Square, FFXI, and the MMORPG

LukeG writes "Squaresoft's latest instalment in the ubiquitous Final Fantasy series will mark huge departure from previous titles, as they gamble on the popularity of massively multiplayer gaming on consoles. The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2." I'm interested to see the FF world taken to an MMORPG. If anyone can make the genre not suck, it's Square.

Comments

The Only Way

[druiid]

The only way you'll see this doing well, is if Square makes it accessible to everyone, which would mean porting it to competing consoles. So far we know almost for certain that it should be coming out for the X-Box as well, but for the Gamecube it's only a rumor. Due to what Nintendo did just a few months ago when Square tried to apologize... Who knows if Square even got a dev kit yet. Overall, I don't know how Square's first foray into online gaming is going to be. Should be interesting, but the key is to get it to a wide enough audience.

Re:The Only Way

[Anonymous Coward]

It is highly unlikely it will appear on Xbox, not because it doesn't make sense (as the only console with built-in networking, it makes perfect sense) but because of Sony and that little 30% purchase of Square after the Final Fantasy movie fiasco. They're even on their board of directors now, and it's highly unlikely they would support Square developing anything for a major console competitor.

In other words, it will be multiplatform, but expect those platforms to be PS2 and PC. The Xbox and Gamecube will be left out in the cold, though it's possible the latter will get it if Sony doesn't feel the markets overlap as much as they do with Xbox.

They also face an uphill battle, because console owners will have to purchase additional storage and broadband adapters (another reason Sony wouldn't want it on Xobx but may support it for Gamecube). Currently in Japan, Sony's hard drive costs around $200, so in addition to shelling out $X for the game, you need to spend a few hundred bucks for a hard drive and the modem adapter. Few games that required additional hardware have ever done well, though this is one that is big enough to buck that trend.

Early word on it out of Japan is the fans of the series feel it's too "Western," and are very unhappy with it in beta.

Re:Eh...

[dkemist]

Doesn't your post contradict itself? "I suppose it can be expected ten or however many sequels later." -- Then you go on to talk about Sega NFL 2k2 which really doesn't qualify as a sequel -- it's the same game updated with graphics and players each year.

Personally, I think one of the best things about the final fantasy series is that they keep the same basic playing feel and keep adding interesting twists. The materia system in FF7 was great and added a whole new dimension of strategy. I'm just started on FF10, but I already think the sphere grid level system is a great enhancement. Far from being sequels (the plots are unrelated) I think the final fantasy series takes a good game engine and keeps updating it with new concepts and new options. I'm already looking forward to a multiplayer version.

Multi-player console games.

[ImaLamer]

The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2."

What about the DC online games? There is Quake3, Unreal Tournament, hell even Chu Chu rocket. What about Phantasy Star Online?

The DC online games are great. Worms, WSB2K2, there is plenty. It was fun too!

Basically, Squaresoft isn't going to be the first to test this.
--

Square... predictable?

[Chris Canfield]

There are a lot of things wrong with this article.

First, FFXI isn't the first MMPORPG for a console... that honor (as far as I know) goes to Phantasy Star Online. As for the first "En Masse" game? I didn't have a NES modem, so I don't know.

Second, FF VIII is generally reviled as the worst of the series, being essentially a rushed out the door half of the two-sides-of-war tale they wanted to tell.

Third, neither this nor Phantasy Star should be considered a true MMPORPG, as this sounds like only groups can venture forth into the wild together. In Everquest you are likely to stumble across people who washed ashore on the small island in the middle of the ocean, but chance encounters like that are not possible if only groups can quest together.

Online games like this lend themselves to character and community-building gaming, whereas all of the recent Final Fantasies have been story driven. While in theory most MMPORPG have a larger story arch, in practice they are basically a world with which gamers can explore, communicate, and form communities and heirarchies. Squaresoft is famous for jaw-dropping moments of twisting plot, and that amazing feeling of convincing the player that he is the second coming of the Messiah (see "Xenogears"). Neither of these is possible in an online game where basically everyone has an equal role. However, with an online game comes a sense of community, the sort of thing that Final Fantasy games have been known to cause people to abandon.

I'm sure Square will pull this off with flare, albeit bumpy flare. FF7 was quite frankly amazing compared to FF6 (FF3 in the states), and the jump to online gaming gives Square the chance to make another massive jump in gameplay. If they don't just copy what is available, and they don't succumb to profiteering to cover for their atrocious losses on The Spirits Within, then this could very well be the greatest MMPORPG released this year. On the other hand, with one look at Square's release calendar (Snatched, apparently, from Eidos's dead hand), we can expect that next years new Final Fantasy release will be every bit as engrossing too. That is, if we bother to pick that one up.

Ethernet

[Technician]

Hopefully all the major console manufactures will provide ethernet connections and make the software multi platform. Then you could join a lan party with whatever box you had.

It won't happen right away. Can you say product lock-in with propritory protocols? This ides of speaking a common language will take a while to catch on. It will only happen after sticking to a closed protocol proves to be much more detrimental to your sales more than it does the competition.

MS is of going to require .net and passport trying for the lock-in, while everyone else goes high speed lan protocols not needing a remote server on the internet. Expect something propritory first. (like they already do with memory cards. Why couldn't they use a smart media or compact flash card?) They will have to join forces and use an open standard (TCP/IP or IPX maybe?) to pull an end run past the 800 Lb gorilla. Not everyone is going to buy a console and set of games from each manufacture just to have the correct software/hardware for the lan parties. Hopefully games on consoles will start to be compatible with PC platforms and they can sell the consoles because they are optimised for game play and start to clean up at lan parties with a mix of PC's and consoles. Then we should start to see the adoption common connections and protocols

Apologized?

[Decimal]

What is this about Square apologizing to Nintendo? IIRC, Nintendo has always been the one to snub Square.

it's the hardware, stupid

[Hnice]

let's not get involved in 'ff is stale' or 'your console suX0rs' discussions. the issue here, as much as i love square, is the hardware.

7 syllables to remember for the console industry, and if you don't believe me, ask sega's hardware division: no one buys peripherals.

they'll buy an extra controller. they'll buy a hundred games. they'll pay an isp. but no one drops $100 on anything, once they've spent $300 on a console that plays mgs2, ffx, gta3, gran turismo, and ico just fine already. it's been tried, dozens of times, and it doesn't just fail, it puts companies out of business.

now, sony's not going out of business on its hard drive/ethernet combo. i'm going to buy one. but i'm giant sucker with lots of disposable income who must play ff. but (slashdot aside) there aren't that many like me -- not enough to make this work. there were only 300k phantasy star online players, and that didn't even require hardware. sony will be lucky to get 250k people to buy their $100 hardware, and square may get half of those to PlayOnline. compare that to the millions of units of, say, ffix they've sold.

i know, i know, a usb ethernet adapter -- you can also make your linux machine into a gateway for halo, but how many people are doing *that*? again, not counting me ;)

i want square to do well here. and maybe other consoles will help, although last i read, they're thinking about nintendo and not ms, and the cube also has no connection. but the hardware is the issue here, and for all ff's sweet, chocolatey goodness, it's not going to sell much hardware.

The end of the Final Fantasy series?

[Rayonic]

Whether or not this MMORPG is successful, it marks the end of Final Fantasy as we know it. The main series (1-10) has always been single-player with predefined characters and a linear story with an end. An MMORPG is none of that.

Problem is, a lot of people probably want yet another traditional Final Fantasy game - I know my fiance does. It boggles the mind why they named this spinoff game Final Fantasy XI. They should have named it "Final Fantasy Online" or something, so they could pick up the main series again, if they wanted to.

Capcom is a good act to follow in this case, especially with the Mega Man franchise. The original series is still intact, with the spinoffs relegated to their own series' (i.e. Mega Man X, Legends, etc). What if Mega Man 9 was a platformer, while 10 was an RPG, and eleven was real-time strategy? Nonsense.

Re:The end of the Final Fantasy series?

[boa13]

I don't remember reading that they would stop making good-old single player FF games. Probably FF12 will be back to that time-proof formula.

Anyway, they have long said they would venture into MMPORPG. I'll watch and see.

As for the predifined characters and linear story being the essence of the FF series charm, I agree, but would also mention the ability to freely (well, come to think of it, far from freely indeed) explore the world. I've read in another comment that FF10 lacked that ability, only allowing you to "teleport" between locations, and it's a major shame. For that matter, I think that FF11 will still provide some of the fun we had with the earlier installments.

Probably, the crucial point for Square will be to be able to offer us to play characters that have a story. Hey, if they manage to create NPC family members for most of the players, and past relations, friends and foes, that players have to take in account, it can be a great game!

Well, this all comes down to the way the players will play this game, and the way Square will manage it in the long run.

FF Games in a Nutshell

[Maul]

Note that this is my opinion only.
If you think I'm on crack for liking FF4,
that is up to you.

FF1: Wander around aimlessly for hours on end
getting poisoned, paralyzed, and ultimately killed
by monsters. Surprisingly enough I beat it eventually after getting lots of help from my
Nintendo Power player's guide. Of course, I
was in 5th. grade at the time, so you can't blame
me.

FF2 & 3: Never released here at all, and I'm
too lazy to play them on an emulator right now.

FF4: The story and script are both cheezy, but
for some reason I still have more fun playing
this game over and over again than playing
any other game, period. Difficult if
you play the "original" version (not the
hacked up version known as FF2 here in the US)
or the Playstation version. IMO this is the
greatest game ever made, and probably always will
be.

FF5: Also really fun. Not as good as 4, sorta
better than 6... or at least a tad more difficult.
Job System is kinda fun.

FF6: Lotsa characters, lots of cool powers.
Probably the first game in the series where
it is too easy to create over powered chracters
that can kill the last boss in a turn.

FF7: Huge change of scenery for the first time.
The first disc is lots of fun, 2 and 3 aren't
quite as much fun. The first game that Square
put graphics above story, unfortunately.

FF Tactics: This game is challenging until
about halfway through. Then it becomes easy
when your guys are more powerful and you get
all these special unique characters with
overpowered abilities. Oh well, it is a LOT
of fun, and is better than 7 or 8 for sure.

FF8: Take one Leonardo di Caprio clone, throw
in a bunch of other pretty looking guys and
a crappy story. Then add some chocobos and
pretend it is Final Fantasy. I still have
nightmares about this game. Heck, the FF movie
is better than this.

FF9: Square caught a clue at how horrible FF8
was and made this game much more like the SNES
ones. The result is a kickass game that is
almost as enjoyable as FF4 for me.

FF10: I haven't started playing this game yet
thanks to Super Smash Bros. Melee.

FF11: I'm in agreement with those that think
this should have been just called FF Online.
IMO it shouldn't be part of the main series,
but rather be a side game like FFT was.
Mind you that I'm not against an FF online
game at all. I hope I get to make my own custom
black mage (complete with pointy hat). That'd
be cool. However, I think the games in the main
series should focus on the single player
story based RPG.

Re:Eh...

[zeno_2]

Yea, I would have to agree with you.

I LOVED final fantasy 1 for NES. There was really not many games like that, and I just was hooked. Being able to take your basic warrior, and when he got to a certain point, give him a new job as like a paladin was great.

Final Fantasy 2 was great also, as well as Final Fantasy 3, each of them had the same basic game, but new story and whatnot. Back then, they had to depend on this story, character development, gameplay, and whatever else to keep people hooked. The graphics were just there to portray the above.

Next, in the US at least, came Final Fantasy 7. First FF game (in the us at least) that was on a non-nintendo console. They put this game on the new bad boy of the block, the playstation. This is when I started to not like Final Fantasy. It seemed to me in this game that they were using graphics as the main hook to get people to play it. I didn't get hooked into the story, I didn't like the very linear gameplay in it. There would be times when I wouldn't have any idea where to go, I was stuck in a certain part of the world, and all I had to do was just follow the outer part of each screen until I found a door or something. A whole lot less adventuring in that game, as you were almost pushed to where you needed to go next. Needless to say, I didn't finish that game, I gave up about halfway into it.

You can repeat that same story for Final Fantasy 8 and 9 also. I never bought 8, I think I rented it and thats about it. I did buy 9, didn't finish it. I just bought 10 (so im a sucker heh) and I am liking it more then the past 3, but it still comes down to a final fantasy game. For those who have played, I just beat my first blitzball game (against that damn team that taunted me a bunch) in the big tournament. Took me about 6 tries to do it, but i finally did it. I even got to use the Jeict Shot in the game, which was pretty cool looking.

Im hoping to finish this one though, it seems a lot better, and the graphics are just jaw dropping. What is nice about this game is you dont get pulled from the game much. What I mean is that you will be walking along, and you'll run into something and it will go into a big scene, but it uses the same graphics, not cutting into a pre-rendered movie. There are pre-rendered movies in the game, but they aren't everywhere, and they are put in just the right places. I would also say that some of the movies in the game are better looking then final fantasy the movie.

Well anyway, im hoping I will end up liking the game (ff10), I don't like the futuristic aspect of it much, but it has a lot of old world feel to it as well, peole using swords still and things like that. As for this next final fantasy that will be online, im sure its going to be a huge hit, seeing that final fantasy has a very large fan base already.

it may have some problems

[Harlockjds]

this article at the gia ( http://www.thegia.com/news/0201/n01a.html ) points out some bad signs from Japan

* 65% of the game retailers said it will not be a hit, citing such examples as the failure of the Saturn Netlink, the overwhelming price of the PS2 HDD peripheral and modem, and the Dreamcast's inability to sell its networking despite the modem's inclusion with the system.

* "It looks too American," says to one fan

Squaresoft has been having problems getting online content in it's games (ffx was to have a significant online play which was scraped) and the fact that the have already decided that FF 12 will NOT be online shows that they are getting cold feet over the online move.