Final Fantasy XV now ships 6 million units

[Mirage]

nah, it did have more variation. I don't remember many blitzball tournaments in ff13

[Scruffington]

nah, it did have more variation. I don't remember many blitzball tournaments in ff13

That doesn't have anything to do with the linearity of the gameplay or story. It's a minigame.

On that note....I don't remember any Cie'th Stone Missions or Titan Trial equivalents in FFX. Monster Arena isn't the same thing.

[Mirage]

It's variation, and it's an example of variation early on. There's also the cloisters scattered around, and the optional summoner's trials that you can either do as you get to them, or whenever you feel like it later. Both games follow the same sort of formula with the games being very linear for the first half, and then opening up later. FFX has more gameplay variety in the first half than FFXIII.

[FinalxxSin]

@Scruffy
Says you on the themes part. Part of the reason why FFXV pulled in as many people as it did is because it is not a turn based game. Yes, there are people that exist that have been aware of the series, but have been put off by it in the past for various reasons. More variety =/= a better experience. For you sure the opposite is true so whatever floats your boat. That correlation doesn't exist with me, nor does it for some other people as well. You say downgrade this and that, but FFXV had done some things better than any of the prior games. Rather or not you want to overlook those things is your call and one that I personally don't care about.

LOL, yeah okay I will totally take critics more seriously. When you got a critic for example that gave a game a negative because it has too much water....please.

[Scruffington]

It's variation, and it's an example of variation early on. There's also the cloisters scattered around, and the optional summoner's trials that you can either do as you get to them, or whenever you feel like it later. Both games follow the same sort of formula with the games being very linear for the first half, and then opening up later. FFX has more gameplay variety in the first half than FFXIII.

I think that's a fair point to make. X does have more varied gameplay than XIII in terms of the opening part of the game. I really did enjoy the Cloisters and Blitzball. I can definitely see where you're coming from when you say that it's less linear in the first section than XIII was.

I guess my only point is that outside of the Cloiser trials and the single mandatory Blitzball game, it is still incredibly linear until you reach the Calm Lands. I would also argue that XIII has a far more open area in the latter stages of the game compared to X. Ultimately it doesn't matter much to me; both games are incredibly good and have their own strengths that set them apart.

Says you on the themes part. Part of the reason why FFXV pulled in as many people as it did is because it is not a turn based game. Yes, there are people that exist that have been aware of the series, but have been put off by it in the past for various reasons.

You're definitely right about this. Square Enix absolutely tried to cater this game to a wider audience by making it more accessible towards newer players. On the surface I have no issues with this development philosophy: it always make sense as a business to try to bring more people to the product. Having said that, while SE did succeed at making the game easier to play for newer players, they have alienated some of their fanbase. Making the game more accessible for new players should never come at the expense of the enjoyment of loyal fans. People are welcome to disagree with me on this, but I truly do feel as if Square Enix was simply trying to hop on the open-world bandwagon in an attempt to market the game to a wider audience, yet in the process discarded some of the most enjoyable elements of the series to me.

LOL, yeah okay I will totally take critics more seriously. When you got a critic for example that gave a game a negative because it has too much water....please.

So one reviewer from one publication makes one comment about one game, and you immediately disregard all of journalism? Nice logic.

[Fynn]

But there's still tons of loyal fans that love this game.

[FinalxxSin]

.....

My logic is that critics and users both say unreliable things when it's all said and done. Neither is really better than the other. Yes, my logic is nice. Tabata specifically didn't want to make FFXV a difficult game. Division 2 understood the number of people in the fan base that may have never touched an ARPG in their life. So doing an easier transition probably played in their favor more. Your alienate part is a moot point because that's been happening for decades. Every FF game since at least FFVII is going to alienate some aspect of the fan base. We all don't like the same things. It is what it is. FFXVI, FFXVII, FFVII:R, and whatever else may follow will also alienate some aspect of the fan base.

[Slothy]

One more thing: Critics can have a bias rather that is in support or against a title. I personally tend to take some things with a grain of salt.

Critic scores are far more reliable than user scores. There is always bias when someone gives their opinion on a video game, but critics have their opinion published and held to a professional standard.

You're giving games media too much credit since there are a number of high profile examples of companies buying, or trying to buy, good review scores. This includes the firing of some of the few games journalists who took a stand against that.

ffx still had more things to do along that linear path. more variation

This is utterly untrue. FFX was identical to XIII in linearity, it just did a better job of disguising it.

That is literally what Mirage was saying. FFX was just as linear but there was more variety in the things you had to do along the way. You're literally disagreeing with him so you can make the exact same argument.

[Scruffington]

But there's still tons of loyal fans that love this game.

True, but I don't count myself among them. Don't get me wrong...I still think there are a ton of things that XV does right. And I ultimately do think it's a decent game. But I really hope that future FF titles don't follow the same path it did (at least in some ways).

My logic is that critics and users both say unreliable things when it's all said and done. Neither is really better than the other. Yes, my logic is nice.

I don't think I need to explain how illogical and borderline offensive it is to generalize and dismiss an entire group based on one comment that you didn't like from one person.

[Slothy]

My logic is that critics and users both say unreliable things when it's all said and done. Neither is really better than the other. Yes, my logic is nice.

I don't think I need to explain how illogical and borderline offensive it is to generalize and dismiss an entire group based on one comment that you didn't like from one person.

It'd be nice if you'd explain because I have no idea what you're on about and how it relates to his post.

[FinalxxSin]

I don't think I need to explain how illogical and borderline offensive it is to generalize and dismiss an entire group based on one comment that you didn't like from one person.

How long have you been under the impression that only one instance exists? I think you do need to explain your radical thought process on this. You'll give me something to laugh about at the very least. The floor is yours.

[Scruffington]

You'll give me something to laugh about at the very least. The floor is yours.

Apparently you're incapable of having a proper conversation with someone you disagree with. A comment like this is straight up immature. I would never laugh at someone for having a different opinion than me. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and preferences. At least now I know that you're not a very respectful person.

You took a single comment from one journalist from IGN out of context in an attempt to slander all of journalism as being "unreliable." The comment in question came from a review of Pokemon: ORAS, in which the reviewer felt that Water-type Pokemon were incredibly overpowered in the game. Which definitely has some validity to it as there are an overwhelming amount of water Pokemon in the game, and they are incredibly effective to use.

It's fine to meme, but clearly you didn't understand what the reviewer was talking about. Even if there was no validity to her argument, that would still not be justification to basically say "every reviewer is unreliable."

[Slothy]

But many reviewers are unreliable if only because their employers are getting their money from the people whose games they review. As I said before, there have been a number of examples of journalists either giving good reviews to avoid pissing off advertisers, or getting fired when they refuse. There's no shortage of video game companies that will and have pulled advertising from sites because they didn't like the review scores they got. Companies frequently threaten to not send review copies prior to release if they get bad reviews from a company. In the case of some of the people free to be more honest about games like Jim Sterling and Total Biscuit, they are outright blacklisted by some companies because they'll speak their mind about games and the actions of companies whether what they have to say is good or bad. Now they can afford to be honest regardless of the consequences from publishers because their fans are the ones supporting them and making sure they earn money. They don't rely on advertising from game companies to pay the bills. But everyone else working at big sites or for magazines that make most of their money from advertising? If they speak their mind they risk hurting the company they work for and losing their jobs as a result. And unless they have the fan support to strike out on their own, which most certainly do not, it'll be the same story anywhere else they work. And since I assume they're all human beings who need a home to live in and food to eat that doesn't leave them with many options.

So he's right, pretty much every professional game journalist and critic is unreliable because they have a huge financial incentive to not tell the truth about bad games. Does that mean they all lie all the time? Probably not. Does it mean their review scores are largely meaningless and they may have to be very careful about tearing apart bad games from major publishers? Absolutely. The present way that game journalism works is an incestuous relationship between the people reporting on games and the companies they're reporting on. The former can't really afford to exist without the latter. I see no way that a person can know that without taking everything they report and every review they write with a pretty hefty bit of salt. And again, I'm not saying they're bad people, but they're in a pretty smurfed up situation that does not lend itself well to keeping up ones professional ethics.

At least with user reviews, especially for big titles and despite the possibility of there being some fake reviews or trolls eviscerating a game for no reason and fanboys giving it a 10 because they love the series so much, I'll get thousands of people who's only financial connection to the company is that they bought the game saying what they think of it rather than the views of a few dozen people who have plenty of reason to appear biased whether they are or not. Personally, I'm going to give more weight to the 20,000+ that review a game on the steam store than to journalists.

But then, I've worked as an auditor before and one of the things you learn is the appearance of bias or unethical behaviour (taking money from the people you're supposed to report honestly on) is just as bad as actual bias because everyone outside of your head will never e able to truly tell the difference between the two. If you want to be credible as a game journalist, you've got to be independent from the game advertising. It doesn't work otherwise.

[Loony BoB]

Just a quick word, please try to remain polite with each other even if you disagree with each other's viewpoints.

Also, remember it's okay to disagree overall. Sometimes you, or another person, will not change their minds. Not saying don't continue the discussion, but just don't exhaust yourself on it, nor expect someone to change their stance or come out and say "yes, I was wrong on the internet".

[FinalxxSin]

...

I have to love how far your imagination runs at times. Let me get this straight, you made a conclusion on how I handle disagreeing just based on what little you have seen on this forum? This forum makes up a very small part of my life. Or, perhaps you secretly stalk me in real life as well and have records of every single conversation I have ever had.....Thanks for making another radical remark I can laugh at.

Obviously one of my prior posts you completely read as something else. I meant what I typed. Rather you want to deem me as a liar or not is something that's irrelevant to me. We're both random people on the internet when the bottom line is drawn.