How can Squeenix fix itself?

[Azisien]

Final Fantasy X-2 was awesome fun.

[Squall Leonhart]

Originally Posted by Had'ohken

Bellsouth: in regards to storytelling, cut from THIS article:

"But the problem is, nine times out of ten, those story-driven game directors get it completely, utterly wrong. The fact is, Metal Gear and Final Fantasy are not good storytelling videogames. In fact, they're pretty poor. You see the problem is that in gaming's relative adolesence, we started to run before we could walk in terms of narrative, and devoid of the tools we needed to really tell stories through games, we borrowed the conventions of cinema and crudely stapled them on. And that just doesn't work.

In even the most 'story-driven' games, if cinematic cut-scenes are used, they and the actual game remain two completely separate entities. They feature the same character models and are stored on the same disc, but in actual fact, they are totally independent of each other. Take Final fantasy VII for example, or almost any JRPG for that matter.

Cloud may be your protagonist, but the parts of the game in which you directly influence his actions - Golden Saucer date aside - consist only of moving an avatar around a map and guiding it through combat. As far as the development of the plot goes, you sit and watch a linear cartoon play it out for you. And they call them role-playing games? The approach only serves to highlight how the player isn't part of the story."

That sums up more or less WHY RPGs are generally terrible at delivering engrossing stories, especially JRPGs.

Because data is stored in different parts of the disk?

Originally Posted by Loyal

Last I checked, mainstream FF games rely on their random battles and ATB system most of all. ATB is a love-it-or-hate it kind of thing, so I won't comment on it, but Random Battles are just a bad idea that the series should have evolved past long ago.

Since Final Fantasy XI, the series hasn't used Random Battles.

[shiney]

So for one game is what you mean. :B

[Ryong]

Originally Posted by Had'ohken

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I even saw the buried thread about the order to not do anything not bearing the FF or KH name.

You just mentioned SO4. There's also Infinite Undiscovery. The latter isn't so great apparently, but it's not FF nor KH.

Also, Nomura isn't the only designer Square has. Look at FFXII. Not to mention that he, yes, the guy people seem to hate so much, designed a game that people love. Remember The World Ends With You, or is that just a puny handheld game, not worth mentioning near the sheer size of FF's craze on consoles?

And, seriously, you expect SO4 to bomb? Geez. I'm not sure about Front Mission, but the only Square series that hasn't been commented on lately is the Breath of Fire series. Not to mention a fuckload of Mana games in the last years, not that any of them were great, though.

Originally Posted by Squall Leonhart

Because data is stored in different parts of the disk?

I think he means how you don't actually get a say in anything that happens in the game's story: You just go around killing things 'til the next cutscene.

The deal with JRPGs is that it's exactly like a book. It's already been written, you're just "reading" it. Most American RPGs try to not be like that, to be a blank book where each single character will write their own story. Fable? Hah, you're either good or bad, how much does that actually decide the course of the game? Oh you can do a bad thing and end up marrying up with a baroness or some such in the first game. That's one of the very few things it actually determines. Take a look at Oblivion: You can be a total jerk to everyone, but that doesn't matter in most of the quests. Say you're an ass and you decide to kill all the Blades. Congratulations, you can't finish the game.

[Had'ohken]

Technically Breath of Fire is Capcom-owned, Square published the first game because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to sell it without some kind of brand recognition like Square had. The series had been dead in the water since Dragon Quarter.

The only reason I'm worried about SO4 is because SO was always a niche series. I don't know if it's really a console seller, and sure the games are fun, but I doubt SO4 will push enough sales to make a dent.

I didn't mention World Ends With You because...it didn't sell anywhere near what it needed to. And yet it was a Nomura baby, with a very quirky gameplay style...but it didn't PRINT MONEY!!! like KH does.

[Regulus Tera]

Originally Posted by shiney

So for one game is what you mean. :B

If you want to get picky about it, all of their spin-offs except X-2 and Crisis Core use a system different than Random Battles.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by Ryong

I think he means how you don't actually get a say in anything that happens in the game's story: You just go around killing things 'til the next cutscene.

The deal with JRPGs is that it's exactly like a book. It's already been written, you're just "reading" it. Most American RPGs try to not be like that, to be a blank book where each single character will write their own story. Fable? Hah, you're either good or bad, how much does that actually decide the course of the game? Oh you can do a bad thing and end up marrying up with a baroness or some such in the first game. That's one of the very few things it actually determines. Take a look at Oblivion: You can be a total jerk to everyone, but that doesn't matter in most of the quests. Say you're an ass and you decide to kill all the Blades. Congratulations, you can't finish the game.

The thing I don't get is why this is inherently a bad thing.

I mean, he's saying that because a certain experience doesn't work well for him, that it's necessarily a bad experience. Some people want to read their anime like story, and in between the stories do some scrolling and commands and leveling up and crap. That's just how some people want their stories told. A story grafted around the action you play.

More power to Portal for how it does it's shit and all, but it can quite simply be put aside as a different style.

EDIT: Most people's main problems with the Final Fantasy series is that they've been releasing shitty side things (Dirge of Cerberus). I mean, after FFVIII/FFVII, I've been just fine with the stories they told. FFIX is one of my favorite games, FFX is pretty simplistic, but pretty well put together and straightforward. FFXII has been noted as a godsend. It's just the shit they're heaping on the sides of their mainline games.

[DarkDrgon]

Originally Posted by Had'ohken

Technically Breath of Fire is Capcom-owned, Square published the first game because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to sell it without some kind of brand recognition like Square had. The series had been dead in the water since Dragon Quarter.

Such a shame

Anyway, am I the only person who prefers random battles? and a plain turn based battle system? My main turn off about twelve was that I felt I was never in control during a battle. I felt like I was playing a bad MMO.

[Squall Leonhart]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

[...]EDIT: Most people's main problems with the Final Fantasy series is that they've been releasing shitty side things (Dirge of Cerberus). I mean, after FFVIII/FFVII, I've been just fine with the stories they told. FFIX is one of my favorite games, FFX is pretty simplistic, but pretty well put together and straightforward. FFXII has been noted as a godsend. It's just the shit they're heaping on the sides of their mainline games.

If I may...

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Azisien

Final Fantasy X-2 was awesome fun.

This. This RIGHT HERE. TRUTH! People can argue all they want about it, but I've found in every FF game I've played or have seen played by Phantom (essentially all but XI of the main series and half the spin-offs), there is merit to be found. Even in X-2, which, while people like to bitch about it because it makes them feel like less of a pervert, has a really good battle system going that can prove both intense and fun.

random battles

I despised XII partly BECAUSE of a lack of random battles. There's nothing wrong with the system and it works. It also takes the hassle out of training my party to ludicrous levels because it negates the need to leave an area and come back to have the enemies respawn. If we were arguing about trip tiles, I might agree.

innovation

Square has shown TONS of innovation in their titles. Innovation is more than just "make something new that I like." They've undergone visual innovation, trying to update the appearances of their worlds and characters and summons. Tell me the last time something like this came around and whipped out even HALF as much awesome. They've undergone systems innovation with things like the Junction system and the Sphere Grid, among others. They've undergone plot innovation, attempting everything from a love story (FF8) to political intrigue (FF12).

In short, what the hell do you want? This series isn't going to shoot candy out through the screen for you, and neither will any other.

changes to the battle system

When you have something good, it's not on the top of your list to toss it out. ATB is something that entered FF in earlier titles and basically defined their system as different at the time. They later added Desperation Attacks and Limit Breaks, which no other series offers. Is it a wonder they took what worked and put their energy into fine-tuning it? Grandia did the same with a much different system, but I rarely hear complaints about theirs being the same thing all the time. Tales is another example of this. People actually BITCH about Abyss taking it to a 3-D field, right here on this forum.

story

Chrono has multiple endings to its games. Squeenix makes that, too. Yet people have said right in this thread that they don't want Square to make another one. Why? Lack of trust? Pfft! So, what, then? On one hand, Square has a series with an innovative storytelling style that people don't want them to continue, and then they have one that people want, but want to have an innovative storytelling style.

I'm well aware these views are expressed by different people, but it shows pretty damn clearly that Square just can't win. People who don't want Squeenix to "ruin" Chrono by making Chrono Break need to get over themselves and open up to a potentially good game. FF became highly refined over many tries, which Chrono didn't have the luxury of. People who complain about cutscenes need to do the same and remember that there are only so many ways to tell a story and our technology is not so advanced that you can have an effect on everything in the virtual world. AI is getting better, but I could have sworn I saw a complaint about Radiant from the Elder Scrolls games, which itself took a big leap from Morrowind to Oblivion. As computers get faster and more powerful, better will come along, but at the moment, the technology is still limited. Radiant and its future advances and children will be great for open-world games, but it might not even be appropriate for a title like FF, where the entire game structure is different and the play style might actually be hurt by it.



Edit: While I'm at it:

bad way of telling a story

I suppose by that logic that books are a TERRIBLE way of telling a story, what with having so few choose-your-own-adventure novels around with so few options in the ones that are.

The honest truth is that a good story finds a way to get the reader involved one way or another, without necessarily making the reader a direct part of it. As a writer of currently several books and more than one game, plus an avid reader, I can personally vouch that storytelling is the art of making your audience care about events that happen only in text on a page and in the inner senses of their own mind, usually without any direct input from them. By that logic, a game's story is bad by its own merits, rather than someone's arbitrary and incredibly narrow definition. Yes, it's outright bad of a game to throw your input out and do whatever the hell it wants. MGS, in this case, is a terrible storyteller, from what I hear. However, if the story flows naturally from the actions of a player, even if those actions are fixed, then there isn't a problem in that respect. If you win a battle and the story hinges on you winning it, then the flow makes sense. If you win and still lose in the following scene, then yes, something is totally borked.

Again, it comes down to actually having limits to our technology. Any linear story is going to have the same beginning and end regardless of the middle because you have an intro scene and assume that the player wants to actually finish the game and win. An open world aspect is therefore prohibitive to having a complete story, because at most you'll have a choice of stories to follow to their linear conclusion. It's just life. You can mitigate linearity by offering choices, but we're back to Chrono and limitations on just what the player can choose.

Games will never be on par with your uncle bullshitting tales for you around a campfire.