Future Final Fantasy

[Fox]

Newcomers seem to be more open.

Newcomers tend not to know any better. There's a parallel here with mobile gaming. Stuff like Dungeon Keeper Mobile or Clash of Clans, where the entire game revolves around tapping blocks a few times and then either waiting for 24 hours to tap some more or paying real world money to get rid of the timers.

To a huge number of people: this is video games. And they enjoy it and praise it and write glowing reviews. But they tend not to play other stuff. Would they love Clash of Clans so much if they had experience of Final Fantasy, Deus Ex, Grand Theft Auto? I really, really doubt it. Source: vast numbers of people who have played those games can't stand mobile games like Clash of Clans.

The point is: yes, newcomers are more open. But they'll also be more open to whatever you put in front of them. If you give them something fresh and new and never seen before, it's just the same to them than if you were to give them random, turn based battles and classic themes. And let me be clear - I don't have anything against trying new things. But I also don't believe in discarding what has worked before just because 'it's already been done'. You don't throw away round wheels because cars have had round wheels for ages and isn't it getting a bit old? There's a reason wheels are that shape, and there's a reason 'classic' games endure for years and years.

[Electroshock Therapy]

Newcomers tend not to know any better.

Ouch!

There's a parallel here with mobile gaming. Stuff like Dungeon Keeper Mobile or Clash of Clans, where the entire game revolves around tapping blocks a few times and then either waiting for 24 hours to tap some more or paying real world money to get rid of the timers.

To a huge number of people: this is video games. And they enjoy it and praise it and write glowing reviews. But they tend not to play other stuff. Would they love Clash of Clans so much if they had experience of Final Fantasy, Deus Ex, Grand Theft Auto? I really, really doubt it. Source: vast numbers of people who have played those games can't stand mobile games like Clash of Clans.

I really do not understand the connection here. Clash of Clans is so different from Final Fantasy, Deus Ex, and Grand Theft Auto, I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we're talking about. I can imagine why people who've played Deus Ex and Grand Theft Auto wouldn't play Clash of Clans because there's almost nothing to compare the genres. Final Fantasy Tactics series might come close, but the main series is hardly similar to compare. I'm sure newcomers are smart to realize that if you stick Final Fantasy and Clash of Clans together, they're getting completely different games.

The point is: yes, newcomers are more open. But they'll also be more open to whatever you put in front of them. If you give them something fresh and new and never seen before, it's just the same to them than if you were to give them random, turn based battles and classic themes.

That is kind of my point, but only if we're talking about the main series which is what many people will try first. And that can be considered a good thing. It is the same to them whether they play the XIII trilogy or VI. They don't have a per-conceived vision of what Final Fantasy is or what is "should" be. But there's enough similarity that they'll understand that it's the same series regardless of gameplay differences. That's why trying out both old and new is beneficial. If they think both types are fun then they don't see a problem, and nor do I. It's just more to choose from.

And let me be clear - I don't have anything against trying new things. But I also don't believe in discarding what has worked before just because 'it's already been done'. You don't throw away round wheels because cars have had round wheels for ages and isn't it getting a bit old? There's a reason wheels are that shape, and there's a reason 'classic' games endure for years and years.

There's a difference between necessity like wheels of car and gimmicks of game design. If they never discarded turn-based gaming, Final Fantasy would eventually grow stale no matter how many times they tweak it. Because the fact is that it's still turn-based. This is a long-running series, too. It's not like Final Fantasy was recently invented. If they had changed the formula too soon by FF VII, I can see how people would be upset. But this is a long-running series with many games in its name. Change was inevitable. Now some people can play turn-based all their life and never be tired of it, but others will be. I can only say that it's purely personal preference, and no one can truly win in this argument. We can debate this until the end-times, but I doubt we'd get anywhere. It all depends on what you or I think of these changes.

My opinion is that I always respect developers who try new things. I'd rather dislike new games because they were different, not because the games had grown stale. At least I'd have respect for Square for the former.

Final Fantasy probably could have benefited from a couple more classic turn-based gameplay, I don't know. I personally still like the formula, and so I would enjoy it. But the series is changing. Maybe it's purely to accommodate the changing trend in videos games, or maybe it's because the FF development teams have grown bored with the old style. If it's the latter, I'd want them to pour their hearts into something they believe in no matter how different the end product is. I always hated the term "don't fix it if it ain't broke." It sounds like an easy excuse to say why total change is bad and should never ever happen.

And really looking at the new Final Fantasy games, has it completely changed?
World to explore? Check
Leveling system? Check
Strategic combat? Check
Skills to choose from? Check
Emphasis on story? Check
Fantastical setting (I don't mean old-school fantasy)? Check
Mini-games to waste time in? Check

Sounds like a basic skeleton for a Final Fantasy game to me. The settings always change. The stories are different. The way the stories are told is different (like X was soap opera, XII was political drama, etc). The only notable difference is how much freedom a player has in combat while they fiddle with menus. The recent titles are more action oriented, and Final Fantasy XV appears especially so what with doing away with menu combat entirely. But does that really make them less of Final Fantasy games when everything else is intact? You might think so, but I don't. To me, that's just another way to play the game. It's very different from Final Fantasy of old, and to me that's a breath of fresh air.

All that was just my opinion. I like the changes, but I understand why fans do not. And I mean that! I understand if you don't like the new direction. I'm only arguing because I had a couple issues with how you were arguing. I'm not arguing your opinion.

Going back to the earlier topic of newcomers. I still don't think many of them will have a problem with the changes because they haven't spent years playing one style of Final Fantasy.* And the core of what makes a Final Fantasy game still exists in the newer games. And it's not a case that newcomers "don't know any better." They're are not some dumb breed of people, especially when opinions are involved.

*Before I get complaints that I'm insulting older fans for this, I'm still not saying older fans are close-minded. You've spent years playing one style and have grown to love it. In no way am I saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying newer fans didn't have that time to develop their love for FF yet. That development is still ongoing.

[Vyk]

I always argue for game makers to put their money more into art direction rather than high fidelity graphics. It'd be so much cheaper and more memorable. And I've always argued that Square needed to do what BioWare has tried to do. Have real writers on staff

Other than that, some people have brought up some really good points. I would love to enjoy a submarine again. Or an airship with an actual overworld to explore. Or pushing the boundaries with potentially killing or turning main characters. But I doubt they'd even consider that stuff. They once said they only want to make games for teenagers. They seem to be mildly changing their tune there, but I'm not completely convinced they want to make anything with "mature" aspect as of yet. Which is sad. I think they're afraid of being seen as Grand Theft Auto, and get accused of throwing garbage mature content in just for shock value or to be like some 17 year old who smokes and drinks and thinks they're mature. When mature can be done so tastefully and impactful. That's just the realm of missed opportunities though. And again, it'd need a real quality writer on staff. Probably more than one, to bounce ideas off of someone who knows what they're talking about

[Bolivar]

It's not even a "newcomer" thing. The only people who did have problems with the changes are those in the West with way too much time to talk about video games. XIII was well received in Japan and many especially liked Lightening, hence why they made the sequels. The developers are confused when they come to the West for interviews and get asked how ashamed they are they didn't have an open world or why the characters were so unforgivably annoying.

[Fox]

They made the sequels because relatively speaking they were super cheap to make, especially if they already knew there wasn't going to be another primary entry on the PS3 generation. In terms of reception, XIII-2's Japanese launch sales were more than a 60% drop on XIII. That's massive (comparison: X to X-2 was about a 20% drop). This isn't a purely western thing, the Japanese didn't take to it like the previous instalments either.