As a long term player, for me Final Fantasy as a series peaked at 6/7, and increasingly lost me around the 10th entry. Reasons why: I prefer the traditional ATB combat system, the world map/sub area structure with non linear features, and also preferred the stories in earlier entries, though that is certainly more of a subjective change. So my pondering is to ask, "if SE released a game that was extremely similar to Final Fantasy 6/7 in game mechanics, with modern graphics, and with a relatively well spun story for the series in 2013, would this game be successful now?" Or has most of the gaming audience simply moved onto wanting more action based combat and linear cinematic narrative? I know what I want, but to my knowledge we've never had a mainline traditional FF game sell poorly. It's more like SE simply stopped making them before that could even happen and they fell out of fashion accordingly? So speaking purely from a business perspective. Do you think SE is right to ignore the series roots completely? Would it be wiser to go back to the roots of what made the series appeal in the first place and see how that sells? Or wiser continue down the path of running away from it and hope they strike gold? Take a gamble at both even though that could be disastrously expensive? Obviously it seems like the brand has been devalued and the fanbase has been fragmented. Is it too late to go back? __________________________________ I'll say my vote goes towards trying a traditional game at least one more time and gauging consumer response. I think it's unwise to simply abandon tradition in a product before you have verified that tradition is not financially successful. But if consumer interest isn't there, I'd say simply continue on the course they are on and move forward.
I'd have to agree with the more traditional games. I'm a lifer of the Final Fantasy series and my favorites are 4, 6, 7, and of course the 1 (I actually own like 3 different copies of the first version so I could play with different characters since it obviously only had one save game feature). I'd love to see maybe one game of a 'back to basics' kind of style. I don't know if everyone would agree but I'd definitely get it.
Yeah, my line of thought is: "if it fails, at least you know your traditions aren't working." And it's not like there haven't been some failures (FF14). But I don't know if I'm missing something here, if there is a reason why it's a bad idea to even try, or if it's some if it's unwarranted obstinate behavior from some high up suits in the company.
The smartest thing they could do is do both. The classic style will keep old fans. But the reality is that the traditional J-RPG is almost dead; they don't sell well anymore. Square needs something that brings in other types of gamers. And they have been doing that. They haven't had a poorly selling core game yet, other than maybe FFIX, but that was more of a circumstantial thing. The issue people forget is that that older style was new back then. We may call it traditional now, but it has always been changing and evolving. There is no one specific style you can call a classic J-RPG, because each game was different. The only thing in common (for a while) was the ATB, but even that was once nonexistent. Square has always lead the pack with changing what it means to be a J-RPG, and they still are. So I don't really believe there's a specific 'classic' style that can be pinned down. I mean, does anyone even remember the outrage when VII came out and you could only use three characters at once? This strife over change has always been there, and it always will. But that doesn't imply that what Square is doing is wrong. Besides, the games today still very much have that older 'core' in them; they are an evolution of the old. Take out the changes to world presentation, and the battles are extremely similar. The presentation is just so different that it seems alien. Just imagine for a second how a battle in FFXIII would go if the characters stood in static lines like RPG's of yesteryear. Not that different now, is it? People over glorify these changes, as if they're no longer Final Fantasy. But what IS Final Fantasy? Nobody can ever give a legit answer, because it has always been changing, and always will. So I say they should occasionally go back to their past, and do a game based on where they've been. But J-RPG's can't survive if they don't evolve too. What genre has ever stayed static for more than a few years, and survived?
I like most of the traditional FF's, the one which they originally changed the battle system in, 12 I didn't like at all. I did like the Crisis Core spin offs battle system though. Really I don't care how they change the battle system as long as it's challenging and enjoyable. FF13 felt a bit too automated. 12 was just plain odd and hard to get used to and it was a bit too automated as well. When it comes to their battle system whatever type they do I don't want anymore of this "auto" crap. I want to be in complete control of my character(s). I'm extremely excited for FFXV's battle system, it looks like it will be immensely enjoyable and hopefully difficult. I found grinding in turn-based FF somewhat of a chore but I think if I had to grind in FFXV I wouldn't mind it!
While its cool if you dislike the 'auto' battle stuff in XII and XIII, its important to note that they were needed additions to those specific games, and their gameplay styles. In XII it helped alleviate the issues with grinding, as you could do it much quicker and easier. And it also actually made Active mode possible. Gambits didn't do everything for you, so much as give you a chance to think, as XII's encounters have the potential to be a lot faster paces, and a lot more hectic. After playing XII, it's hard to play other games with AI partners, where you can't set up their behaviors. As for XIII, that game in general was a much faster pace in battle, since it was similar to X-2, in that multiple attacks could be initiated at once. When you, both allies, and the enemies can all take action simultaneously, it's important to limit micromanagement. Did you try to play XIII in the later parts, without using auto battle? It's extremely difficult at times, and not in a fun way. XIII's design was set up to focus more on strategic job changes at a quickfire pace. The only way to do this was to either slow battles dramatically with a Wait option, or to have some sort of auto battle feature. Anyone who claims this feature makes the game imbalanced or too easy and non-strategic is lying through their teeth. I'm not saying these are the best systems in any J-RPG, or that I'd like to see them return; that's circumstantial. But I can say that they were well designed and thought out properly. Crisis Core on the other hand was far too simple and hand holding. Mildly entertaining, but far too simple and streamlined to be very stimulating.
No I entirely agree with this, especially Crisis Core, It's just one of those simple games I like though, I admit the random encounters got dull but the bosses were enjoyable but indeed there were too few to make the battles engaging later on. I understood the need for gambits, I just found it a bit odd to get used to at first and I would have liked some way to have a bit more control over it. I don't think they were poorly designed either just that it's a type of system that I'm not very keen on.
Well, if you use Wait mode, XII is entirely possible without gambits; it plays pretty similarly to a regular turn-based system if you do it that way. I didn't use Gambits my first time until near the end, because I always seem to stubbornly ignore the unique aspects of each new FF, on my first play through. I find it more fun with them, but you might try it without
I'm kind of hoping bravely default flying fairy plays like a traditional final fantasy game. I'm sort of looking forward to that more than final fantasy 15 actually.
You know, funny enough I'm one of few fans that don't care. As long as the battles are still difficult and make me think I could care less how they're executed. As long as the standard of deep and complex stories and great character development remains, I don't care how they do the battles. That and to be quite honest, I like real time battles. I don't mind them in my RPG's. Maybe that's due in part to the fact that I've played tons of MMORPG's as well and their combat is usually real time. Going back to traditional style wouldn't annoy me though, I'm certainly not one of the people though where I need it or that it's even my favorite type of battle system.
Square's heyday of rpgs were on the SNES (FFI, FFII and FFIII in US), Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Evermore. In my opinion, it ended with FFVII and Chrono Cross -- after that excepting for FFX and FFXII give up on their games (we should have gotten Secret of Mana III and a couple of other rpgs that Japan only got to play on the SNES). Have been playing Xenoblade, The Last Story, and a couple of Tales rpgs (and looking forward to Tales of Xillia and maybe a couple of others this year. I like towns with an open world, talking to people for clues and hunting for treasures (everything an rpg should be).
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as "everything an RPG should be". Just like the fact that the newer games have issues, the old ones did too, or have we forgotten about the translation issues, poor balancing, and heavy emphasis on hours of tedious busy work? In the end, while I too would like to see a comeback of older J-RPG styles, they just don't make money like the newer styles. They are a company; they have to make money. I also wonder why you don't list IX as a part of the great selection of FF games, though it very much is a classic FF with a new coat of paint. Then there's also the fact that FFI is frankly a pretty bad RPG/game by today's standards, and should in no way stand with the greats. And having been playing through Chrono Cross recently, I'd also like to point out that it's not a terribly well made game. Unique and fun? Yes, but not what I'd call high quality in a lot of instances. And it was released several years after VII, so if that's part of the end of Square's heyday, VIII, IX, and Tactics would be too; and that's if we're ignoring all of their other games like Vagrant Story and such. I'm not faulting you for your opinions, but I feel they're being unfair to Square, being based on nostalgia, rather than game quality and the business side of things.
ZaXoFF7: Oh, there are a lot of other Square games and I didn't mention them all -- its just that I felt that the SNES through the PS1 and a few other rpgs on the PS2 were the best rpgs for Square. I'm not sure of any games after FFXII because I didn't play them. But really don't like the way Square is heading with the games (action type and not in the traditional way meaning towns, open worlds, and NPCs to talk to, to learn clues of what to do, if you are not playing with a guide). Guess we have gotten spoiled about the way that games should be played and I'm not the only one.
Fair enough. And I do agree that we've been spoiled. Hopefully the Luminous Engine will allow them to make world maps again, as the core reason they haven't for a long time is because of how expensive they are to design, and how taxing they are on the system. But FFXV is supposed to have a world map, so I'm excited there. And you also might want to try XIII, or at least XIII-2. Excluding the presentation changes, battles very much do play out like an old turn based RPG. They look action oriented, but they aren't at all. And XIII-2 in particular does have a lot of hidden content, and is about as non-linear as it gets, getting away from that idea that we all need our hands held throughout the game They're a bit different for sure, but at their core they still feel very similar to the older games if you give them a chance.
I think Square Enix should still make traditional RPG games for the DS or PSP Vita and even Android phones. There is still a lot of stories to create in this style and many fans still love to play these kind of games. I'm one of them. For the next Gen consoles, I guess they have to evolve and go with the new action based styles that we see in Kingdom Hearts and the upcoming Final Fantasy XV.
The thing is that the more traditional style of Final Fantasy is more meant for the older generation style of gaming. In today's gaming engine and style, it's more dynamic and graphics seem more real, and having a character or monster just stand at one spot and taking turns doing one attack against each other just won't be appealing to a powerful console. As for the open world and non-linear gameplay, XV should be open world and non-linear. XIII was linear in order to progress and focus on the story instead of gameplay mostly. Games like Kingdom Hearts has successful and since the people who worked on that game are working on XV, it would make sense if they had made the game's gameplay like the latter. I also wouldn't say SE is totally ignoring the roots. It seems they're just moving on and experimenting with new innovations. If we were to keep the same idea over a period of time, Final Fantasy wouldn't be creative or the leading titles of RGP games.
I have to disagree with those saying it would be boring if the mechanics stayed similar. It was similar for the first 9 entries and no one had a problem, fan base increased. And no one can say atb/ turn based or jrpgs are dead. The only reason they have dwindled is because they were pulled out from under us as we slept. No one said this is getting old or reviewed ff bad for those mechanics, but now, more so than ever ff is being railed on for their changes. Jrpg and turn based are very much alive, just no has put this game out yet. Even if they do they will ruin it by making it realistic, giving it the image that it is dead. They need to be creative and make almost Pixar like characters, like 9, super deformed. Its going to need charm like old ff games or ni no kuni. It's sad with today's tech that they just want realism. If I was in control of ff I guarantee that I bring out the best ff since 9, it would be so simple.
Not true. I actually already don't like where you say you would head with a new FF. The fact is, you can talk about how the demand wasn't dying all you want, but the numbers say otherwise. Purchases of unique turn-based or action RPG styles increased across the board (and still are), while the classic style dropped lower and lower. You're looking at it from the perspective of a die hard turn-based fan; but that's biased. J-RPG's weren't popular at all with the mainstream until FFVII. And the only reason VII became popular was because of its unmatched cinimatic storytelling. Well, once other genres caught back up in that department, nobody needed J-RPGs anymore. They didn't come for the mechanics; they came for the beauty and polish. And they just as quickly left when more preferred gameplay styles presented the same beauty and polish.
Classic style never dropped, if you take sales and user base into account those older turned base have blown these newer games out of the water. All I'm saying is se is losing sales with their continued departure form what made their games good. There has been no decline in jrpg sales, a phantom decline maybe, since their sales have declined from them changing the formula. Sadly they group it in as the classic jrpg dying. If they returned to the old style and didn't mail it in, had a good story and whatever else it needed, I would put money on it outperforming ff 7 in sales, since many fans of the genre are just waiting for that game.
No. If you look at traditional J-RPGs as a whole, there has been a steady decline. I'm not including FF games past X, as they're not considered traditional. Rarely does a classic J-RPG today even make enough money to warrant a sequel unless it's kept to the Japanese market only. Meanwhile, hybrid games grow and grow in sales. You do know that both XII and XIII did extremely well, right? What you're basically saying is that if Square made the perfect J-RPG, it'd sell well. But that can be said about any genre. And of course a well done, high budget, traditional J-RPG today would outsell VII. The market is several times as large as back then. But that doesn't mean it'll make up for the inflated costs of game design today, nor the fact that the regular Joe Gamer simply isn't even remotely interested in traditional J-RPGs. Hell, I know plenty of hardcore classic J-RPG players who aren't interested in the classic J-RPG mechanics. To them it's about the extended time to tell a story... Which can be found in nearly every genre now.
Ok, so looking at this thread, I've noticed ZaXoFF7 saying traditional FF was declining and on it's way out. He also says he prefers action based games. Maybe a better poll however, would be: 1. Would you buy a traditional turn based/ATB full party control, world map driven, game like FF7? 2. Are you willing to buy the more action based games? 3. Both? Thus far for me I'm willing to buy the first option, but Square Enix has lost me as a fan on the second option and I've pretty much written off the series due to it abandoning what made it appealing to me in the first place. In fact the last Square Enix game I recall really enjoying, was Dragon Quest 8 which did turn based open world extremely well. I've already seen Wingflyer and a few others that have also lost interest. I've played every entry since the first in the 80s until they decided to change the formula? So maybe a better question is who here wouldn't buy option 1 even if you prefer option 2? The way I see it, the idea that traditional Final Fantasy doesn't sell, seems to be colored as much by people's preference as by reality. When we can't really point to a game that didn't sell well? There was no Rock Band 3, that you could point to like there was a bubble bursting. It's more like this entry just never came and people just made assumptions.
I don't want them to recreate the same exact game, as they changed things back during the 80s and 90s as well. I just want one that promotes exploration, and not essentially corridor-running from area to area. How they accomplish it isn't important to me. If I want to play FFIV, I'll play that (etc.).
Just a quick note, I actually never said I prefer the action titles. I actually prefer the traditional turn-based games, and I believe I said that in one of my first posts; though that might have been in another thread. Anyway, I like how you rephrase the questions. However, if you're limiting the second option to 'action based' -a game mechanic style- then the first option shouldn't include 'world map' or 'full party control', as those can be implemented in either style of game. That makes your question biased, making people choose based on the wrong reasons. That's like me saying, which is better: a Chevy, or a fully equipped Ford that gets great gas mileage, is faster, safer, and costs less? Do you see how unfair that is? I just feel that pretending traditional turn-based stylings are still popular is dangerous. We need to remove the blinders and realize our favorite genre is in trouble, rather than coiling up in defensive mode. This exact same attitude is what killed off the point and click Adventure title for over a decade and a half. It's why 3D platformers haven't seen nearly any action outside of Mario, since the early 2000's. People assume that their favorite genre is fine, and lash out when people disagree. But in the end, if your genre doesn't appeal to the average masses/casual gamer, it will fade unless changes are made. That doesn't mean the games have to cater to non-gamers, but it needs to be self-aware enough to realize when their ideas are growing stale in the eyes of casual gamers, and when their game is hard to get in to... And J-RPGs are notoriously hard to get into.
All fair points on the over simplification of traditional vs modern lumping action in with the other factors. But has not for example the Persona series experienced growth via utilizing traditional turn based mechanics (as far as I know 4 is the most successful in the series and is about as turn based as you can get) while the last turn based Final Fantasy (FFX) sold rather well (almost 7 million on a single console) Dragon Quest 9 sold more than any others in the series in the west and experienced growth as well? Is there a concrete example of a traditional turn based games experiencing significantly decreased sales? This is why I'm not convinced this isn't a smoke and mirrors kind of illusion. They obviously never have nor never will experience Call of Duty like sales, but is the lack of sales more because mainline games aren't being made, marketed, and so forth so there was a collective assumption? It's quite obvious that they don't appeal to everyone, but nothing does and sometimes trying to appeal to everyone can result in appealing less people (RE6). On the flipside, look at how many less people were willing to buy the second iteration of FF13. If it was really what they were looking for, would only 1/3 buy 13-2? Back in say, 98, would only one third of people buy FF7-2? It actually looks like even FFX-2 sold more in 06 and FFX was not the most popular entry, and the game was more niche looking (all female pop star fashion jpop squad wasn't actually thrilling a lot of the audience). http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy I'm just not convinced that the fanbase for the traditional structure disappeared, so much as they were forced to disappear.
No, I believe they aren't being made, because they don't sell well, rather than the other way around. If you look at J-RPGs as a whole, they blew up in the 90's, reaching peak sales around 97-2000, and then dropping off steadily. Part of this is largely due to other games adopting their storytelling emphasis and cinematic qualities. Another factor was over saturation of the market. People simply got bored of them because so many were releasing. Instead of looking at specific franchises, if you look at them as a whole, there has been a fairly steady decrease. Games like Persona do not fit into the traditional J-RPG section, as they hybridize with sim style games, giving them a unique flare. Also, market share isn't exactly something that can be defined clearly here, as we're not limited to one J-RPG purchase. Many people buy damn near all of them, and an increase in sales for one game doesn't automatically mean a decrease in another. Final Fantasy has held steady since X. EDIT: XIII-2 didn't sell because it wasn't publicized barely at all outside of the core gaming community. And when comparing it to X-2, it's important to note that X-2 has had 10 extra years to sell that many copies.
Which game sold poorly though? Didn't Lost Odyssey have like almost a million sales despite having a somewhat mediocre reception while being permanently exclusive to a western oriented console? And being a new ip outsold proven action oriented IPs RPGs like Vesperia? Take a look: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/7637/lost-odyssey/ http://www.vgchartz.com/game/18652/tales-of-vesperia/ Even in western markets. It was more successful. As a completely unknown, unproven game, as turn based as you can get. Series like Star Ocean sold poorly too. Worse than a new turn based ip. http://www.vgchartz.com/game/39111/star-ocean-the-last-hope-international/ What about turn based is selling more poorly here? Are you totally sure? I don't see the numbers. It seems like a lot of people might not be looking for watered down action games and are looking for different experiences? Oh and Lost Odyssey also outsold The Last Story, which was released on a Japanese centric console with 90 million sales: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/42967/the-last-story/ Oh and Blue Dragon sold more also it looks like too: http://www.vgchartz.com/game/2931/blue-dragon/ Equivalent to Xenoblade widely praised as one of the best JRPG this generation but was more MMO like). http://www.vgchartz.com/game/42966/xenoblade-chronicles/ If new jrpg IPs sell more on western oriented consoles when they are turn based and medicore. If turn based Rpgs like Persona are increasing in market share (with sim features), and action based games like Tales and Star Ocean are decreasing in sales. Where are the numbers to argue in favor of more action based Jrpgs? Where are the success stories?
They exploded in the 90s and dropped off in the 2000s, coincidentally when they started changing formulas. As I said, old school jrpgs didn't die and they would still sell well, but there's this phantom fan that these companies are chasing.
You hit the nail on the head with that last sentence, forced to disappear not just up and stopped playing them.
Well, I unfortunately don't have the time nor the energy to research and gather specific examples. So call me a quitter or whatever, but I don't think this conversation can go any further. And as for this, there has NOT been a decline in sales for Final Fantasys. When you account for the extra time the older games have been out, the multiple releases of many of them, and take out the roller coaster that was based purely on VIIs success and IX being released at the end of a console generation, sales of core Final Fantasys have been steady. They haven't grown, and they haven't shrunk.
I like how they ditched random battles and you can actually SEE the monsters before you fight them which makes evading them easier if you're not looking to fight.
Sorry, but Ni No Kuni is NOT what one would call a traditional turn-based J-RPG. If that's the case, then Final Fantasy XIII fits well under that banner as well.
Xenoblade did fairly well, but Nintendo was stupid not to bring the game to the US and some other places earlier. This article appeared on IGN about over a million and more of the game pirated and Nintendo probably lost over $60M. http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/01/03/xenoblade-pirates-dont-be-stupid