaCritic rating of 83. Killzone 3 80 something. Demon's Soul & WipeOut HD - 89. BioShock 2- 88.

Actually, I give up. Just look here: http://www.metacritic.com/browse/gam...nsed&sort=desc
0-50 = Terrible
50-70 = Bad/Okay
70-80 = Above Average/Good
80-90 = Very Good
90+ = Excellent

[Loony BoB]

I do wonder if they would listen attentively, though. I mean, with FFXIV, the beta got put up, they got a lot of complaints and from what I understand they didn't listen much. They had to get rid of the producer before they really got to a point where it seemed they were defintely listening. Since then, SE has seemingly (at least from the SE Europe perspective) been doing all it can on various mediums to get in touch with it's fans. They're obviously on either a PR push, a marketing push or are getting much more interested in the idea of getting feedback from fans. I like to think it's all three, but you never know until much further down the line.

[Mirage]

0-50 = Terrible
50-70 = Bad/Okay
70-80 = Above Average/Good
80-90 = Very Good
90+ = Excellent

That just verifies what I said though. The first 50 percents are left practically unused, with all "actual" scores being spread among the 50 remaining percents.

Of course, scales with more than 5 levels are completely pointless anyway. No one is going to be able to convince me that there is an actual difference in quality between a 8.1 game and a 8.2 game, and due to the nature of reviews being very subjective opinions, the inaccuracy from that alone is greater than any decimal point for any score.

Why not keep it simple and use Very bad, bad, average, good and very good? A sensible scale from 1-5.

[Bastian]

What's so important about it having "final fantasy" in its title? I really don't understand this. Could you try to explain?

I didn't say it was essential that it must include the words "Final Fantasy" but so long as it has Fira and Thundara and Chocobos and is styled like the Final Fantasy games from 4-6, then I'm good to go.

In my opinion, the brand was destroyed by all games post FF6.

Ah, and thus everything is explained. You don't just want nostalgia, you have it in your head that everything that is a 3D Final Fantasy is somehow a destroyer of all things FF.[/quote]
Well, okay, XI was pretty decent. But I still prefer the 2D style of the older games.

You're definitely in the minority.

Here, perhaps. But in my real world group of friends, not so much. My friend Casey is a HUGE Dragon Quest fanatic but refueses to play DQVIII because of the 3D approach. My friend Dylan won't touch any 3D styled games. We're old. We prefer our games 2D, thankyouverymuch.

For you to say that the SNES was the golden era would be a matter of personal preference, as there would be nothing to back up your claims when you consider ratings and sales.

I thought I'd made it repeatedly clear that it was only my opinion. :P

But yes, most of us who grew up on the NES and SNES feel that the golden era for RPGs ended shortly thereafter (there are still a lot of those who accept FF7 into the fold, but I'm not one of those).

But, again, to bring the conversation away from FFx is better than FFy silliness: the point of this thread, as far as I can tell, is that the OP wants people to sign a petition saying "Yes, we would like more retro-styled FF please! Specificially from the 16-bit era, thanks!" If that's not your cup of tea, fine. Don't sign it.

I didn't sign it for the reason that SE already made such a game (FFLegends) which may or may not end up being ported to a non-mobile phone platform at some point in the future and then may or may not be localized. So I feel to sign this would be to ignore that they are already trying to provide the very thing being asked for.