Quote Originally Posted by ShinGundam
OK, I am out of touch with majority of opinions at this point but i am more disheartened by the whole " Why not making it a new IP/SE new RPG" as if Squaresoft/enix hasn't produced different kinds of action RPGs before or an FF game is nothing more than turn-based/ATB as if the market wasn't filled with turn-based RPGs or the fact that people here ignoring the newer formula such as 2 numbered MMO games (FF11/FF14), one offline MMO1 (FF12) and 2 movies (FF10/FF13).

So i want a good reason, why an action RPG FF would be anymore offensive when FF experience ranged from a single player to a co-op multiplayer based to an MMO, from a game where positioning affects gameplay to no movement whatsoever, from completely active battles to an order based, and i can go on and on and on.2
My personal view is the concepts of turn-based, world map, random encounters, etc aren't outdated but the execution of the game in terms of map design and structure of the world and narrative is really getting there.3
1. what in the world do you mean by "offline MMO"? offline =/= mega multiplayer online. And by "movie" do you refer to their linear storytelling? I consider this linearity to be part of the same problem so I would use this as further evidence of my own position.

2. Action and button mashing tend to flavor a game. Certain gaming elements tend to flow together better than others. Action RPG's are frenetic. JRPGs are regimented and systematic. Even the three FFs that clearly departed from the traditional battle system, FFXI, FFXII, and FFXIV, contain systems that keep them regimented and systematic. FFXI and FFXIV each have systems of delay wherein each action is on a timer and cannot be spammed, so they can't truly be said to be rtb, they're basically still atb. And FFXII, of course, had the gambit system. Having played them all (and a large number of action rpgs), I don't feel that these differences are as significant as the differences that action rpgs being.

3. If the FF model that's been used for 24 years is getting outdated, then imo it's not time to change what it means to be FF, but to be done with FF. This is part of a fallacy (fallacious imo, not by any objective reasoning) of modern thought where if you don't like the way a thing is, just change it instead of finding something else to like. Man I've really liked bleu cheese since I was 12, the first time I ever remember having it. It's so good. But now I hear there's this stuff called Gorgonzola Dolce. I've been eating bleu cheese so long it's getting kinda old. Should I switch to Gorgonzola Dolce? No, instead I'll just make bleu cheese more like Gorgonzola Dolce. So let's sweeten up that bleu, and soften it...ah that's better. Perfect. So would you like some bleu cheese? What? No, this isn't Gorgonzola Dolce, it's bleu cheese. It doesn't look like bleu cheese, or smell like bleu cheese, or taste like bleu cheese, but it's bleu cheese because that's what I've always called it.
It's like if roses were suddenly considered outdated and genetically manipulated to be like voodoo lilies. It's the opposite of the Shakespearean name dilemma. A rose, by any other smell, would name as sweet.

I think, after some careful thought, that my biggest problem with the changes happening to Final Fantasy are tied to the changing definition of Fantasy itself. Fantasy has been diluted by science fiction and by the loss of appreciation or knowledge of the distinction between high and low fiction. The long and short of the matter is that the connotation of Final Fantasy is changing. I'm oldschool basically, so to me Final Fantasy meant Sword and Sorcery High Fantasy. Dragons. Swords and shields. Castles. Dwarves and elves. And so on, you know what I mean. Furthermore SE established its own sort of vocabulary for fantasy games. Some of the staples being airships, crystals, chocobos, and moogles.
With the departure of Sakaguchi, as director, and Amano, as lead artist, after FFVI, the series began to move away from some of those elements and incorporate, among other things, sci-fi and low fantasy elements. Something about this transition carried with it the need to switch to a linear story and world, at least to SE. So along the way, 2 of the elements that defined Final Fantasy to me were lost: the sword and sorcery stylings, and the explorable world (complete with a world map, yes). High Fantasy is all about the exploration of another world completely separate from our own. Why invent a universe and then just show me 0.0000000001% of it?

So basically, how can you define Final Fantasy anymore? What is its identity? Does throwing crystals and airships and moogles into a game make it Final Fantasy? I personally don't think so. It's part of what makes FF FF, but it's not complete. And if there's no way to define Final Fantasy anymore under the current model, why continue filing games under this moniker? It leads to certain expectations that aren't fulfilled, cannot be fulfilled.