Slashdot Mirror


Square Enix Admits Final Fantasy XIV Damaged Brand

_xeno_ writes "It's taken a year since Final Fantasy XIV launched to what can at best be called unfavorable reviews, but Square Enix CEO Yoichi Wada is finally willing to admit that the (still subscription-free) MMO 'greatly damaged' the entire Final Fantasy brand. Despite this damage, Wada said Square Enix will continue to work on 'reviving' the game, with an upcoming patch promising to finally introduce such series staples as chocobos and airships. Even so, there's still no word on the PS3 release, which was delayed until the game was 'fixed,' nor is there any sign that Square Enix feels the game will be worth a subscription fee any time soon."

234 comments

  1. Never considered the MMOs part of FF by bipbop · · Score: 4, Funny

    FF11 and FF14 never seemed like they were FF games in the first place, so they didn't tarnish my perception of the brand, at least as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, FFX, FFX-2, FF12, and FF13...

    1. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. FF10, 10-2, 12, 13 were mediocre games sold on pretty graphics and Square's hype & momentum. Great way to not honour a brilliant series.

    2. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by BetterSense · · Score: 1

      I've been waiting for the franchise to recover ever since it fell off after 7. Some people like 9, but I'm tired of being an old fogey and insisting 7 is the last good one.

    3. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by radiumsoup · · Score: 2

      I played FFXI for over 5 years, only stopping after life changes made playing too costly from a time sink standpoint... I played the FFXIV Beta for all of 10 hours before uninstalling with a simple note to the devs: "This game is nowhere near ready for Beta." I'm quite surprised it was released at all... but FFXI was a very good game for the brand, even if it was quite obviously geared with a large bias toward the Japanese market with North America (and finally Europe) as an afterthought.

    4. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently I'm an even older fogey, because I insist that IV was the last good one.

    5. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by dicobalt · · Score: 1

      Hey I played the original FF and I really liked FFIX which is based on the original FF take on classes. I would be happy to see a FFIX-2 actually.

    6. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh I'm an older fogey because FF7 is a different game form FF1-6 with FF6 being my Favorite not That FF7 is bad, it is one of my favorites, but it is a different style game.

    7. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by genner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      FF11 and FF14 never seemed like they were FF games in the first place, so they didn't tarnish my perception of the brand, at least as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, FFX, FFX-2, FF12, and FF13...

      Hey now FFX was a good game and I'm pretty sure the sequel was just some lame fan fiction that people mistook for a real release.

    8. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on! FF13 is the cherry on top of the crap sundae...

    9. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I played the original FF and I really liked FFIX which is based on the original FF take on classes. I would be happy to see a FFIX-2 actually.

      Indeed. 9 was a work of art in the series. 10 took the story telling down a couple of leagues.

      In response to the grand-parent, you apparently have not played the original Final Fantasy Tactics. I still remember a quote from a reviewers; "It has more twists than a line at Disney World."

    10. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by vga_init · · Score: 2

      9 definitely had its redeeming qualities. Heck, even 8 was a pretty good game, but the problem is that neither of them even came close to reproducing the magic that went into 7. Now I'm just convinced that Square got lucky with 7 and that was just a fluke--a one-off occurrence that will never be repeated in the series. It's been more than 10 years so we should all just accept that fact and move on.

    11. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by segin · · Score: 1

      FF6 and earlier were all in a fantasy setting, with FF6 being the closest to modern, and in a way it foretold FF7's "mostly modern" setting. Then there was FF8 which really detracted from what Final Fantasy is about, but it still maintained that it belonged in the series, although it was too... "modern". Like the opening of 10, with the city of Zanarkand.

    12. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Funny

      How can you even call it fan fiction when there wasn't any nudity involved?

    13. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it has a splashing incest scene (with all the main characters in bikinis), plus there's Yuna's cousin hitting on her all the time (more incest!). Sounds like fan fiction.

    14. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by no1nose · · Score: 1

      FF3 on the SNES in the USA circa 1993 and FF7 on the Playstation in the USA were the best games of all time IMHO. The original Phantasy Star on the SMS was dang good too.

    15. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're crazy. FF7 is FF6 with 3D player models. Even the battle systems are almost identical.

    16. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      FF11 and FF14 never seemed like they were FF games in the first place, so they didn't tarnish my perception of the brand, at least as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, FFX, FFX-2, FF12, and FF13...

      FF10 was ok. FFX-2 was amazing. If you took the story tongue in cheek (like it was clearly meant to be), the battle engine and gameplay was just plain fun.

      FF12 was a bit too politically heavy, but it was fun having what amounted to a FF Sandbox game.

      FF13 was just shit, however. Interesting battle system, but the current executives at Square Enix must have a VERY low opinion of gamers to think that they had to dumb the rest of the game down to that level.

      I'm worried that the same stupidity has their hands on Dragon Quest 10, which apparently is going to have online features similar to Demons's Souls / Monster Hunter / PSO. Not a MMO (but try telling that to the idiots in the gaming journalism industry) but just enough online capabilities to be interesting. Still, kinda worried. They are letting the idiot who did Nier have a crack at working with Yuji Hoori, and that's just a bad idea.

    17. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FF X was a good game? I have only one thing to say about that: AAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA AAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA

    18. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Toonol · · Score: 2

      FFX-2 had some of the best mechanics in the entire series; the battle system/jobs system was great, and it had a non-linear mission based storyline. I think a lot of people hated it because (1) girls and (2) it had a very different feel and mood than X. That was deliberate, I'm very sure. The theme of FFX was death, almost oppressively so... but in the end you won, and so X-2 was about life and optimism, and the lighthearted-silliness was part of that.

    19. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Toonol · · Score: 1

      FF13 would have been a great game if they had included more than just a battle system in the game. It felt crippled as it was... like a final fantasy spinoff fighter.

      I appreciate how well done FF12 was, but they somehow made it as dull as sand. It felt like a particularly boring MMORPG with no other players. I appreciate how high the production values are on it, but somehow the fun got left out.

      The online FF's, 11 and 14, don't even seem like they should be considered to be part of the same series. They're just vaguely related franchise items, like Kingdom Hearts is.

      I think the series had a good run, though... FF3 through FFX-2 were all pretty fun. And I'm still interested enough to watch for future releases. I just have a fear that in a few more iterations, they'll be first person shooters.

    20. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's all a matter of opinion, but they were all* IMO pretty decent strictly from a gameplay standpoint, and X held up relatively well in terms of story. I thought IX was crap and XII was mediocre at best, but XIII and (surprisingly) X-2 I found quite fun to play - in fact I'd quite recommend X-2 as a game with excellent mechanics, provided you ignore the fact that it somehow got Final Fantasy in its title.

      *I haven't played either of the MMOs so can't opine on them

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    21. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Three huge problems with Final Fantasy X-2: a) the mood was TOO light and silly. Ditto with the music, which is good as an OST album, but as presented in the game left a bad taste in a lot of people's ears (including mine) b) They failed to create a non-linear plot with depth. It looked like it was going somewhere a couple times (especially in the Chapter 3 conversation with Maechen in Seymour/Leblanc's Chateau) and then poof! Case in point: the total lack of explanation for why the Big Bad is nearly identical to Tidus, as if Yuna (and Rikku) wouldn't be dying to find out (and yes, I know the obvious fanwank, but it still needed to be part of the plot and not just an obvious fanwank) c) related to the last point, they couldn't decide between Yuna getting over Tidus and moving on and Yuna reuniting with him so they decided to do both. So they made a quarter-assed attempt to have her get over him in Chapter 5 and the normal ending and then tacked on his return as a special ending that you can get if you mash the X button at a specific point midway through the game and then again during an FMV sequence in the ending. Naturally both are total Guide Dang Its. And the manner of his return, the Fayth simply will him back into existence ("Umm, guys, couldn't you have done that two years ago?" "Yeah, but we didn't wanna.") is utterly unsatisfying. They either needed to have her get over losing him in the first half of the game (with a new potential love interest in the picture, though that needn't actually go anywhere) or else integrate Tidus' return into the plot. Considering their main bad guy is virtually his psychotic twin (he even has a nearly-identical special attack), it shouldn't have been hard to come up with something.

    22. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Realistically, it's not FF that has stagnated, it's Square. Their last great RPG was Vagrant Story(Kingdom Hearts is good, but not up to old FF snuff).

    23. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      So stop being an old fogey.

      I've enjoyed everyone of the non-online ones. Some were better than others, but I finished and had fun with them all.

    24. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      Yeah... figured I should throw this out there, before some asshat did it in a more condescending manor...

      Squaresoft originally didn't bring FF2, FF3 (both NES games), and FF5 (SNES) over to America, and to avoid the confusion of players trying to find games never released here, they renumbered FF4 as FF2, and FF6 as FF3...

      So the game you're talking about is the same one your parent post was saying was his favorite...

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    25. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by xhrit · · Score: 1

      Ultima Underworld II: Labyrinth of Worlds came out in 1993. While all the people played 2d top down linear turn based jrpgs on their consoles, I was exploring the most realistic and immersive realtime 3d dungeon simulation that has ever been created.

      While you pressed x to see the npcs one line of non-interactive text then paced back and forth around an empty field grinding random encounters for exp, I was running and jumping and sneaking through dungeons, conversing with npcs in a complex branching plotline filled with political intrigue and betrayal that I had a direct impack on, learning new languages to converse with NPC's who didn't speak the King's English, and foraging for food so that I didn't starve to death.

      While you were grinding the same mobs over and over to afford new spells and gear from vendors, I was experimenting with different runestones to create entirely new undocumented spells, crafting and enchanting my own weapons, and bartering with NPCs for best prices on components.

      Yeah FF3 was good, but it was not even close to being the best game of its time, let alone ever.

    26. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, some of those costumes were close enough.

    27. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      So you don't like futuristic fantasy and want FF only be classical fantasy titles? It is Final Fantasy. It is meant to take fantasy to wherever it needs to go to complete the story or world.

      --
      -- no sig today
    28. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Amen. Exactly as I mentioned at the top of this thread. All true FFs are excellent games. Some are more excellent than others but all are excellent.

      --
      -- no sig today
    29. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      I really miss the classic phantasy star games. I recently played around a bit with the ps2 remakes of phantasy star 1 and 2, and it just made me really nostalgic. Phantasy Star Online and the various spinoffs and sequels were fun for what they were. But they never really matched the greatness of the original games.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    30. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Indeed, had FFX-2 been a bit less girly and silly (I don't mind it being upbeat) It would have been a much better game.
      Your complaint about the storyline is also quite interesting. I think the story devs didn't wan't to steer the story into these waters though. mostly because they would have needed to add a lot more `game` to it then :-)

      --
      -- no sig today
    31. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grant you that the system was good.'
      However, as an extension to FFX, you expected it to be fairly close to it, and instead they went to a more classic class-change system (pretty close to FFV).
      Also, yes, the tone...
      All previous final fantasies have been fairly dark with a few points of light, accentuated by powerful semi-classical music.
      This was J-pop, through and through.

      Also, when people fight for their lives and try to kill each other over cred who gets the spheres it's just silly, especially when it's against the worlds bloody savior.

      The whole non-linear thing is awful as well.
      Non-linear in a game where you can't role-play is not a good idea, you just decide how to move the pieces and then they act out.
      Also, the amount of required scouring demanded to actually get a coherent view of the story was just obscene, I actually had friends finishing the game and still had no clue about what was happening.

      Also, while the system was good, it was annoyingly slow since the focused so much on cinematics in fight since they needed to change dress to change function.

      FFX was good primarily due to the flexible level-up system and to the combats which was the first time since FFVI that you never got bored in combat.
      The story was decent as well, especially the tone (even if they failed miserably with Tidus, the idea of the good-hearted jock coming to a world worshipping and fearing death was great, but they failed due to him being to bloody stupid and blind).

      As for girls.
      FFVI is widely seen as one of the two best FFs ever, and guess what?
      Both the protagonists are female.

      No, J-pop, annoyingly unlinear action, piss-poor models in many cases, annoyingly unclear graphics in general and too much silliness without it being fun was the problems.
      Not that there where an abundance of tits and ass.

    32. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bold and beautiful episodes 2456 and 2476 never seemed like thy were Bold and beautiful episodes in the first place, so they didn't tarnish my perception of the brand, at least as far as I'm aware. On the other hand, 93, 1000, 2027, and 2387...

    33. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I've always felt that the Ultima Underworld games were VASTLY underrated! In 1993 and 1994, I was crawling the same dungeons (And yes, I still remember the lizard people language...)

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    34. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      heh, the thing about FF X that I realized after going back and playing it again years later is that there was a lot of crap in the game, but the things that were good were so good that years later I basically forgot about all the crap.

    35. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      All excellent FFs are excellent

      Edited For Clarity.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    36. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the story in FFX is worthy of playing through. Sure there's silly crap all over the place, but the story at the end will make you say "holy shit!"

    37. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, 8 had serious problems with its story. Especially Ultimecia. WTF was that. Gameplay was fine aside from the fact that you usually don't use magic there at all as binding it to stats produce awesome effects while monsters can be dealed with other means (plain attacks, summons).

    38. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by m50d · · Score: 1

      9 was good. 6-aka-3 was very good. 4-aka-2 was very good. The original was so good it spawned an entire genre; you can't even explain why it was so good to modern ears, because you describe all its points and they say "so... it's an RPG?". Final fantasy has certainly lost its way in recent years, but 7 was by no means a fluke (at least in terms of the gameplay etc. The critical reaction ("best game of all time") was possibly a fluke). To a gamer who's played 6, 7 certainly wasn't a one-off.

      --
      I am trolling
    39. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except 7 wasn't 'the good one'. That title belongs to 6 and/or 4. 7 had a lot of flashy graphics but is inferior in every other way to the SNES generation of FF. I liked 9 because it echoed 4. 8 was a giant, boring, tedious piece of shit.

    40. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely regarding FF X-2. I encourage people to get past the first dungeon (in other words, play more than an hour). After that, FF X-2 improves by leaps and bounds. The jobs/leveling system was one of the most satisfying I've ever played.

      I was irritated that FF XI was an MMO, so I never played it. By the time they released FF XII, I no longer felt the brand loyalty I once did, so I just skipped it. And I've never gone back. Not out of spite, just lack of interest.

    41. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by slyrat · · Score: 1

      9 definitely had its redeeming qualities. Heck, even 8 was a pretty good game, but the problem is that neither of them even came close to reproducing the magic that went into 7. Now I'm just convinced that Square got lucky with 7 and that was just a fluke--a one-off occurrence that will never be repeated in the series. It's been more than 10 years so we should all just accept that fact and move on.

      I think 9, 7, and 6 were the best in the series. I think part of it is how well the battle system is done in each game, along with the quality of the music/story. 8 was nice and pretty, but the battle system (which was so easy to break) was just not enjoyable over time. I liked 10 but then if you wanted all your characters to gain xp you had to switch them all out every battle, which was so annoying. 9, 7, and 6 had good battle engines for their time and that really makes all the difference for me at least. Even 12 was pretty decent, a lot better than 10 or X-2. 13 was just embarrassing and 11/14 I don't even consider to be FF since they are MMO games.

    42. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree though, I have to say, 13 had potential. I payed it for...actually about 13 hours before I gave up "waiting for the tutorial to end". I am used to FF being pretty linear for the first 10 hours or so...but...when I realized there would be no opening up of the world, no towns....

      I liked the battle system, I would have rocked a game based on it...but...not a gratuitous battle system game.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    43. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      FF12 originally had either Basch (the soldier who gets screwed over before the game) or Balthier (middle aged sky pirate with the furry bunnygirl in a spygirl outfit sidekick -- aka, Han Solo and a disturbingly sexy Chewwie) as the main characters, depending on which version of the story you read. Then the director (Yasumi Matsuno) had a nervous breakdown from working conditions at Square Enix and they replaced him with the guy who did the SaGa games (Akitoshi Kawazu). Around the same time, the "Belts, Belts Everywhere" guy behind Kingdom Hearts started getting more pull at SE and convinced them that no gamer would ever empathize with an old protagonist like the ancient Basch (almost 30) or old man Balthier (mid 20s).

      So enter Vaan, who was shoehorned in halfway through development and honestly doesn't belong there. About halfway through the story he just kinda... stops showing up in cutscenes, too. They could have completely cut him and his sister from the game and it wouldn't have affected the story, at all.

      Who knows what would have happened if Matsuno hadn't been quite literally driven mad by Square Enix's internal culture or if Nomura had been regulated to drawing belt and zipper slash fics.

    44. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      If you haven't played in the last year, consider coming back. SE has done wonderful things - an increase in the level of casual friendly content, and raising the level cap up to 95 with a planned final cap of 99.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    45. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, the MMOs really are different games.

      But as "members of the title", I think 11 did more harm to the brand than 14. I *could* enjoy 14 if I didn't foucs on the things I tend to focus on. I couldn't enjoy 11 past level 18 or 19.

      And, yes, FF13 probably tarnished the brand more than anything else.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    46. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I must be an *ancient* fogey, because I've never even played a FF game. Something about playing a Japanese hermaphrodite who spouts poorly-translated dialogue just never seemed very appealing to me.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    47. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by syockit · · Score: 1

      Most game shops that rent out games usually charge by weekly basis. That shop that you rented from sure has some crazy business model! So how much did you have to pay for 13 hours?

      --
      Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
    48. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. The battle system should have been opened up fully within the first hour or so, would have made the game so much better. Oddly, I have a friend who swears the game was perfect in pace, and that keeping it locked helped ease the player into it. I've never gotten an explanation from him as to why that is.

    49. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      FF13 is the series best example of wasted potential. If you read the indexes, there is a lot of good information and back story going on, it just seems like they ran out of time to actually put any of it in the game. I get the feeling that they spent so much time trying to get the engine running that everything was literally thrown together in the final phase to get the game out the door.

    50. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      FF13 was average, but playable. FF14 was basically a playable alpha they tried to sell as a full product. It was, optimistically, years away from a proper release.

    51. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      FF7 had far less gear customization than 6; every character had their weapon type, and nobody else could use it. Every new weapon was strictly an upgrade over the old one. Materia let you do some interesting things, but nothing matched what you could do in 6, where any character who could wield swords could wield any sword. In 6, any character could learn any esper's spells.

      Not to mention that in 7, you only had 3 character parties, while 6 had 4.

      I liked 7, and consider it to be a landmark for console games, but 6 was more interesting and fun to play. You were just given far more options. And, IMO, had a better story, too.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    52. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree - FFX wasn't a good game compared to other Final Fantasies. First, the voice actors for Tidus and Yuna, and their dialogue was lousy (ok, this can be directed at most video games, especially Japanese translations to English, but with the production costs that went into this game, I'd presume they could get something of quality out there). Secondly, blitzball - yech! This was the worst optional side game I've played in the FF series, and I really hated on the card game in 8, but even it was tolerable compared to blitzball. Third, the gameplay itself was way too easy - seriously, did you ever come anywhere close to having a party wipe accidentally? Of the FF's I played (FFI NES, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, FFX), FFX was the weakest in terms of gameplay - it just felt like a movie that I couldn't die in. To be fair, all of them sucked in story and dialogue, though.

    53. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Honestly the pace of that didn't bother me as much as the total linearity of the story. I don't mind a 10 hour intro.... if its an 80 hour game that is going to provide more ability to explore. There is no exploration in 13. I stopped shortly after I started thumbing through the strategy guide and saw that the majority of the maps had no branches at all... and none were towns.

      It wasn't an RPG as much as a complicated, faux-real time, action-adventure.

      I have been playing the FF series since I had to come back and kick Garland's ass all over again. It has always been about the exploring, finding the key to open the chest off on the beaten path, or searching for some cave with a quest item, or farming ogres to buy more magic instruction for your mages so they can contribute in battle.

      FF 13 was just about running from battle to battle, with some dialogue tossed in between to tell a story.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    54. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      ...Add to that FF13-2...

      You'd think they'd learn by now...

    55. Re:Never considered the MMOs part of FF by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I agree. It's playable, but the design ideas were failures, and I don't think they could have figured that out without a sizeable outside view.

      Honestly, if they fixed the auction system, and made the quests less obnoxious, it'd be playable.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  2. Stability and Performance Issues by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It wasn't just "Stability and Performance Issues" that caused the game to suck so bad.

    It was, well, everything.

    A map that wouldn't show you where things you wanted to find were
    A bizarre bazaar and shop system
    No real story or major quest line (that I could find at least, in the week or so I spent playing it)
    A UI that was designed for consoles - which is ironic since it never launched on the PS3.
    Sloow animations on the menus. You have to hit menu (and wait for all the elements to slide in) then click on the submenu, and wait for all the elements to slide in and then click on "map" (instead of just being able to hit 'm' or whatever).
    Class system didn't make any sense.

    I dunno, there were other things I can remember really hating about the game, but it's been a year and I've tried to black out that part of my memory as best I can.

    1. Re:Stability and Performance Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume that UI was made with Flash. I think most UIs are nowadays. (E.g. everything made with UDK or ID Tech 4+.)

      And if you know those Flash "designer" types and the websites they usually make, you know where that "not made to be used, but made to fap to" comes from. ^^

      Also, if FFXIV was anything like FFXI, it must have been a massive grind fest. Just one word: Shikigami (NM)!
      Imagine a beast that's completely invisible, and is found in an area stuffed full of aggressive monsters. It spawns every 23 hours. And to claim it so you can fight it, you have to generate hate. Which basically means every monster in the area is going to come after you. But don't think that's all! Because in the area will be a few dozen other losers also camping to get it!
      Which resuls in you going online every 23 hours, even at 3:30 AM in the middle of the night, watch someone else get "lucky" and then having to fight off the shitstorm you created.
      Only to come back in another 23 hours.

      This can go on for weeks.
      And when you are finally done, you can't even distribute the skill points you got yourself! (Until you're above a certain level.)

      There should be a national Shikigami watch, looking out for everyone trying this more than once, and putting him in a nice psychotherapy if he does. Because you can't tell me that this shit is massively masochistic and self-abusive. (With a dash of OCD. If by "dash" you mean being hit by a gamma ray burst from the same solar system! ;)

    2. Re:Stability and Performance Issues by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      It wasn't just "Stability and Performance Issues" that caused the game to suck so bad.

      Yeah, I'm not sure why they went with that in the article. It's why I included the link to the earlier Slashdot story. I mean, there were performance and stability issues (I guess) but they weren't what killed the game.

      It was things like XP rewards (called SP) being awarded at random that did it. Every time you did an action (like attack a monster) there was something like a 10% chance you'd gain XP. This made leveling horrible. It turns out that a Skinner box has the opposite effect if you're more likely to get a shot to the nuts than an actual reward.

      To be fair, this was fixed rather quickly: a good two months after release.

      Also, this is the edited down version of the "things that were wrong at release." My first draft was waaay over the character limit. No need to go there, though. Suffice it to say that the list of things that have been fixed over the past year is absolutely massive - and despite that, the game is now mediocre at best. (And even that's pushing it.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:Stability and Performance Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sloow animations on the menus.

      hey.. that's not so bad...

      back in my time it was slow animation of text in dialogs... that was so bad... i became addicted to retaline..

    4. Re:Stability and Performance Issues by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Sloow animations on the menus. You have to hit menu (and wait for all the elements to slide in) then click on the submenu, and wait for all the elements to slide in and then click on "map" (instead of just being able to hit 'm' or whatever).

      If you find those menus bad, try to play Splinter Cell: Double Agent. Well, actually playing it wasn't bad...I break into a cold sweat everytime I have to open *any* kind of menu or overlay screen.

  3. The problem is by chispito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they are still JRPGs, and the industry (outside of Japan) has grown. Western RPGs keep growing and innovating. I feel like Western developers learned from Japan back in the 16 bit era, but Japanese developers are stuck in a time warp. There is more to life than turn based combat and angsty teenage heroes.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, now there's DLC that adds content into the plotline right after the game starts but isn't released until you've sunk 40 hours into a character that's at the one-way door at the end of the game.

    2. Re:The problem is by Swarley · · Score: 0

      No kidding. I heard so many people talk about how awesome FFIX was but I couldn't stand to play it for more than a couple hours. The main protagonist was just such a petty asshole that I just got annoyed and quit playing. The newer games have actually ruined the older games for me too since they showed me that those games were only good because technological limitations prevented Square for making the characters as douchey as they wanted them to be.

    3. Re:The problem is by itsenrique · · Score: 1

      +1, Insightful if I had it.

    4. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The newer games have actually ruined the older games for me too

      I'm no Squenix apologist, although I have greatly enjoyed all the main single player numbered releases with the exception of FFXIII which I never bought. That said, I find the kind of opinion you express here to be nothing short of stupid. A good game is a good game. Whatever comes after it doesn't change that. The original SW trilogy hasn't been destroyed by the prequels - they're still great films. The Beatles haven't been destroyed by whatever dirge McCartney has released later in his career. Letting something from the present 'ruin' something from the past is patently moronic.

    5. Re:The problem is by Windwraith · · Score: 0

      Ah, the ubiquitous JRPG hate.

      The only thing is that we changed a series of Japanese clichés for a series of American-European clichés, that we will get bored of in a few years, and then we'll say "western rpgs are all the same".

    6. Re:The problem is by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I disagree, FF 1 thru 7 and still classics, it is when they changed and "innovated" that they went downhill.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:The problem is by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Perhaps it can be traced back further, but I've always had the impression that Western fantasy RPG character sets can be traced back to J. R. R. Tolkien's work. Talk about being stuck in a time warp.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:The problem is by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 2

      You can blame Dungeons and Dragons for that. I imagine if it never existed, today's WRPGs would be far different than they are.

    9. Re:The problem is by Keill · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you define the term RPG in relation to computers and computer games, (rather than P&P etc. - (since, no, they're not used the same way to represent the same thing)).

      The problem we have is that a lot of what people perceive as having to do with the label 'Role-playing game' has actually very little to do with what such a label describes - because of people's inconsistent, subjective perceptions of what the word game itself represents in the first place. This is then affecting how such games are designed and made, usually at the expense of the game itself, which is why most games now are merely the basic types of game - FPS/RT(TB)S/Action-adventure/Driving/Beat'em'up etc. dressed up.

      The REAL problem, which we can solve, is understanding how to MANAGE complexity properly - or rather, how to give the player the tools to do so themselves. Some games can do this in a limited manner or to a limited degree - (driving games with options going from 'simulation' to 'arcade' etc.) - but the scope for using such mechanisms for all types of games, and especially the one, main element we should REALLY be looking at here - (user-defined) gameplay DEVELOPMENT - is MASSIVE.

      --
      'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
    10. Re:The problem is by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Mass effect is barely even in the category of "RPG." Although the quest system is pretty good, the equipment and skills were lacking. No, what OP (I suspect) is talking about is games more like The Witcher (1&2, especially 1), KOTOR (going back a ways), Oblivion (kinda), even Dragon Age or the soon to be released Diablo III. None of those games can be played by sitting something on the controller and walking away which is what can be done with some of the new ones (I think this sums it up nicely).

      The Last Remnant, which I did play and while fun, was a terrible RPG (worse than Mass Effect. Seriously) 3rd person cover shooters are more innovative RPGs than this (in fact, they actually did involve innovation at the time.) Walking down a single pathr, absolutely no choice of skills to update (you can choose which ones a character focuses on... that is all), 2-3 choices (which you don't entirely control) for combat, group-based fighting. Honestly, it's fun for a while especially since it is more or less the only JRPG I ever played, but I cannot see how people could ever spend massive amounts of time playing games like that. I tried one of the recent FF (13 I think) games for about 30 mins once. It... didn't even feel like an RPG, it felt like walking down a narrow corridor holding down a button.

      Also, neither Magicka nor Torchlight were very good RPGs, no idea why you chose those as examples. They were a lot of fun, but deep RPG action they were not. OP is right: Western RPGs have, if not grown deeper, at least expanded and experimented in the genre. JRPGs seem to have devolved.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    11. Re:The problem is by blahplusplus · · Score: 0

      "The REAL problem, which we can solve, is understanding how to MANAGE complexity properly"

      The problem is developers usually cut major corners or just take the easy route like they do in MMO's and automating their combat systems. Combat systems are critical for an RPG and most modern combat systems have removed and significantly dumbed down the participation part. Final fantasy 12 is a case in point - hold forward, set your bot to win. All you do in the game is navigate you don't have to make or participate in any meaningful way.

      The major problem is cinematics and story is crowding out the game aspects to a significant degree. Game developers realized they could expand their market by getting rid of the participatory elements of gameplay because most people just don't really like video games at all - ones where you have to participate. Most modern games are little more then glorified movies which you can move around in and your hand is held all the way through.

      This wouldn't be so bad if the game also was designed properly for experienced players so that a newbie and an expert player different experiences. Since casual gamers tend to not like the gaming (the activity and participation) aspects of games.

      Better design would be great but developers and publishers don't seem to want to put in the time or money to make the best games they can, they seem to want to cut corners to maximize profits because their are too many stupid consumers out there.

    12. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet WRPGs still manage to be full-length, complete games, without the padding you get in a JRPG. The DLC is just the cherry on top that doesn't quite fit the rest of the lasagna.

    13. Re:The problem is by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Also, neither Magicka nor Torchlight were very good RPGs, no idea why you chose those as examples"

      Yes they are good games because
      1) They focus on the fun
      2) They get that RPG's require a good combat and/or loot system
      3) Story and cinematics aren't relied upon for critical acclaim (which most western RPG's do rely on).

      The great thing about diablo 1 + 2 was the challenging monsters and the phat loot. All western RPG's have done is bring hollywood to games. Mass effect minus the audio/video and story - the actual game elements (where you participate and have to shoot, not just watch in game cutscenes) is not innovative or creative at all.

      So when you say "they have innovated" you're confusing everyone lauds critical acclaim on them for their CINEMATICS not their actual gameplay, they are reviewing the game as a movie - not a game. Huge difference.

    14. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem with FFXIV in my opinion was the combat system. People enjoy the Final Fantasy series not only for the story but the strategic combat. The combat in FFXIV is as basic as can possibly be. There was no thought put into it, even EverQuest had a better combat system than FFXIV.
      Games that are based on action and adventure need to have those two things in the game. XIV had extremely limited travel areas, pretty much like dungeon crawling through a forest, and the action didn't change from the first level to the last. The crafting system in the game was fine, it was a typical grind but required ridiculous materials.
        I personally never had many stability issues and I thought the game looked decent enough. The one aspect of games that keep me entertained is the actual gameplay. Up until Dungeon Siege 3 released this past year I had never played a game that I could compare in equal to the terrible combat in FFXIV. My group of friends I played with all ended up crafting for hours on end rather than adventuring and that's when we realized the game cannot be fixed and it wasn't worth the time investment for the dismal future that FFXIV has.

    15. Re:The problem is by Swarley · · Score: 1

      I think that FF games have always had a dumbed down combat system for the most part. They dress it up with occasional differences, but certain common threads of "fake strategy" seem to show up in all of them, and usually in just enough quantity to ruin what might have been an otherwise fun game. Mainly I'm talking about things like the idiotic legacy of featuring 20 different status debuff spells that all do roughly the same thing (prevent your party from getting hurt or attacked for a few turns) and for which almost every boss in the game is vulnerable to exactly one of them. So the "strategy" becomes trying each debuff in order until you figure out which is "the one" and then the fight becomes easy. Factor in irritatingly placed save points that require you to die and replay the same 20 minutes of game over a few times while you figure this out and presto: "fake strategy" that's convincing enough to fool players into thinking that they are "getting better at the game" or that they had to "think of a better strategy" to beat the boss. The difference between the good and bad FF games usually boils down to where and how ham handedly they force these sorts of mechanics in and also, as I mentioned in a previous post, how douchey their characters are (in some cases astonishingly douchey). Completely obtuse item combination systems that feature complex recipes with absolutely no way to learn these combinations or even hints about them in game don't help either, not to mention the infamous Zodiac Spear treasure chest bullshit from FFXII. This is definitely a trend that's gotten worse since the older games, which is odd because the internet is so ubiquitous now that "making games to sell strategy guides" doesn't work anymore.

    16. Re:The problem is by Keill · · Score: 1

      As I said - it all comes back to the same, underlying problem - the (collective) lack of recognition and understanding of games - what it is the word game itself represents, based on its use (in general) - BOTH in isolation, and in relation to the rest of the language.

      This is therefore a matter, (and failure), of LINGUISTICS, that then causes a problem of semantics.

      I have a blog on gamasutra to talk about this problem - but since it's merely symptom of a deeper problem within the language, dealing with how the basics of the language is recognised and understood (ultimately because of how it is taught, which is why it's a matter of linguistics)), is the real underlying problem. (Which is why I have to wade through quite a few things to describe the problem itself for how it is related to the language in general).

      In short, the problems with the word game exist because people are not applying the basic rules of English grammar consistently when describing what other words in the language represent based on how they are used - specifically the TYPES of concept/information they are used to represent, further represented by the words NOUN, VERB & ADJECTIVE. (It appears that there's a bit of a problem with adverbs too, but I haven't really looked at them yet).

      The problems with the word game, are mainly a symptom of not describing nouns and verbs consistently in RELATION to each other.

      Blog: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/3291/

      --
      'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
    17. Re:The problem is by surferx0 · · Score: 1

      They are classics because they were amazing and innovative games for the time period they were released in. However they would not hold up to games today if they were released in this console generation with appropriate graphics/sound.

      Developers have to continue to innovate and adapt to using new technologies and the changing marketplace. Granted, Square-Enix very good at it and created the mess that was FF13, but it is still something that has to be done. They just need to do it right, like they used to.

    18. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original Star Wars wasn't ruined by the prequels, it was ruined by Lucas.

    19. Re:The problem is by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I disagree, they are classics and therefore still amazing to this day, and continue to show up on best games of all time lists.
      You don't need nostalgia to play them today and enjoy them more then most new games.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    20. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last Remnant and FFXIII are the only JRPGs you have played. Your opinion is worthless.

    21. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the ubiquitous JRPG hate.

      The only thing is that we changed a series of Japanese clichés for a series of American-European clichés, that we will get bored of in a few years, and then we'll say "western rpgs are all the same".

      Different cultures. Once we get bored with them in a few years, we'll make new ones, rather than appease the hardcores who want to resist change at all costs.

    22. Re:The problem is by HawaiianToast · · Score: 1

      This is it. Also, if FFXI did well in the west, it was because it showed up before WoW. I remember ditching FFXI a few months after WoW was released and had been somewhat ironed out because it was just a vastly better experience. The FFXI style of game play just seems cruel and masochistic to me now. Not that I have the patience for any of them anymore...

    23. Re:The problem is by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Western RPG's are just as bad in their own ways, most modern western RPG's can hardly even be called RPG's anymore. Mass effect 1 and 2? Really? Cover based shooting with a few skills on the side is far from traditional video game RPG's as you can get. Most modern "RPGs" have been turned into first person shooters because the developers are so incompetent at "RPG's" part so and they see all that Call of duty money out there. The only good RPG's coming out lately are from out of left field like Torchlight and Magicka and a few others I can't name at the moment. Skyrim and oblivion can hardly be called RPG's in considering their dumbed down forms of older more RPG'esque games.

      Torchlight is pretty a classic dungeon exploration action game. Like Diablo, I wouldn't really call it an RPG. There's no story, and no decisions to make in the game. Magicka, likewise, is an action game. Fantasy world != RPG.

      ME1 had a more developed leveling system and inventory management than ME2, which was very dumbed down... still, I'd call them both RPGs due to the story elements. But you're right, too, about them being cover shooters. They're still better RPGs than anything that has come out of the Final Fantasy series in the last 10 years though.

      I just started playing Oblivion again to get ready for Skyrim... I'd definitely call it an RPG. You really can approach the world in any way you want to. Some people just play through the main story lines. Others (myself included) will get bogged down trying to finish all of the side quests in the game and never beat it. I'd played Morrowind off and on for a year (~60 hours in the game) before I finally buckled down to actually beat the main quest. Oblivion's leveling system is utter crap (it penalizes you heavily if you don't do annoying things like standing around casting spells for an hour, or letting a pile of mudcrabs beat on your shield so you can boost your endurance), but with OOO and other mods it can actually be a pretty good game.

      As far as being able to make actual decisions which seem to really matter in the world, Fallout New Vegas is definitely the best RPG of all time. The flowcharts for the decisions you can make in most major quests can take up multiple pages in the hint book. There's (I think) 4 or 5 official ways to beat the game, and a loooot of decision making that leads up to all that. If you hate the FPS aspect of it, they helpfully built in a cheat system (VATS) which lets you basically not need to worry about aiming or any of that other FPS-ey stuff. I never use it, since it turns the game into easy mode.

      The best bit of Fallout New Vegas, though, is hardcore mode, which hearkens back to the RPGs of the 80s, where you actually had to worry about eating and drinking, and you can't just become immortal from having an huge supply of stimpacks in your backpack. It's definitely worth a shot if you haven't played it yet.

    24. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more to life than turn based combat and angsty teenage heroes.

      Looks like you actually didn't play any JRPGs from last 10 years yet DnD based 'all the same shit' WRPGs are the pinnacle of innovation now ?
      +5 PC centric /. hivemind

    25. Re:The problem is by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      I think the main problem is that design leaves too little to the imagination.
      This, combined with much longer game-play and not much better stories means that things need to be drawn out for far too long.

      In the older games, the character design needed to be minimal and thus you didn't notice how bloody silly it looked in the mind of the designers.

    26. Re:The problem is by Spacelem · · Score: 1

      Funny really, since Gary Gygax made only the slightest of nods towards Tolkien fans, and D&D was never particularly good at emulating Middle Earth (far too much magic for one thing).

      Original D&D was much more designed to emulate the sword and sorcery genre typified by the works of Leiber, Howard, and Moorcock. The game has changed a lot over the years, and while it still has elves, dwarves, trolls, orcs, and goblins, (the halflings do not in any way resemble hobbits any more), it really has very little in common with the works of Tolkien.

    27. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...7 was when they started going downhill. Same tired turn-based system with "random" encounters that wern't so much as random as "expected" every 5 or so seconds moving on the map if not sooner to make a 10 hour game over 40 hours. It was "ok" back in the early 90's, not so much anymore.

    28. Re:The problem is by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Complex RPG's of the past? You mean just about every JRPG that has the combat strategy of a four man team, 2 members dealing damage and 1/2 members on healing duty while remainders pick their noses while you steamroll the boss? I've played a lot of JRPG's in my day (from Tales to FF to Goldensuns/Fire Emblems to more obscure titles), and "complex" has never come to mind in any of them except for FF11.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    29. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they aren't making new ones.

      Pretty much every RPG, east or west, fall into two and a half categories:

      1) Heavy stat based system from the days of D&D and tabletop RPGs
      2) "Action RPGs" (the likes of Diablo) which some hardcores of cateogry 1 would say are not "true" RPGs
      2.5) FPS with stats/"RPG elements", basically a different take on 2), and again some hardcores of 1) would say are not "true" RPGs

      If we take the words literally, RPG is simply about role playing, and the only (rather thin) separation between an "RPG" and just an adventure game is the stats and combat system

      "RPG" itself is an old culture. The main difference between east and west is, nowadays, a matter of how "open ended" the game is

      The west has "grown" to a fondness of open endedness (they always had it, the west invented table top RPGs), but that can be argued as the west being the "hardcores" and stuck in their table top childhoods, as casuals are folks who get kicks out of $1 tablet/phone games that keep them busy for only a few minutes. Whereas it's only hardcore folks who care to spend hours in a game exploring all that "openness"

    30. Re:The problem is by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you define the term RPG in relation to computers and computer games, (rather than P&P etc. - (since, no, they're not used the same way to represent the same thing)).

      Computer RPGs were invented as a way to capture the pen and paper RPG experience. Any computer RPG that doesn't contain elements that you would find in a pen and paper RPG is not actually an RPG at all.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    31. Re:The problem is by discord5 · · Score: 1

      they are still JRPGs

      It's true that the genre has done few changes to the formula. I recently picked up a few JRPGs after not having played any of them in a few years. I still had some fun playing them. There's a few design decisions gameplay-wise sometimes that really frustrate me (not having control over your party-members, insisting on a terrible skill-up system, ...), and sometimes these games tend to feel like a chore to play through near the end. Some people will complain about the storylines, but to be honest, if you're expecting a western storyline don't play a JRPG.

      Western RPGs keep growing and innovating.

      Well, if you call "dumbing down" innovating. I know this is a somewhat trollish argument, but it's a trend that's really noticeable in the latest batch of games in the past 3-4 years or so. Take Mass Effect 1 vs Mass Effect 2, and you'll notice that they've removed a lot of the options when leveling your character. Bethesda did the same with Morrowind vs Oblivion, and is planning to cut even more options out of Skyrim. Much of the fun in a WRPG for me was tweaking the character just to my liking, and I feel like lately there's been less and less options to allow for that. Some people will like the simplicity, and from a corporate point of view "making things more accessible for a larger audience" is always a good idea, but I have this feeling that WRPGs have lost of bit of their charm.

      Storywise many WRPGs have cut down on the pretext of a deep storyline and devolved into MMO territory : fetch X, kill Y, escort Z. I really like an engaging storyline for my games. Take classics like Baldurs Gate or Planescape: Torment (although that one sometimes went overboard with having more story than gameplay though). Sure, you had the same fetch, kill and escort-type of missions, but they were neatly wrapped in a nice story so that it didn't feel like you were doing Fetch Quest #12. Being out in the middle of nowhere exploring something and finding by pure chance a sidequest, instead of "Oh yeah, you're here for the main story quest, right? Boy oh boy, am I glad to see you, have a sidequest."

      The focus by WRPG developers has shifted from delivering an awesome experience as an RPG to building an RPG-based platform to sell DLC on. I'm not saying that being able to buy extra content is a bad thing, but I'd love to feel like I'm actually buying extra content and not buying content that was left out. Dragon Age : Origins had some DLC that made me think that some stuff had been intentionally cut from the game to sell as DLC. I miss the feeling of having added value with most DLC, like which you had with say the Baldurs Gate expansion.

      Japanese developers are stuck in a time warp

      I think it's more of a matter of grabbing the attention of their target audience, which is mostly Japanese. Sure, a game like Final Fantasy or Persona sells in the west, but if they can't sell it at home their publisher isn't going to bother with trying to get it overseas. I think the problem with JPRGs today is far more complex than "being stuck in a time warp", most likely due to the completely different audiences at home and in the west.

      I like to think that it's kind of like Hollywood, afraid to do something radically different, because if it bombs they'll stand to lose a fuckton of money, while more of the same is "guaranteed" success. But the same can be said about western FPSs, which haven't changed all that much since the more realistic FPS'es have started showing up, and those still sell like mad too.

    32. Re:The problem is by Hatta · · Score: 1

      1) They focus on the fun
      2) They get that RPG's require a good combat and/or loot system
      3) Story and cinematics aren't relied upon for critical acclaim (which most western RPG's do rely on).

      1) How much fun is clicking mindlessly?
      2) Clicking mindlessly is a good combat system?
      3) Agreed!

      The great thing about diablo 1 + 2 was the challenging monsters and the phat loot. All western RPG's have done is bring hollywood to games. Mass effect minus the audio/video and story - the actual game elements (where you participate and have to shoot, not just watch in game cutscenes) is not innovative or creative at all.

      It might suprise you to find out that Western RPGs did not being with Mass Effect. In fact, if you read the parent's posts, he specifically calls out Mass Effect as barely even being an RPG.

      The games the parent poster wants more of are games like Fallout 1 & 2 (The turn based ones!), Pool of Radiance (the original, not Myth Drannor!), The Bard's Tale (again, the 8-bit original), etc. Complex, challenging, and slow games. Games that you can think about and savor for hundreds of hours. Go play Ultima IV and then come back and tell us how non-innovative western RPGs are.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    33. Re:The problem is by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Play more classic western RPGs. You will not win an SSI Gold Box RPG by button mashing.

      I swear, it's like you people have no culture at all.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    34. Re:The problem is by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You act like Western RPGs don't predate JRPGs. They do, and have been out innovating them for decades. It's only in the past 10 years that western RPGs have begun to suck as much as JRPGs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    35. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The games the parent poster wants more of are games like Fallout 1 & 2 (The turn based ones!), Pool of Radiance (the original, not Myth Drannor!), The Bard's Tale (again, the 8-bit original), etc. Complex, challenging, and slow games. Games that you can think about and savor for hundreds of hours. Go play Ultima IV and then come back and tell us how non-innovative western RPGs are.

      I think the fact you and GP can only mention older games as examples of western innovation is proof that western RPGs are no more or less innovative than JRPGs... both have declined compared to "good old days"

    36. Re:The problem is by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Final Fantasy XII and Xenoblade are the two most WRPG-like JRPGs out there. They're like a perfect middle ground between story and exploration. Both of them are very critically acclaimed, too. You should give them a try sometime! This generation has been filled with mostly good-ish RPGs but few truly great ones, aside from Xenoblade/The Last Story/Monster Hunter Tri, and ironically those were released on the Wii, the system that "hardcore" gamers shun all the time.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    37. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, angsty teenage heroes sell. Just look at Twilight. I've read stuff written by grade-school kids that was better (on a technical level) than that monstrosity. My roommate called me a masochist for making myself read it (I don't believe in bashing things unless you've given them a chance). That sure as hell didn't stop it from selling like it was water from the Holy Grail.

      Even as a teen, I didn't see why everyone loved their pathetically angsty characters (you just want to slap them after awhile) but humans, especially teenaged ones, seem to love their dark, depressing drama.

      Having said that, I don't know if it could really be a Final Fantasy game if it wasn't turn based. Still, maybe they just need to accept that they're not only beating a dead horse, they're beating the powder that was once its skeleton before they pounded it into dust.

      Maybe they should bring over more Super Robot Taisen?

    38. Re:The problem is by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      I know as much, I enjoyed Might and Magic 2 more than any other mortal in this planet has enjoyed, but I find most western RPGs to be quite samey, as JRPGs are. The custom character systems take quite a bit from the experience since dialogue tends to be washed up to accommodate your choices. And always the same stock high fantasy races. I can only take so many "by the book" orcs and elves before getting bored of them.

      And despite popular acclaim, I couldn't get into mass effect. Throw me a freaking final boss instead of a blue human-sized thingy that shots lasers and clings to walls. That's "first boss" quality there, not final boss.

      It's not like there are so many new JRPGs nowadays, so I don't get why so much hate towards them, when there are no targets for such hate other than several-year-old examples.

    39. Re:The problem is by Keill · · Score: 1

      Yes - but they made a big mistake, due to not recognising WHY it was called a ROLE-PLAYING game in the first place - i.e. WHAT it had that defined it as such a type of game to begin with, in a manner consistent with what the word game itself represents - and as I said, not knowing and understanding the latter, is therefore the ultimate root cause of this problem, of which everything else is merely a symptom. They DID NOT merely replace the pen and paper with the computer, which is the only consistent method of converting and 'capturing' them, and is why we're having problems...

      (p.s. how do you get italics? (I hate having to use caps all the time :-/ )).

      Types of games are ONLY defined by two things: The medium/media used, and the type of story that can be written.

      The pen and paper are a medium, but merely form a TYPE of RPG, rather than a type of game in general. The RULES, systems and mechanics of a game, in and for themselves, are SUBJECTIVE, and cannot be used to define a type of game at all - merely supporting the identity of an individual game based on their application. The type of written story they ENABLE, CAN be used to define a TYPE of game, but that's NOT what has happened here, and is why we're having problems.

      It's the act of a PERSON PLAYING THE ROLE OF A CHARACTER (in conjunction with and ADDITION TO any other media, such as dice/pen and paper and whatever systems and mechanisms, such as the D20 system etc.), that defines such an activity as a TYPE of game, based on such a MEDIUM being used.

      But such a label is not being perceived, recognised or understood in a manner that is consistent with such use and definitions of types of games in general - which is why it is now used inconsistently and incorrectly, and is causing so many problems. Based on its use outside of computers - the term RPG, should only have a very limited use and meaning for computer games - since computers CANNOT enable such role-play by themselves - they're not powerful enough, yet - which leaves multi-player games using computers as the medium to enable such role-playing BETWEEN PEOPLE as the only possible method by which computer-based RPG's can consistently exist - replacing the pen and paper with the computer.

      Unfortunately, by confusing a medium for mechanics, systems and rules, and then trying to shoehorn it into a type of written story that isn't suitable for such a label, a lot of the power, scope and potential of computer games is not being fully recognised and understood. I can define furniture as being only made out of wood all I like - but that doesn't mean I'll be correct in relation to how the rest of the language is used. Unfortunately, if everyone then only starts recognising furniture if it's made out of wood, and not metal, plastic or glass, we're going to lose something...

      Furniture is defined by it's function, not the materials or process used to make it.
      Games are defined by the behaviour they are designed to enable - which IS their function - not the rules or media used to enable it in the first place.

      Although types of furniture can be LABELLED by such materials, and types of games can be LABELLED by the media being used - they have no impact on their definitions AS furniture or games in general, which is why such terms are used in ADDITION to, in COMBINATION WITH, the words game and furniture themselves, optionally, based on their subjective application.

      --
      'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
    40. Re:The problem is by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You're just stuck in the past. There's no doubt a kid similar to you when you were a kid, enjoying today's games just as much as you enjoyed them, who will say the same thing as he gets older. Every generation does this. What makes you think your generation was special?

    41. Re:The problem is by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      angsty teenage heroes

      Hey, don't you realize that those obviously closeted homosexuals are on a never-ending quest to SAVE THEIR GIRLFRIENDS!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    42. Re:The problem is by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      Storywise, yes, but the gameplay is...odd. I hadn't played FF6, for example, till recently, but when I did I wasn't that impressed. fights were just a static image, with no animation, just standing in for the actual monster like an avatar. Given that other rpgs had fully animated encounters, it seemed quite lazy.

    43. Re:The problem is by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      It also had no major competition on the ps2. the only other MMO was EQOA, which was simplified to the point of being insulting to EQ 1 players, and had serious game design issues of its own, such as a lack of quests, lack of loot tables for most of the world, or unique armor/weapon designs. About the only plus the game had was it was zoneless, despite the massive, for the day, world size.

    44. Re:The problem is by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      One person playing a game and disliking it is not enough evidence to overturn whole committees of experts oppinions.
      You did not like it, that is fine. But it does not change my opinion.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    45. Re:The problem is by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      To be fair, monster hunter tri was a wii release because Capcom is too lazy to make a proper next gen engine for the game. It's basically been the same ps2 engine since day 1, with most of the same art assets. The ps3's only entry, for example, is a PSN HD port of the last PSP game.

    46. Re:The problem is by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Nothing makes my generation particularly special, I am simply giving my opinion on a game series.
      The latest entries are crap compared to the first bunch, this is my opinion and the opinion of most other game journalists (btw I am a amateur gaming journalist and gaming magazine editor), who incidentally span many ages and generations.
      I do have a opinion of games getting better or worst in general over the years, but that has nothing to do with FF6 being better then FF 14.

      I do not see how your argument makes sense, it seems taking your logic If I had said the opposite then I would be stupid kid who thinks nothing old is worth trying or good at all compared to our current creations.
      But in reality there are people who can, at least moderately well, tell the quality of a item and say without much bias that The Shawshank Redemption is better then The Hangover Part II, Robinson Crusoe is still worth reading, or that FF3 is one of the best RPGs of all time and Square Enix itself admits that FF14 is shit.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    47. Re:The problem is by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I've played the older Final Fantasy games. There's plenty of tedium in them and they don't really hold up well in terms of gameplay. If they came out today there wouldn't be anything special about them.

      They were good for the time, but I see a consistent pattern of people getting older and rejecting anything new while glorifying the past.

    48. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the games were good, and they're still good. The early FFs were all remade in one form or another (most recent one being the FF4 one early this year), and receive generally positive reviews

      No, the remakes aren't "special" and they aren't record breaking/game of the year good, but they're still GOOD games on their own. Not many games can be re-released (with minimal updates) years from now and say the same.

      Besides, we live in an age where flash/phone/tablet games have a market. People can be entertained by simple, repetitive gameplay, so I don't think people - especially kids - would be too fickle over the tediousness of old RPGs, especially not old JRPGs which are a shadow of the complexity of some old western RPGs

      I would say you're the one displaying a consistent pattern of rejecting and downplaying the praise and recognition that old games receive

    49. Re:The problem is by genner · · Score: 1

      I disagree, FF 1 thru 7 and still classics, it is when they changed and "innovated" that they went downhill.

      FF8 was an awesome game. The level of difficulty just placed it our of the casual players reach.

    50. Re:The problem is by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      I moved to the roguelike genre, which is very alive, even if they are still stuck with the same boring high fantasy clichés the western RPGer is so fond of.

    51. Re:The problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there really?

      When's the last game that was released that brought something truly new to the table?

      I mean really, truly new. You can apply the same logic to movies, btw.

      You'll find that about 1% of stuff is innovative, and 99% is just rehashing of familiar shit. (very scientific numbers here, fellows)

    52. Re:The problem is by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      I love 8, and 12 is fantastic as well; But I am not sure if either of them are quite classics.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    53. Re:The problem is by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      The irony of that statement.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    54. Re:The problem is by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well tedium can be good. All FF games have grinding and grinding is not necessarily bad. Grinding makes a game more realistic, you don't just go form ordinary Joe to god slayer after slaying two wild boars in RL and you don't in JRPGs either.

      But switching from the specific to the general.
      "They were good for the time, but I see a consistent pattern of people getting older and rejecting anything new while glorifying the past."
      Well a lot of that is due to new games getting made worse then games used to be. This guy explains it far more convincingly then I could (http://www.exigentduality.com/index.php?post=1010)

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    55. Re:The problem is by Raenex · · Score: 1

      This guy explains it far more convincingly then I could

      He talks about some great games from years past.

      http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/12/20-best-games-2010/?pid=783&viewall=true

      From that list I'd pick out Heavy Rain, Red Dead Redemption, StarCraft II, Bayonetta, and DeathSpank as games I'm familiar with and was impressed by. Every year there are quality games being made.

  4. Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by Beelzebud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No such thing as brand dilution. No sir. At no point did they stretch the brand thin.

    1. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the other FF branded games that don't contain numbers. Crystal Chronicles and Tactics, and probably some others I can't think of.

    2. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Just from memory, you've got the 14 numbered games, X-2 and XIII-2, three Tactics titles (Tactics, Advanced, and A2), Crystal Chronicles, Mystic Quest, the three game Legends series for the Gameboy, the three VII spin-offs, the Dissidia fighters (2 of them) + another fighter with a different name that I forget.

      That's 30 right there. I'm sure there are more. That's more games than there are in the Madden series!

    3. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      I've never played XIV. The dress up game of X2 made me stay away from FF.

    4. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew I saved that list of Final Fantasy games for a reason. The following is a list of 73 titles that are either main games or spin-off games. It does not include re-releases on other platforms, but does include re-releases that added content. It's also incomplete.

      Final Fantasy
      Final Fantasy II
      Final Fantasy Origins
      Final Fantasy I-II
      Final Fantasy Dawn of Souls
      Final Fantasy III
      Final Fantasy IV
      Final Fantasy IV: The After Years
      Final Fantasy IV: The Complete Collection
      Final Fantasy V
      Final Fantasy VI
      Final Fantasy VII
      Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII
      Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII
      Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII
      Dirge of Cerberus: Lost Episode: Final Fantasy VII
      Final Fantasy VIII
      Final Fantasy IX
      Final Fantasy X
      Final Fantasy X-2
      Final Fantasy XI
      Final Fantasy XII
      Final Fantasy XIII
      Final Fantasy XIII-2
      Final Fantasy Versus XIII
      Final Fantasy Type-0
      Final Fantasy XIV
      Ehrgeiz
      Final Fantasy Mystic Quest
      Final Fantasy Dissidia
      Final Fantasy Dissidia 012
      Final Fantasy: The 4 Heroes of Light
      Final Fantasy Legends
      Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon
      Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon 2
      Chocobo World
      Chocobo Stallion
      Chocobo Racing
      Dice de Chocobo
      Working Chocobo
      Chocobo Land: A Game of Dice
      Choco-Mate
      Chocobo de Mobile
      Chocobo Panic
      Chocobo's Crystal Tower
      Chocobo Racing 3D
      Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon
      Final Fantasy Fables: Cid and Chocobo's Dungeon DS+
      Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo Tales
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: Echoes of Time
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a Darklord
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers
      Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: My Life as a King - Everyone's Kingdom
      Dragon Quest & Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Special
      Dragon Quest & Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Portable
      Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Mobile
      Kingdom Hearts
      Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories
      Kingdom Hearts re:Chain of Memories
      Kingdom Hearts II
      Kingdom Hearts coded
      Kingdom Hearts re:coded
      Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
      Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep
      Kingdom Hearts Dream Drop Distance
      Kingdom Hearts III
      Final Fantasy Adventure
      Final Fantasy Legend
      Final Fantasy Legend II
      Final Fantasy Legend III

      Note: Final Fantasy Legends is a cellphone game. Final Fantasy Legend is an entirely different GameBoy game. They're not one game listed twice.

    5. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by jargonburn · · Score: 1

      That's a shame. You might reconsider. I stayed away from X-2 for a while after hearing similar things. I finally bought the game, and found that it was actually quite fun...Dress-Spheres, Garment Grids, Accessories and all!

    6. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels."

      It wasn't the sequels that did them in, it was that each game in the series progressively was getting worse because game development kept getting more expensive and difficult (shinier graphics = more time and money). So final fantasy went from being decent games developers could spend time to polish (last one being roughly FF7, but even FF7 you can notice declines in quality from earlier games) to stories wrapped in garbage gameplay.

      Japanese developers have not dealt with the move to high definition games. Their teams were good and experienced at making 2D JRPG's they never made a good transition to 3D very well at all. This isn't something that is just about final fantasy, every single JRPG suffered as developers moved to 3D. Few games did it correctly and those that did do it correctly were lost in the shuffle - Rogue galaxy is one of those games that is actually one of the last best JRPG's I've played.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Galaxy

    7. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Something that irked me was lack of continuation. After so many sequels you'd kind of like to see some of the same faces instead of having to readjust to everyone all over again. Dirge of Cerberus was kind of a nice spinoff like that IMHO.

      Something else that kills me with the FF series now is how friggin long it takes to play. I'm pretty sure I got up to roughly 200+ hours in FF12 and finally said "fuck this noise". FF8 I think may have been around 80 and that pushing it. There was actually a /. article on this recently and it was suggested that gamers were wanting longer and longer games. Really? Am I just a weird guy who'd like to beat a game in a handful of solid weekends instead of a whole damned year's worth?

    8. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rogue galaxy is one of those games that is actually one of the last best JRPG's I've played.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Galaxy

      That's not Skies of Arcadia.

    9. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beat FF8 in 52 hours my first time, and that was after spending a generous amount of time leveling up squall. More and more games nowadays are being developed as movies; you've got some kids that get games like black ops just to kill nazi zombies all day (and some never even play story mode), and then other gamers that get a game for the story and fall in love with it, and to play the game in its entirety. I don't think rpg games are made for the former at all. Personally, I'd prefer a game that keeps challenging me even after I finish it, and isn't one that i can beat in a single weekend.

    10. Re:Yeah I'm sure it wasn't 13+ sequels. by billcopc · · Score: 1

      I'm kinda with you. I don't have nearly as much time to play these stupid long games as I once did, and even back in my pre-career years, I still rarely finished any RPG because they were too damned long.

      What I do like is the (recent?) trend of a game that you can beat once, and if you feel like it, you can play through it again with all your gear to reach an even higher level, collect doodads you may have missed, or explore alternate questlines. Borderlands comes to mind, as does Mass Effect. You can "beat" the game in a dozen hours or so, or you can continue for 100% completion if you wish to appease your OCD demons.

      I've played many a game where I resorted to cheats and save editors, to buff my characters and speed through the rest of the storyline. FF7 was one of them, because for whatever reason, I never got through to the end until a few years ago. I would play to the halfway point, then life would get in the way, or my idiot nephews would overwrite my save file, or when the PC version came along I'd just plain forget to back it up upon formatting... So one day I pulled out the save editor, gave myself a bunch of maxed-out materias and stat points, edited the stupid Knights Of The Round animation down to two seconds, and killed those emo demons once and for all. Closure, at long last. That's what I want out of a game: satisfaction. I want some kind of reward for my effort, not just a longer list of things to grind. If I feel like grinding, fine, but the boring stuff should be optional. If it's not, I'll cheat to bypass it.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  5. I just don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could you spend so many millions on a game without springing for a competent game designer? I mean seriously....how can a relatively successful game producer make such a colossal flop? Sure...anyone can try something a bit experimental and have it not pan out, but this game failed in so many ways. Further, they were failures that should have been outright obvious from the get-go as failures to anyone who has spent any time at all in the industry.

    Did they give the job to someone's son or something? With no oversight?

    I am honestly baffled as to how they could have dropped the ball this badly
     

    1. Re:I just don't understand by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rumor had it that they outsourced development to China. Chocobos were, for a while, horsebirds, but this was later corrected to "chocopo". (Ads on the linked site NSFW).

      Better yet, the collector's edition included a tumbler which could be "damaged" by "items including salt and solid materials, carbonated beverages, milk or other dairy beverages, fruit juices, etc." Not sure how that made it through QC.

      Then again, Sankaku Complex just really doesn't like China, so it's possible Squeenix just dun goofed. Perhaps after (more than) 14 final fantasies, this was their game design. Anyone who knew for sure what happened met seppuku.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    2. Re:I just don't understand by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Their past attempts at outsourcing to China didn't go very well either. The GBA port of FFIV was done by a Chinese team and it was slow and buggy as all hell. After that they did all the other GBA ports with Japanese programmers......

  6. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by BKX · · Score: 1

    A chocobo is a giant chicken that you can ride.

  7. No Chocobos and Airstrips? OF COURSE! by Jayfield · · Score: 2

    I haven't even played this game but I'm quite positive that the lack of airships and chocobos (which I'm about as fond of as Cait Sith and Moglies) is not the problem here.

  8. FFX killed it for me by dicobalt · · Score: 1

    I have played FF since the original on the NES, I really liked FFIX's take on the original character theme. FFX was so weird and boring though, I didn't like the story or the characters or the weird skill sphere thing. Then FFXI was a MMO and I'm not a fan of MMOs because I already have a job. Then I was too busy to even bother with FFXII, I still have a PS2 though, maybe I will give it a try as it looks like people like FFXII.

    1. Re:FFX killed it for me by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      FFXII is basically a single-player MMO. The engine and game mechanics seem to be borrowed from XI, and the big side quests are all tedious monster hunting. I found the story to be substandard, partly because there wasn't much to it, and partly because every story event was separated by hours of grinding the aforementioned side quests.

      Reviews can be very misleading. Metal Gear Solid 4 gets 4.5 stars on Amazon, but I have literally seen high school students write, direct, and act better than those cut scenes. It's that bad. I read somewhere that a lot of gamers don't even watch cut scenes. Maybe that explains it.

      --
      Visit the
    2. Re:FFX killed it for me by manwargi · · Score: 1

      If you didn't like FFX and you don't like MMOs I would recommend against XII, as it gets much worse. Between almost any given location you will have to traverse vast stretches of land swarming with enemies that your characters will mostly be fighting for you, due to the gambit system's deal of automating what characters do during an encounter. It's a long, tedious game that IMHO, involves a lot of suffering in between cut scenes.

    3. Re:FFX killed it for me by drummerboybac · · Score: 1

      I have played all of the Final Fantasy Games with the exception of XI(Finished all but IIj and VIII), and I I actually really enjoyed FFX. I personally like the customizable level up aspect in FF-X and FF12. The gambits in FF12 arent for everyone, but the performance-tuning nerd in we was entertained by them.

  9. Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The damage to the FF brand really started with XIII. XIV only made it worse.

    1. Re:Damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The damage started LONG before XIII...

    2. Re:Damage by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      It depends on who you ask. I remember when the first one came out. For most of my friends and family who have played those earlier ones, 7 killed the series.

      However, for my younger brother and others I know for whom 7 was the first experience with the series, it made the series.

      For the people who didn't think 7 killed it, 9 was the pinnacle and 10 killed it.

      For me, I liked 10 and 10-2. I also liked 12 because it was different. (I've never played 11 or any other MMO.)

      13 is a steaming pile. I played it. And played it. And played it. And kept waiting for it to 'open up'. The way the earlier ones always wait to make you play by forcing you along a certain track and only letting you play 5 seconds here or there out of the first 30 minutes of the 'game' was always the worst part, but I could always make it through that and then pretty much enjoy the game. That *is* the game with 13. IT. NEVER. OPENS. UP.

      14? WhoTF cares? It's like the GP says, it's not a FF title. It's an MMO with a FF name there to sell it.

    3. Re:Damage by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      GP == the OP of another thread I read :)

  10. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by dido · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chocobos are a species of giant, normally flightless bird sort of like ostriches or large chickens, that have basically appeared in one form or another in every Final Fantasy since Final Fantasy II (and now XIV should have them too). They are most often used as mounts, but some have magical abilities as well. One example of their appearance is in Final Fantasy VII, where the party has to capture a chocobo which they can ride across a swamp inhabited by a swift and deadly serpent monster. Crossing the swamp on foot without getting attacked by the serpent is all but impossible, and the serpent is too powerful to be defeated at the levels your characters are when they reach that point, but mounted on a chocobo your party can move fast enough to escape the serpent and reach the caves beyond.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  11. It's a lot better now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It isn't perfect or anywhere near it. The economy is still nonexistant. There is basically infinitesimal endgame content. The UI still needs a lot of work. But it certainly doesn't deserve mouth breathers trolling about it day in and day out. My wife and I enjoy it. Things are improving a lot. The communication is absolutely lightyears beyond where things were a year ago. The fact that they're still running it without money a year later shows that they're dedicated to making it work for the PS3 release. Most botched MMOs don't live that long. Hell, even highly rated MMOs don't last that long. Are people still playing Aion? Rift? TERA?

    1. Re:It's a lot better now. by Tridus · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, and yes?

      Comparing Rift to the abortion that is FFXIV is laughably ridiculous. XIV is one of the worst games to come out in years, and has taken a year of work post-launch to get up to the level of "poor".

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    2. Re:It's a lot better now. by jasonla · · Score: 1

      Uhh. Yes, RIFT is doing quite well and is preparing to release a new major patch.

  12. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the summary had defined chocobos I think there would have been a bunch of comments asking "why the hell did you define chocobo? Isn't this slashdot?". I honestly think on this site it would be considered "common knowledge".

  13. How many would still play Asheron's Call 3? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3

    Asheron's Call 1 sometimes comes up as best MMORPG ever. I played both AC1 and WOW, and AC1 was far more exciting. AC1 let you dodge arrows and magic if you were agile enough. AC1 wasn't the perfect MMORPG, drain health1 broke the game by itself, but it seemed worlds more fun than WOW. AC1 had free updates and they happened every month. AC1 had a bigger explorable area when you're low level, not containing you to zones. If your stats were primed enough, your low level could take on things far outside your level, not using some artificial level comparison rule(if monster over 7 levels, you can't hit it).

    However AC1 died when AC2 came out. AC2 was flawed in many major ways such as armor didn't work very well, and fighting in a group is much more profitable, especially with a tactician. People went from AC1 to AC2 and when AC2 flopped, people didn't flood back to AC1.
    So AC2 hurt the franchise far worse than if it was never released at all. Still, I think people are not sour on Asheron Call series. I bet if they'd release an AC3 similar to AC1, but with several basic things fixed, they'd be set.

    Sadly this probably will never be since they made LOTRO, and forgot what made AC1 awesome, and adopted WOW game design laziness.

    1. Re:How many would still play Asheron's Call 3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod Up insightful. I've played many MMO's over the years, and even though I was really blown away by WOW in the beginning, the plain and simple elegance and rough shod feed to AC1 cannot be understated. I can remember the feeling of being in the middle of nowhere at next to no life running my ass away from some monster because the death penalties in that game were no joke. I can't say it was a very socialized game which may have detracted from some possible players, but probably the best MMO in its own time that I've played.

    2. Re:How many would still play Asheron's Call 3? by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      I'd jump into a revamped AC1 with updated graphics.

    3. Re:How many would still play Asheron's Call 3? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Still, I think people are not sour on Asheron Call series. I bet if they'd release an AC3 similar to AC1, but with several basic things fixed, they'd be set.

      Would people play AC3 if it felt like a mash-up of Asheron's Call, Assassin's Creed, Armored Core, and Animal Crossing?

    4. Re:How many would still play Asheron's Call 3? by troc · · Score: 1

      Only if one of the classes you could play was an Anonymous Coward :)

      --
      Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
  14. The Square-Enix merger was the end. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with all of the above, except that FFX was one of my favorite games in the series, rivaling VI as my favorite.

    However, I generally haven't liked anything put out under the Final Fantasy brand after the Square-Enix merger (except for FFTA & FFTA2). While the DQ series of games has done well post-merger, and KH was surprisingly fun, FF has pretty much gone straight into the crapper, IMO. FF12 was pretty good up until the halfway point, at which the plot fell apart under the weight of tedious side-quests and poor pacing, and I don't even want to go into FF13. Plus, I've never liked MMOs at all, so FFXI & FF14 never appealed to me. And don't get me started on FFX-2, Dirge of Cerberus, Revenant Wings, and other half-hearted spin-offs.

    1. Re:The Square-Enix merger was the end. by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

      I loved I, IV, VI, VII, IX, and X. I'm still working on XIII, and haven't bothered with the MMO ones -- I have no interest in MMOs.

      I've been saying for years: if someone came out with a game with a story as engaging as say, FF VI or FF VII or Earthbound, I wouldn't care if it were still in 16 bit graphics. I still break out the Earthbound and FF VI occasionally to re-play because they were great games with great story lines.

      Graphics are nice and all, but I'll take gameplay and story line any day of the week over them.

    2. Re:The Square-Enix merger was the end. by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      I loved I, IV, VI, VII, IX, and X. I'm still working on XIII, and haven't bothered with the MMO ones -- I have no interest in MMOs.

      I've been saying for years: if someone came out with a game with a story as engaging as say, FF VI or FF VII or Earthbound, I wouldn't care if it were still in 16 bit graphics. I still break out the Earthbound and FF VI occasionally to re-play because they were great games with great story lines.

      Graphics are nice and all, but I'll take gameplay and story line any day of the week over them.

      I have high hopes for FF XIII-2, if only because they publicly labeled it as wanting to "fix" FFXIII's mistakes. They even named some of the worst offenders with the game: railroad plot, and too much focus on the story rather than the characters (they also talked about governance issues, but I can't speak to that). I just hope they also work on dialogue, too; I don't know if all that sounded better in Japanese, but the English translation was some of the corniest, cheesiest drivel I've ever heard. The characters were engaging and complex people... right up until they opened their mouths, and they all became annoying mental patients. Ugh.

  15. Arglebargle... FF6 better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, in a nutshell...
    FF1-5 = Good pre-steampunk overkill. Nice balance of traditional JRPG, not terribly grindy.
    FF6 = Awesome, for cripes sake if Square wants to remake a game and haven't got sick of the FF7 weeaboos, do FF6. FF6's principal win was that you could play ANY of the characters, not just "leader + 2 others", and you could train them to have EVERYTHING except the one unique skill.
    FF7 = builds on where FF6 was good, but introduced certain elements too early (pre-rendered game backgrounds , yuck. Also yuck in FF8 and FF9) Although they were good, the pre-rendered worlds pretty much killed the exploration bit that made the previous 6 awesome.
    FF8 = Was more character driven, but it was basically FF7 with some time travel related elements. This is when FF started to go down hill as it started introducing annoying minigames (With FFX taking the cake for annoyingly stupid minigames)

    However there's been no PS3 Final Fantasy game. FF13, stepped away from the pre-rendered backgrounds of the previous games but didn't introduce any free world except for the one excessively large random-monster field. You couldn't go back and do anything.

    FF11, I didn't play, and FF14 I bought, but... good god what were they thinking. The game is a god damned chore to play, has nothing but ugly customization and even worse clothing. If it wasn't for the world being open (albeit repetitive copy-paste) I'd have quit playing during the open beta. After beta I bought it, but was deeply disappointed as the RMT bots took over quickly.

    1. Re:Arglebargle... FF6 better by billcopc · · Score: 2

      Annoyingly stupid minigames built on an unresponsive RPG walkabout engine ? Yep. I hated FFX to death for that dumb chocobo race thing near the Monster Arena... the one where you had to catch balloons or something. I mean, What In The Tentacled Fuck Son ? This isn't a driving game, it's an RPG. Give me a list of actions and I'll choose one. "Action: Skip stupid minigame" *click*

      Some people find these Japanese elements cute and quirky. I find them, well, brain-damaged. Japanese culture is just a weird mish-mash of rampant consumerism, OCD, and non-existent self-esteem. It seems every game is about collecting useless things, moping about teenage existential ignorance, and fighting so-called bullies that look like they just got voted off America's Got Talent.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  16. Completely Enix's fault by jasonla · · Score: 2

    Ever since the merger, the company's games have been shit, and I completely blame the Enix side of the family. Square Co. produced some of the most memorable and genre defining games, such as FF, Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, Secret of Mana/Evermore. (full list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Square_games). WTF has Enix ever released that was as noteworthy or even approaches the quality of Square?

    1. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Marurun · · Score: 1

      Dragon Warrior, Illusion of Gaia, Terranigma, E.V.O. Search For Eden, Star Ocean, Wonder Project J, and so forth. Enix didn't just stick to your common RPG where you had menus and went around finding enemies to level up, but instead took a more creative approach to change how you played the game. Many of their games were never seen outside of Japan, yet since being fan translated many are considered just as appealing. Since their merger though I've yet to see anything creative come out of the company. Even before the merger it still felt like Square was trying to milk all they could out of the already perfectly received gameplay and story basis used in the FF series. And then when they were being creative(like with The World Ends With You) it felt like FFVII all over again with different artwork and themes involved.

    2. Re:Completely Enix's fault by ThosLives · · Score: 2

      I think I have to agree with this. Although, I think XII was pretty decent; given its style, though, I think it was done by the teams involved with Tactics and Vagrant Story which were, if I recall correctly, before the merger.

      XIII reminds me of Xenosaga II and III, which both destroyed the awesome Xenosaga (I) with its crazy linear gameplay and "narrative" loading screens.(Seriously - the story should come out during gameplay, not a loading screen!)

      So, yes; while I purchased XIII, I think that's probably it for me. (Personally I fall into the camp that has VI as the favorite.)

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    3. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since the merger, the company's games have been shit, and I completely blame the Enix side of the family. Square Co. produced some of the most memorable and genre defining games, such as FF, Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, Secret of Mana/Evermore. (full list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Square_games). WTF has Enix ever released that was as noteworthy or even approaches the quality of Square?

      Dragon Quest and ActRaiser to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Enix_games
      Also Star Ocean. (If anyone tries to pop in and say the game ran like shit and had tons of glitches I'll bop em, cause the worst of those problems only crop up in emulators.)

      I'm not sure if Enix is wholly to blame, as Square was kind of questionable before they merged. (Final Fantasy X and XI, and X-2 though to be honest X-2 was right before they merged)

    4. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try looking up the list of games made by Enix, then the dev teams that worked on SE's terrible games. Do a little research before placing blame; you'll sound less like a pre-teen fangirl.

    5. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XII was in the same world as Vagrant Story & FF Tactics.

      If I remember the timeline, Vagrant Story > War of the Lions (Tactics) > FF XII

      FFXIII whole heartedly destroyed my faith in the Final Fantasy brand.... many hours of screaming at the retarded AI for not correctly prioritising heals. For those who didn't play you can only control the primary character if this lead character dies, game over (But it's just fine if the other two people die).

      I still actively play FFXI, I tried the Beta for XIV and it I think using the word terrible to describe it tarnishes the good name of some other terrible games.

      If you want to play a half decent but very complicated game try out Last Remnant you'll notice the menu system graphics are very similar to FFXIII because this game "was" suppose to be FFXIII before it was renamed due to it's complexities.

    6. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you serious? At least in Japanese markets, Enix's Dragon Quest series is legendary. It never became as popular outside of Japan, but it still has a decent following and has definitely had a cultural impact -- you would recognize a DQ slime, yes? "Quality of Square" is also a pretty ironic statement, since FF6 and 7 were some of the buggiest games you'll ever see with their sales numbers.

      That being said, the merge was the worst thing to happen to both companies. Square was great. Enix was great. Square Enix has been nothing but a disappointment.

    7. Re:Completely Enix's fault by ildon · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. If anything, I think Enix helped stave off Square's stagnation for a little while, rather than the other way around.

    8. Re:Completely Enix's fault by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Final Fantasy XII is tied with X on Metacritic as the #2 Final Fantasy game of all time. The only bad-scoring FF and DQ title to be released since the merger was FFXIV. A little more evidence on your part would be nice because your claim doesn't exactly fit with reality. Sure you have the right to dislike these games, I'm not contesting that, but when pretty much all of the critics liked the game, maybe you're approaching it from the wrong angle.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    9. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely disagree. Enix always was superior to Squaresoft, and remains the superior part of the company. The fact that Enix basically bought out Squaresoft in the "merger" is pretty telling. It was only called a "merger" for Squaresoft to save some face. Further, if anything, Enix's involvement only made the quality of Squaresoft's offerings go up- for instance, Squaresoft never once re-made a game before the "merger", they only ported it and slapped a crappy FMV on it. Now they do remakes in the Enix style (see the remakes of DQ1-6 on the SFC, GBA and DS for examples), and most of them are pretty good.

      No, Squaresoft started sucking when they released FF7 and The Spirits Within. FFX didn't help much either. But the merger with Enix has only helped the formerly great company.

      And as for what Enix has created, Dragon Quest alone outclasses everything Squaresoft ever did. They invented the jRPG- without them copying Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy would likely never have existed, Squaresoft would never have survived the inevitable bankruptcy, and none of your favorite early/mid 90s Squaresoft (when Squaresoft was actually GOOD) games would have ever been made. Dragon Quest is part of the culture of Japan, Final Fantasy is nothing.

      (Also, Secret of Evermore was a Squaresoft of America creation, and the reason we never got Seiken Densetsu 3. Talk about internal company issues.)

    10. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Tanareed · · Score: 1

      Enix is a publishing house as well as a developer; most of the games you listed weren't touched by them except as a publisher. It'd be a bit like crediting Activision for Blizzard's stuff, or THQ for Relic's stuff.

      Soul Blader/IoG/Terranigma were by Quintet.
      Star Ocean/Valkyrie Profile were by Tri-Ace.
      E.V.O./Wonder Project J were by Almanic.

      Enix does get props for Dragon Warrior, though, which is the single biggest JRPG franchise in Japan, and which basically created the entire genre. Even there, though, they didn't develop the first games in the series (which were by Chunsoft).

    11. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      I thought Xeno 3 was excellent, but Xeno 2 was terrible. Xeno 2 killed the series, and caused xeno 3-5 to be merged into a single game.

    12. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has Enix released that is as noteworthy or high quality as a Squaresoft product? How about the Dragon Warrior series, ActRaiser, Illusion of Gaia, Ogre Battle, Terranigma, and the first 2 Star Ocean games? If you look at the FF series through rose-colored glasses, nothing can compare, but sit down some day and actually play thrrough again and compare to one of the above mentioned Enix games

    13. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people responsible for the games you remember fondly were forced out after their financially disastrous decision to make that FF movie that was the reason Square needed Enix to buy them to stay afloat. That crowd is now making games under the Mistwalker brand.

    14. Re:Completely Enix's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dragon Quest.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enix

  17. At this point... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

    At this point it's hard to tell if they're earnestly trying to polish a turd, or if they simply don't know shit from Shinola.

  18. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by ben_kelley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh great. It hardly seems worth even starting playing the series now that you have totally spoiled Final Fantasy VII for me!

  19. Ehrgeiz by tepples · · Score: 1

    FF Legend is a rebadged SaGa, and FF Mystic Quest is a spinoff from FF Legend. The other fighter might have been Ehrgeiz (rhymes with "air kites"), which had some FFVII characters. Fast fact: Square's PS1 fighting games developed by Dream Factory (Ehrgeiz and Tobal No. 1) were among the few PS1 games to run at 60 fps and 480i; most games for that system ran at 30 fps or less and 240p.

  20. No it didnt by Tharsman · · Score: 1

    Lets be honest: mostly no one ever accepted the MMOs as official Final Fantasy games despite them being numbered. Yes, the game is horrible, and likely many will never again touch a SquareEnix MMO ever again (I gave them too much credit expecting them to not be capable of doing worse than FFXI again.)

    But the Final Fantasy brand HAS been damaged big time and it had little to do with XIV. It was the horrendous XIII that had those honors. I think to this day I have not met a single Final Fantasy fan (in person, online I have seen very very few) that has not hated that long corridor game.

    Now, I am talking from a western perspective. Perhaps the japanese market took the online games seriously? Doubt it but who knows.

    1. Re:No it didnt by lbbros · · Score: 1

      not be capable of doing worse than FFXI again.

      At least from a commercial perspective, XI is not bad at all, being still in operation and (partially) developed. Having played it for about 7 years, I would add that it was not that bad despite clearly a very unrewarding set up. In particular, the main scenario (and even more in particular the Chains of Promathia expansion) are well worth the FF name.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
    2. Re:No it didnt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XIII is only terrible. XIV is terrible and bleeds cash through non-revenue producing servers. An MMO that produces $0 revenue from either subs or cashshop, and has SE's flagship name on it? XIV is the bigger embarrassment.

      The only way for Square Enix to save face now is to terminate this game, cut their financial losses, and forget this turd ever existed. Forget repairing XIV. It's time to save the franchise and the company at this moment. Stop throwing good money after bad.

    3. Re:No it didnt by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      FFXI's major problem now is that it's run into a brick wall with the limitations on the Playstation 2. Unless SE drops PS2 support and reprograms it from the ground up, it literally cannot expand any further. NPCs have to be shifted around constantly because of memory limitations. There is a maximum of 255 zone IDs, of which 246 are already in use. While the PC and Xbox users have had some minor graphical tweaks, it can never go onto the Crystal engine so long as it's tied to the PS2. I believe SE is waiting until Sony announces the end of support for PS2 before they call it quits for good.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  21. Not quite by krizoitz · · Score: 1

    You know what harmed the brand? Final Fantasy XI, XII, XIII AND XIV. Changing the basic formula of "you control a party and its actions in battles" and going with completely linear game play and odd online experiences killed Final Fantasy. X was the last game that embraced the Final Fantasy brand, since then its been throwing crap at the wall hoping it will stick. These games are Final Fantasy in name only, the magic, the SOUL is gone. Long gone.

    1. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In XII, you control a party as well (and their actions in battle) ... what are you talking about?

    2. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XII was the most nonlinear FF in recent memory--you can explore most of the world after escaping from the Leviathan, which is only about 1/4 into the main storyline.

    3. Re:Not quite by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      The soul is there in FFXI, you just have to endure a bit of grind before you get to it. FFXI actually has four major expansions that are old school FF game quality storylines in their own right. SE did manage to create a true virtual world in XI - a perpetual breathing landscape that is ever changing, with memorable NPC characters (anyone who completed Chains of Promathia knows and loves Prishe dearly) and a lot of meat to dig through. It doesn't hurt that after XIV tanked, the developers got the green light to "break" FFXI in all the right ways. It's really only been in the last year that the game has come into its own as a mature, fully developed MMO. (Now, we're terrified they'll dump the XIV dev team on XI and ruin all the good things they have done.)

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    4. Re:Not quite by Leuf · · Score: 1

      The battles aren't turn based so you have to rely mainly on the gambit system for all but your main character. If I wanted to play an MMO I would play an MMO. I liked the freaking turn based battles. I liked being able to play a bit while I'm eating dinner without constantly pausing, because that might be the only time I get to play. With the gambit system the simple battles feel like they are just saying, "yes we are completely wasting your time, your participation can be replaced by 3 lines of script." For the more harder battles, either you read a strategy guide to find out how to beat the boss first, or you go in and die so you can learn how to program your characters for the second try. Wow, that's fun.

      As far as it being nonlinear, it really doesn't matter if the linear story lets you stop and wander around the world before continuing with it or not. Nonlinear to me means you get to make actual choices that impact the story.

    5. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried reconfiguring the battle system? IIRC, you can tweak the behavior of it. Also, it's possible to play completely without gambits. Simply leave your gambits empty, or control your characters by hand. You can switch characters at the press of a button, IIRC.

  22. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by Myria · · Score: 1

    Crossing the swamp on foot without getting attacked by the serpent is all but impossible

    I've managed to get past the Midgarsormr in FF7 without a chocobo. It's just timing and a lot of luck.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
  23. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

    and the serpent is too powerful to be defeated at the levels your characters are when they reach that point, but mounted on a chocobo your party can move fast enough to escape the serpent and reach the caves beyond.

    .... OK, and THIS doesn't explain why FF XIV is a failure -- it only explains why I've never played the game in the first place.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  24. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by anonymov · · Score: 1

    Well, this article is about damage to the brand, so it's largely about the fanbase.

    And for FF fans chocobos are a staple, even a bit of mascot, of all FF games since FFII. We've come to expect finding chocobos in every FF and now there are none.

    It's like buying your favourite doughnuts just to find they left the sprinkles out :(

  25. Oh yeah. Airships. That'll fix it. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    I hear they're also going to apply lipstick to all the game's pig models.

  26. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by walkerp1 · · Score: 1

    Heh. I can't be the only one that leveled up long enough to beat the serpent monster before crossing the swamp. I think I finally hit it about L24 when Cloud learned his limit break Finishing Touch.

  27. Dragon Quest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want some continuity, but not obstructive levels of continuity, there is a JRPG franchise that provides precisely that; Dragon Quest. The developers even listened to complaints over the 100+ hour length of Dragon Quest VII and made the sequels shorter.

    Now, don't expect newfangled features like an active time battle system or a complex plot, but if you don't mind selecting all your battle commands from a menu as you defeat a demon lord bent on conquering the world, check it out.

    1. Re:Dragon Quest? by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip. Now if I ever could find a free weekend again.... ;)

  28. Where's Lulu? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

    Well, any fiction this fan would have made certainly would have included Lulu and her busty goth goodness. :3

    You can have the other girls.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    1. Re:Where's Lulu? by BigSes · · Score: 1

      Ew.

  29. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

    Same here... I've always been a powerleveler.

    When I replayed a few of these games more recently, I actually tried to move through without overleveling and it was like a whole new game... sometime a character would actually die fighting a boss, for example. :)

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  30. Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by justforgetme · · Score: 1

    ... I don't know what you guys call mediocre.
    I'm not a big gamer but always make time to to play the newest expansion to the FF franchise (imo only the FF(int) titled games excluding MMORPGs). I have played all of the above mentioned games and, with exception of FFX-2, have been entertained by all of them for many many hours (my usual game times are about 120h).

    FF10 had a great story, beautiful beautiful soundtrack and tons of side quests. I have to admit that side questing was a bit of a grind IMO. Especially those hunting missions I never got finished. That mostly is because I don't like "fetch X" missions though. those missions are a lazy programmers meze

    if(killedAnimals('animalName','X')) mission('title')->completed();

    but anyway, there was lots and lots of other stuff to do and that was much more fun.

    FF12 had an incredibly designed world that was very expansive, it had very well crafted characters. Not to mention a world exploration mechanic and fighting mechanics that made exploring an unprecedented joy. This game wanted you to wander off and discover it yourself. Not to mention hours of falling from one quest into the other. The best part? The sidequests now were less than in FFX but at least they were less grindy, usually well presented with dialogues and back story and very accomplishable. Also while talking about this game lets not forget the Hunting guild, that was an awesome implementation and I was more than happy to see it implemented in FF13 aswell (cie'th stones).

    FF13 is excellent fun if you take it for what it is, a beautiful story in a beautiful world, presented through an interactive interface. FF13 has lots and lots of lore that you acquire during the progression of the storyline. The settings are incredible, the feeling of ascension and manipulation ever present. Most people really didn't get it, because it is such a deviation from the classic jrpg prototype, but you have to look at it (and everything actually) for what it is and not what you want it to be.

    tl;dr version: FF10/12/13 are very good games, just take them for what they are and stop nagging

    --
    -- no sig today
    1. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Agreed for 10 and 12, but 13?

      I could have taped the controller down and beaten 13. In fact I did at one point - IT ADVANCED ME THROUGH OVER 2 HOURS OF THAT THING.

      FF10 and 12 were great.

      FF13 was a movie, and a shitty one at that, in which I had to press "continue" every now and then.

    2. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by somersault · · Score: 1

      you have to look at it (and everything actually) for what it is and not what you want it to be.

      I've never played any FF games and don't have any intention of trying them anytime soon - but after a 12 part series, you're going to be buying the next release for more-of-the-same, not for some art-house experience. You would expect some additions and changes, but if it's enough to turn the majority of the fan base off (as your comment seems to suggest), what's the point?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Police Academy 7 was exactly the same as Police Academy 1. It tanked because after six iterations the recipe wasn't authentic anymore.
      I am not suggesting all successful franchises take the artsy road, I am suggesting that in order to be at the top you have to lead. In order to lead you have to be leading you have to be authentic. In order to be authentic you have to evolve.

      Entertainment is not Ketchup. If SE were pushing out FF1 clones they would have been out of busyness a long time ago. Evolution, great worlds(intellectually) and pushing boundaries are the reasons why they create the most recognized jrpg franchise in history.

      --
      -- no sig today
    4. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      Yes, lock the L stick to the up position and set X to auto fire and eventually you will get to gran pulse.

      If you do that you are missing the point though. FF13 tells a story about being hunted down by prejudice and propaganda, if you pay just enough attention to the world and story and stop thinking "arg, this is not a Final Fantasy" everything will make sense. The corridors add to the feeling of being led on by some undefinable scheme. The static pace and nonexistent room for deviation are the characters' unescapable fate.

      IMO every openly criticized part of the game added to its atmosphere and story the only problem is that people have to stop thinking they are unhappy before they can be happy. In other words: "Stop complaining and enjoy the game already!"

      --
      -- no sig today
    5. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with Square trying different things. I bought Vagrant Story when it came out precisely because it wasn't an FF game (if I played any of them I'd want to start at number 1, even though yes I know the stories usually aren't related). Also the battle system in it was more interesting to me than the FF one.

      My point is that if they are going to try something different, they should do it under another name than FF, rather than destroy their "brand" or people's enjoyment of the series. If their idea works, they can implement it into FF in future.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by Tridus · · Score: 1

      Forget about it not being "Final Fantasy." If you can literally tape the "UP" button down and have a drinking bird hitting X occasionally and get that far into the game with no interaction at all, it's not a "game". It's a movie.

      And it wasn't very enjoyable at all. It would have been better as an actual movie without the pretext of pretending that I'm actually playing it.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    7. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      I agree. I liked 10 and 12 - especially 12.

      12 was the primary reason I bought a PS2 and I have no regrets. I used the PS2 for not much else to be honest.

      However, 13 was a major reason for upgrading to a PS3 - while I don't regret the PS3, I would if it weren't for its media playback capabilities. FF13 was a MASSIVE disappointment.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    8. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There was filler battles with no need for them at all. I probably could have enjoyed it more if it was just cut scene to cut scene instead of actually giving me corridors with random enemies to run into. Throw in the occasional boss fight. Hey, it worked for Xenosaga.

    9. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The corridors add to the feeling of being led on by some undefinable scheme. The static pace and nonexistent room for deviation are the characters' unescapable fate.

      That's the most elaborate excuse for yet-another-fucking-on-rails-Japanese-RPG I've ever heard. You, sir, must be a stand-up philosopher.

      In a similar vein, I would like to point out that all those wooden crates in my favorite FPS represent the boxed-in lives we all lead.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I don't pay $60 to be told a story. A story is not a game. A game that can be completed with a piece of tape and auto-fire is not challenging or interesting enough to play through.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    11. Re:Agreed about the MMORPGs but... by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      well, maybe the (one to many) art exhibitions I was dragged into finally did their damage....

      on the wooden crate thing: that depends, did you break through them in a chestburster fashion?

      --
      -- no sig today
  31. Really? by Zider · · Score: 1

    Am I really the only one that actually LIKES ffxi and ffxiv more than the rest of the ff games?

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    2. Re:Really? by TheyTookOurJobs · · Score: 0

      I'll bend on XI, it was great. Now it's just a mess but that is just because of how much they have added over the last 2-3 years. XIV on the other hand, we were screaming in the beta that it was shit but SE was dead set on ignoring the populace. Now it is listening TOO MUCH.

    3. Re:Really? by WanQiaoYi · · Score: 1

      FFXI was an amazing game and epic in scale. To those of us that invested entirely too much time in the game we learned how deep the game, because nothing was spoon fed to anyone playing the game. And anything earned really felt like an accomplishment. I actually feel grateful that FFIV ended up being crap because I got a lot of time back in my life. Haha I hope Square Enix can turn out another MMO with the complexity and depth of FFXI without required such a significant time commitment to play (like spending 2-3 hours just getting a party together and all the grinding / travel time)

    4. Re:Really? by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      SE fixed the horrible wait times by introducing Level Sync, to allow players of different levels to play together at the same level as one of the party members, and more recently Grounds of Valor dungeon training, to allow 18 people to level in one giant alliance of smashing stuff fun inside dungeons. The combination of the two has made Crawler's Nest and Gusgen Mines the favored leveling spots from level 30 to level 70. These days, you'll probably get an invitation within ten minutes of flagging up, or you can just wait until someone shouts about a party that's forming and join in.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  32. It was a very Japanese game by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The Japanese have a different attitude towards gaming, or at least it appears to us that way. Insane hardmode seems to be done not through AI but by explaining nothing at all. They also don't tend to do PC gaming.

    Having all the configuration outside the game, in a seperate program that doesn't even start up automatically for a first time config... what year is this again? That was the days of DOS. In 2011, PC gamers expect something better.

    Especially in a game where tuning your config is so damned important, increasing resolution in this game didn't cost you a few fps, it turns the game from playable but ugly into pretty but a slideshow, and I MEAN slideshow, 2-3 FPS on a high end machine. The game, when it runs is beautifull in places, especially the characters are gorgeous but you have to run it (for PC) insanely low resolutions. Meanwhile the CPU barely ticks in. You got to wonder just how bad the PS3 really is when a game designed with the PS3 foremost in mind is choking a top end video card but barely touches the CPU. Multi-tasking seems not even to get a look in.

    The entire interface as well is insanely complex, even simple things as a map or chat are a chore. Combat is even less clear with the game STILL taking minutes to register an action.

    And finally the game itself... it is if they google "how to make a fun game" in reverse order and implemented only those ideas that nobody else had because they are not very good ideas.

    FF14 has two good things, the into/presentation is gorgeous and so are the characters and the outfits. Everything else should just be dumped. The entire setup, menu, engine and game is just rotten to the core and shows that you should not allow console freaks to ever get near a PC.

    That they continue working on it and offer the game for free shows that at least they get that they screwed up (Funcom, learn from this) but this is a game only a mother could love and I doubt Square Enix got the money or the skills to fix it. Lets face it, this doesn't require a change of leader, the entire team should be fired and the beta testers hunted down and killed.

    But perhaps this is the fate of of when you have fanboys as beta testers. There are still people defending the game. Probably the same who think consoles are better then PC's because you don't pay a high fee for a high end machine but still must have bought a high end PC besides their PS3 to play this game.

    But we should have been warned, FF11 was in many ways just as bad with the same "WTF were they thinking" approach. Just back then MMO's were still new and players were more open to see if being different for difference sake was going to produce anything interesting. Time has moved on and we now know that this never happens.

    Maybe the next FF online will be made by Bioware, rescuer of badly done licenses in MMO land.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:It was a very Japanese game by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      As a US beta tester we complained considerably and were of course ignored as 'silly north americans' who didn't know how to play a 'real game'... Of course since part of us could in fact never finish downloading a 4 GB 'patch' during beta (it eventually timed out for quite alot of people), some of us could only complain anyways...

      All that said, I love the FF settings (usually), but FF7 & FF8 for PC should have long ago proved they cannot handle a PC game... Which is ironic since I can run both in emulation better than the PC builds Square made...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    2. Re:It was a very Japanese game by sirroc · · Score: 1

      I started in in the first alpha test. It was VERY obvious that PC was a MAJOR afterthought in development of the UI. On the PC side of things the menu system was very similar to FFXI's. So, having to learn that wasn't to much of a hassle. However, Square thought nothing of hardware specs when sending people alpha/beta invites. Many people were on antiquated systems; or systems that were underpowered even though they just bought it "6 months" ago.

      Square did not help themselves by ignoring the western player base. Many of whom were old FFXI players looking for a fresh start. The menu and UI systems were oddly tied to the overall framerate of the game. The game itself barely ran on two threads. The second thread being that of the UI. There was limited support for tweaking graphics; and it still used FFXI's antiquated "render-to-texture" system to display. Hence why you have "background" and "overlay" resolutions. Gameplay wise, Square ruined the party for everyone because they thought of combating RMT before they thought about the game. Since FFXI was so heavily plagued by RMT I can understand this measure. It ruined a lot of the experience; mostly through limiting how much a player could do in a X amount of time. Many of my friends who wanted to spend a lot of time at launch leveling doing as much as possible hit the brick wall of in game fatigue.

      Many of the early testers on SLI and Xfire systems were left in the cold, also. The patch program was thrown together in a day or two. Many of us had to resort using uTorrent or whatever outside BT program just to download patches. Couple all of this with a gameplay structure that made me long for old time FFXI 10 hour grindfests.

      I wanted a true sequel to FFXI. What we got was a devolution in all things except graphics. A lot of my FFXI friends would gladly pay $60 for a FFXI-2. FFXIV tried so hard to be different from FFXI that it failed to even be a decent game.

      As some food for thought. You can begin to see some of the FFXIV gameplay influences in the FFXI expansion: Treasures of Aht Urhgan. Not only in equipment designs and NPC/MOBs but gameplay.

      Much of FFXIVs "issues" have been massaged out of the past year. However many a good MMO have failed because of a shitty launch. I assume FFXIV will be no different. Sorry about the rant'ish post.

    3. Re:It was a very Japanese game by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      All that said, I love the FF settings (usually), but FF7 & FF8 for PC should have long ago proved they cannot handle a PC game... Which is ironic since I can run both in emulation better than the PC builds Square made...

      If you look closely at FF7 for PC, it's obvious that the PC "port" is simply a Windows compatibility layer wrapped around a Playstation game. Modern Playstation emulators provide a much better compatibility layer than Square did, and since they're separate from the game, they can keep improving.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    4. Re:It was a very Japanese game by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Well FF7 for PC did have a few things the PS1 did not, such as double res textures (Though I doubt anything can use those anymore). It was also for some unknown reason tied to specific hardware or forced to render in software. Both OpenGL and D3D existed, but rather than use the standards of the day (that would still work now) they hand coded the interaction between game and video card.

      They then repeated their mistakes come FF8 and wondered why people didn't like it...

      I'd actually pay under $10 for a modern playable copy of FF7 on PC that did higher rez and supported either OpenGL or D3D to talk to the hardware (support for things like multiple threads would be nice as well). While $10 doesn't sound like much, that is way better than what I'd be willing to pay for most things from that era...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  33. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    Actually the Mythril Mines, after the swamp, is a great place to powerlevel. Enemies in groups, easily killed with Matra Magic, to boost your kill counts for Limit breaks. You can also steal Ethers from the Ark Dragons. Put Aeris in your party with her limit level at 2 for Fury Brand....so you can use your Limit Breaks more (and learn the second one of each level faster) You can also buy "Hyper" at Fort Condor, and get Yuffie in the forest.

  34. Final Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... my ass!!

  35. Mod parent up! by Hatta · · Score: 1

    The parent is not flamebait. There is a very serious lack of good deep western RPGs. If you haven't played games like Champion's of Krynn, then you don't know what you're missing.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  36. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by markkezner · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you're kidding or what, but that's hardly a spoiler. I didn't even remember that part of the game until I read that post, so how significant could it really be?

    --
    Dangerous, sexy, turing complete: Femme Bots
  37. This wasn't their first MMO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand how they could have screwed up this game so much when it was their second time making a MMO. Usually you learn from your previous mistakes and things get better the second time around. It's almost as if they just threw all their code, knowledge and experience out the window when making ffxiv.

    When I played FFXI back in 2004 they had auction houses, chocobos, airships and many other things. I would have just reused a the code for those things when making the new game, refactoring and making improvements as needed.

  38. I liked FF12 by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I liked FF12 going on phase. I like turn based, but I liked that type of gaming too. I am just sad I can't load it on my PS3...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  39. lipstick on a flying pig? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I hear they are turning the pigs into airships.

  40. Girls? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Some of the best games have had female protagonists or at least strong female characters. See for example Terra (and also Celes) in FFVI (in other games, see Samus in Metroid, Ming+Seth in Lost Odyssey (which, BTW if you liked the older FF games, you should try). Female Sheppard in Mass Effect, etc

    Not take FFX-2. The gameplay and much of the storyline reminded me a bit too much of a bad Sailor Moon episode (DressSpheres, cmon!?). Moreover, retarded cutscenes like the hot-springs-breast-comparison were just SAD. Yes, other FF's had scenes that were lame, but in more of an "odd" way rather than the infantile way that FFX-2 was

    1. Re:Girls? by Gravatron · · Score: 1

      The breast thing is an anime Trope. Basically, if you have any set of girls taking a bath together in a show, they will comment/compare each other's breast sizes.

    2. Re:Girls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The breast thing is an anime Trope. Basically, if you have any set of girls taking a bath together in a show, they will comment/compare each other's breast sizes.

      As a famous site has said in the past, Tropes Are Not Bad, and Tropes Are Not Good. Just because it's a trope doesn't make it necessary, nor does it automatically make any sense.

  41. Final? by rabenja · · Score: 1

    final

    adjective/fnl/

    Coming at the end of a series

  42. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

    They're something in the Final Fantasy Game Series. If you knew about Final Fantasy, you'd know what Chocobos are; so my question to you is: If you are so clearly disinterested in the Final Fantasy series of games, why are you wasting your time reading about it? Clearly your time is so valuable to you that you can't even spare the 0.18 seconds to Google it.

  43. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're still all based on tolkien lone

  44. Slow Death Since VI by beerdini · · Score: 1

    The Final Fantasy series started its slow death from what made it unique since VI, which I still think is the greatest of the series. The thing that VI started the beginning of the end was the Espers. Up to that point each character was a unique class and only had special abilities. Once everyone could start using Espers Square slowly widdled away the uniqueness of the characters and the other things that made the series fun. For example...

    VII- started the single type of weapon system. Character A has a big sword, character B has a gun for a hand, etc... The materia system made characters less unique, everyone could use magic, anyone could become a thief, anyone could summon monsters, etc... The only thing that set characters apart was the weapon that they used.
    VIII- Again the only thing that set each character apart was the weapon that they used. Everyone again could use magic, but each character did have a unique attack that was somehow based on the uniqueness of their weapon.
    IX- Went a little more traditional with character classes, unique roles and skills, etc... Since I'm an item hoarder when I play the games I even liked how in one area weapons and armors inverted, where if you had a strong weapon and armor the were actively weak, but weak weapons and armors were strong.
    X, X-2- I did like the story of X, X2 not so well. Here we took a much larger turn away from what I've liked about the series. The skills system allowed for truly unmemorable characters as far as abilities. Each character was a blank slate aside from their special weapon that each was strong against a certain enemy characteristic. I have a game where my Black and White mage characters hit harder than who is supposed to be my ultimate warrior, and my thief can cast Ultima spells as strong as the black mage. Here we also lost the fun of wold exploration by losing the airship. Sure, there is still an airship or two in the game, but you don't actually fly them, you just point and click to go to your destination. No more leveling or skill building "Islands Closest to Heaven/Hell" like in VIII.
    XI- Never played, didn't think the series would carry over into a MMO world
    XII- Again, no more character uniqueness, taken even farther in that you can let your spell casters use heavy armor or heavy melee weapons. As gameplay went on I got tired of the live action battles because instead of being able to sit back and enjoy the action I was too busy trying to keep track of my characters health, trying to figure out why the archer wasn't engaging the enemy, or why the healer wasn't curing anyone. Kind of had the same problem with Arkham Asylum, I'm too busy watching the goons trying to attack to pay attention to the moves that Batman was actually doing, I ended up missing more than I got to see.
    XIII/XIV- Haven't played either but they never appealed to me. XIII did away with exploring, period. Whatever they did with that linear gameplay had way too many reviewers up in arms that I didn't even want to play it because of the fond memories of the series. They also did something with the shops if I remember correctly that was a break from the past titles too

    With today's gaming, I'd like to see a FFVI-X style game come back but also bring back a few features that have gone by the wayside.
    Bring back truly unique character classes. Don't let the ninja become a spellcaster in the way that a mage is, but ninjas can have their deceptive type of "magic" if you still want to include it.
    Bring back explorable worlds, enough said.
    Take the airship to a whole new level. While flying have visible flying enemies or other monsters for "random encounters" or challenges. Remember Doom Gaze? Create a battle platform for while on the airship. How is it that a fleet of airships with canons on them can't turn the canon around and shoot a freaking bird that has landed on the deck? Add a crash system. We can create these great 3D worlds now that would be great to explore or even have planned crashes

  45. Re:What the hell is a "chocobos"? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

    Chocobos were basically ripped off from Miyazaki's awesome Nausicaa manga.