Kitase talks about Action RPGs, is this FFXV's future?

[Bolivar]

^ Word, no reason to settle and not shoot for the stars.

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

[Slothy]

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

[Bolivar]

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

I do believe that's the case.

I mean overall, beyond Dragon Age, we can see a trend of WRPGs bringing in more action elements. Mass Effect is a good example with how the second one moved the series closer to a shooter. And I know a lot of fans of the older Fallout games didn't like the perspective change Bethesda brought (not sure if you can really fault that, that's just how they make their games). It's bad this is all convincing one of Square's studio heads to move further and further away from RPG gameplay conventions, since the recent RPGs I've liked the most go all out with them.

[Del Murder]

It seems like the only reason that Square continues to make RPGs is because it is and has been an RPG company. I bet that if the current management were to start a new company from scratch today, it would probably not make RPGs. They are trying to make what is selling in the current market rather than stick to what they've been good at.

[chionos]

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.

[Depression Moon]

I didn't think Dragon Age was considered to be an Action-RPG, but a WRPG. I was thinking something like Kingdom Hearts is classified as an Action-RPG. As far as the subject goes, if they're referring to WRPGS then I don't think it's a good idea. I play Final Fantasy because it's a JRPG series and not a WRPG series. I probably won't try the game out if I find both XIII and Versus XIII to be bad.

I'm curious as to your definition of a WRPG. The term refers to "Western RPG" but that really only seems to cover region rather than mechanics. Lots of games are considered WRPGs, but the term is only used to differentiate them from RPGs made in Japan. Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age are both WRPGs but are in no way shape or form of the same genre of game. I don't consider WRPG to be a genre, although I do consider JRPG a genre - not because of region, but because they all share very similar mechanics. There's no mistaking a JRPG for any other genre.

If you mean WRPG in the sense that it's tactical PC RPG a la the mid-90s-2000s, then yeah. I wouldn't call it an action RPG - although it's not completely turn-based either, IIRC.

Anyway, I don't mean to challenge you or anything. I was just curious.

I consider games like Diablo II, Baldur's Gate II: Dark Alliance, and Demon Souls as WRPGs. I've seen classmates play Dragon Age a couple of years ago and from what I remembered it looked similar to Demon Souls to me.

[VeloZer0]

I really don't know why people call Demon's Souls a JRPG. As far as I know the J refereed to a style, not a physical place of development. It would take an extremely xenophobic gamer to actually think labeling the country of origin was an important part of it's over all classification.

[Flying Arrow]

^ Yep, and that is a large chunk of the Western gaming population, if various gaming message boards are enough to go by (they probably aren't). Most people throw the J around as a derogatory statement. I partially blame internet personalities like Yahtzee.

Demon Souls as WRPGs.

Really? I'm curious again - how do you see Demon's Souls as a WRPG? I guess I'm just not understanding your definition of WRPG. Are you going by pure aesthetic? Dragon Age and Demon's Souls couldn't be more different mechanically, really.

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

SE are so out of touch with what makes a good game that it isn't even funny anymore. The thing that's potentially depressing is the way in which Kitase referenced DA2. Did he simply point out that DA2 is the trend and hint that the FF games might follow suit? Or did he explicitly mention his experience playing it, and then outline why he thought it was a good videogame and why it would be a good inspiration for the FF series? It's disheartening to see how much business language goes into interviews and gaming articles these days and how no one (especially interviewers) ever go and call them out on it.

[Bolivar]

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 would hate to see FF go, but I think you made your point really well. Also, I really like bleu cheese

SE are so out of touch with what makes a good game that it isn't even funny anymore. The thing that's potentially depressing is the way in which Kitase referenced DA2. Did he simply point out that DA2 is the trend and hint that the FF games might follow suit? Or did he explicitly mention his experience playing it, and then outline why he thought it was a good videogame and why it would be a good inspiration for the FF series? It's disheartening to see how much business language goes into interviews and gaming articles these days and how no one (especially interviewers) ever go and call them out on it.

I think one reason he might've said this is because Kitase isn't just a developer anymore, he's a representative of the company who speaks on its behalf. Investors look to him to measure if the compnay's keeping up with trends or not, so this may have just been some boilerplate. It's similar to Bobby Kotick from Activision, who probalby doesn't hate video games and his developers, but the things he says at conference calls get taken at face value.

[ShinGundam]

^ Yep, and that is a large chunk of the Western gaming population, if various gaming message boards are enough to go by (they probably aren't). Most people throw the J around as a derogatory statement. I partially blame internet personalities like Yahtzee.

Demon Souls as WRPGs.

Really? I'm curious again - how do you see Demon's Souls as a WRPG? I guess I'm just not understanding your definition of WRPG. Are you going by pure aesthetic? Dragon Age and Demon's Souls couldn't be more different mechanically, really.

And again they might be talking about Dragon Age II which was more like a hack n slash.

Isn't Dragon Age II also fairly hated by Dragon Age and Bioware fans? I'm sure it sold well, but I never see it brought up online without most people saying it was a terrible game these days. Should Square really be looking at games fans didn't like for inspiration?

SE are so out of touch with what makes a good game that it isn't even funny anymore. The thing that's potentially depressing is the way in which Kitase referenced DA2. Did he simply point out that DA2 is the trend and hint that the FF games might follow suit? Or did he explicitly mention his experience playing it, and then outline why he thought it was a good videogame and why it would be a good inspiration for the FF series? It's disheartening to see how much business language goes into interviews and gaming articles these days and how no one (especially interviewers) ever go and call them out on it.

Dude, This is an action RPG FF on PSP scale : FINAL FANTASY
I honestly not sure anymore, where did Kitase talk about DA stuff? I don't even.

[Roogle]

I hope that they make the right decision by reviving an older series and giving it action role-playing game elements rather than to try to put them where fans don't feel they belong. Final Fantasy has been a successful series, but one of its major was when many fans felt alienated by the fact that Final Fantasy XI was an online game. I, myself, remember being quite surprised at the announcement and wondered why they didn't simply create a game called Final Fantasy Online rather than insisting it as a proper title in the series.

[Rostum]

"There is always the possibility that we may end up with a first-person shooter FF." - Kitase

Kitase, you're an idiot.

[Laddy]

I honestly think that's a joke. An FF FPS would alienate the fans because shooters are smurfing all over the place and the fans want an RPG. Shooter fans won't be able to get over the Final Fantasy name. It's the dumbest thing Square could do. As in, kill Final Fantasy dumb.

[VeloZer0]

It's the dumbest thing Square could do. As in, kill Final Fantasy dumb.

Well they have been trying so hard and still haven't managed to, it is about time they stepped up their game.

[black orb]

>>> News for SE:
RPGs with a decent story-plot are the future..

simple as that..