The Final Fantasy games have always been fairly experimental when it comes to gameplay, story, design, etc with few recurring elements but I heard was criticism of this format is that they constantly have to reinvent the wheel or lack of consistency. I really like how the series reinvents itself with each game where it gives a different world and setting with each installment but one criticism I heard of this is how the series tends to lack consistency or they have to change up the battle system to accommodate the new games. I know the series is no stranger to criticism but is the criticism of the series changes itself up a valid one?
Final Fantasy: Experimentation and Criticism
- Thread starter Guernsey
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I think it's valid, but I think it's unhealthy. If you look at the J-RPG series' that tend to stay the most consistent, it's often the ones that also feel the most 'by the numbers' and lifeless. Games like the Tales series really do often feel like the same game ten different times. They're uninspired. But what's more, no development team wants to make the same game over and over again, so you see things like the writing and the balance in Tales games suffer a ton over time. Final Fantasy made its name and continued to be the go-to series because it was willing to make changes to the formula that were deemed controversial at the time. The few fans of Dragon Quest when FFI came out argued that FFI was dumbing things down by making the menu management more simplified. When FFIV introduced the ATB system, a decent amount of people argued that it totally ruined the strategic values that turn-based games offered. When FFVII came out, there were people crying that Final Fantasy was dead because it threw out most of the western fantasy elements.
Final Fantasy continues even today to be an innovator. Love games like XII or XIII, or hate them, they do a lot of things to experiment with the genre which other companies simply don't.
For a long while now, I always wondered why people would argue that things like the Tales games or RPGs made by CompileHeart were well made. From the perspective of someone who is spends most of his time with much higher quality J-RPGs like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Suikoden, Persona, Breath of Fire, etc., I couldn't fathom why people would argue such things. But having finally said screw it, and forcing my way all the way through Megadimension Neptunia VII, I realized what it is... people grow accustom to the problems these games have, and learn to ignore/work around them. When you do so, the experience can become more pleasant, and even enjoyable sometimes. But when I looked objectively at my experiences with the game, I realized that the vast majority of what I was doing and watching was still vapid busywork and exposition dumps. None of it was remarkable in any way. But it felt interesting because I had learned to ignore so many of the major faults. Many people (not all obviously; people can enjoy even the worst experiences for a variety of reasons) who religiously play these games and think they're amazing I'm willing to bet aren't terribly design literate, nor do they have a lot of experience with higher quality J-RPGs. It's a similar problem with something like horror movies. So many people think movies like The Purge or the many Paranormal Activity sequels are amazing horror. It's because most of them don't actually have much experience with truly quality horror movies... movies that don't exploit false scares, jump scares, musical stabs telling you how to feel, etc. They haven't watched many (or any) horror movies that understand how to build and use tension.
I commend Square for not falling into that same trap. While I still love them, so many of the older FF games are unbalanced messes. I appreciate the fact that they haven't just kept recycling said messes, and instead have really tried to buckle down and improve upon the genre. Because they'd probably get more praise from fans if they just made spiritual rehashes of FFVII/FFVI/FFIV over and over again.
All of this really stems from the false idea the PS1 era brought, that traditional turn-based J-RPGs could be Mario-grade successful on their own. But as of now, they can't (and they never could). FFVII -as great as it is- was a false prophet. Once other genres caught up to FFVII in terms of storytelling and presentation, most of the casual J-RPG players moved on to more action oriented games that could provide the same cinematic experience as VII did. They were there for the story and cutscenese, not the gameplay. So now the J-RPG is caught in a tough place, where it wants to be far bigger than it realistically can in its current form (as much as that pains me). It wants to get back to the PS1 era success it once had. So companies respond to this in two ways. Companies like CompileHeart choose to limit their losses, and create low budget, low thought titles; J-RPGs that stick to the conventions and expect low sales. Then there's basically Square (and Mistwalker, if they would ever make another damned console game) -as well as a few games here and there from others, like Ni No Kuni- who instead take the high risk by trying to find out how the J-RPG can be brought into the mainstream. If games like XV can succeed in bringing people into the 'feel' and themes of J-RPGs, maybe that will make more traditional J-RPGs like Dragon Quest more appealing to the mainstream thematically. Then that could make the mainstream more interested in traditional J-RPG mechanical design, and the J-RPG could actually break into the mainstream and stay there. But regardless of how it happens, it will never happen if we just stay in our bubble and make games like the Neptunia series forever. J-RPGs need to change to accommodate new players. The key is doing so without destroying what makes the J-RPG special.
Final Fantasy continues even today to be an innovator. Love games like XII or XIII, or hate them, they do a lot of things to experiment with the genre which other companies simply don't.
For a long while now, I always wondered why people would argue that things like the Tales games or RPGs made by CompileHeart were well made. From the perspective of someone who is spends most of his time with much higher quality J-RPGs like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Suikoden, Persona, Breath of Fire, etc., I couldn't fathom why people would argue such things. But having finally said screw it, and forcing my way all the way through Megadimension Neptunia VII, I realized what it is... people grow accustom to the problems these games have, and learn to ignore/work around them. When you do so, the experience can become more pleasant, and even enjoyable sometimes. But when I looked objectively at my experiences with the game, I realized that the vast majority of what I was doing and watching was still vapid busywork and exposition dumps. None of it was remarkable in any way. But it felt interesting because I had learned to ignore so many of the major faults. Many people (not all obviously; people can enjoy even the worst experiences for a variety of reasons) who religiously play these games and think they're amazing I'm willing to bet aren't terribly design literate, nor do they have a lot of experience with higher quality J-RPGs. It's a similar problem with something like horror movies. So many people think movies like The Purge or the many Paranormal Activity sequels are amazing horror. It's because most of them don't actually have much experience with truly quality horror movies... movies that don't exploit false scares, jump scares, musical stabs telling you how to feel, etc. They haven't watched many (or any) horror movies that understand how to build and use tension.
I commend Square for not falling into that same trap. While I still love them, so many of the older FF games are unbalanced messes. I appreciate the fact that they haven't just kept recycling said messes, and instead have really tried to buckle down and improve upon the genre. Because they'd probably get more praise from fans if they just made spiritual rehashes of FFVII/FFVI/FFIV over and over again.
All of this really stems from the false idea the PS1 era brought, that traditional turn-based J-RPGs could be Mario-grade successful on their own. But as of now, they can't (and they never could). FFVII -as great as it is- was a false prophet. Once other genres caught up to FFVII in terms of storytelling and presentation, most of the casual J-RPG players moved on to more action oriented games that could provide the same cinematic experience as VII did. They were there for the story and cutscenese, not the gameplay. So now the J-RPG is caught in a tough place, where it wants to be far bigger than it realistically can in its current form (as much as that pains me). It wants to get back to the PS1 era success it once had. So companies respond to this in two ways. Companies like CompileHeart choose to limit their losses, and create low budget, low thought titles; J-RPGs that stick to the conventions and expect low sales. Then there's basically Square (and Mistwalker, if they would ever make another damned console game) -as well as a few games here and there from others, like Ni No Kuni- who instead take the high risk by trying to find out how the J-RPG can be brought into the mainstream. If games like XV can succeed in bringing people into the 'feel' and themes of J-RPGs, maybe that will make more traditional J-RPGs like Dragon Quest more appealing to the mainstream thematically. Then that could make the mainstream more interested in traditional J-RPG mechanical design, and the J-RPG could actually break into the mainstream and stay there. But regardless of how it happens, it will never happen if we just stay in our bubble and make games like the Neptunia series forever. J-RPGs need to change to accommodate new players. The key is doing so without destroying what makes the J-RPG special.
Last edited:
Yeah it could. But the issues that come with that are comparatively minuscule when stacked up to the issues that come with staying stagnant. With constant experimentation, it can be difficult to find/please/maintain a fanbase, because people tend to be fickle. What is important in Final Fantasy is different for everyone. If the series grows stagnant, everyone will complain that the series is no longer inspired, and it's all but guaranteed not to grow. If the series is always evolving, there's always some change that some group will despise. But pissing off a few is generally better than pissing off everyone. Personally, the idea of angering one niche by changing -versus angering everyone by making the same game ten times- is the better option. Point is though, the J-RPG hasn't achieved (and maintained) 'juggernaut' status in the industry with the currently used formulas. And the most consistently popular (as in they sell the best within the genre) are the ones that do something different like Final Fantasy or Ni No Kuni. That tells me that the risk of experimenting is more likely to lead to a more popular/lucrative genre. And that's beside the fact that it also just provides more of a variety of experiences. As long as these experiments aren't half-assed (which they never are with the numbered FF games), you won't run into the Sonic The Hedgehog issue of losing brand identity through experimentation.
I guess it is a case of 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' situation in regard to franchises. I guess Final Fantasy experimental is a blessing as it allows them to explore new ideas and new worlds. What about the Persona sub series of Shin Megami Tensei? It does a similar thing to Final Fantasy but it takes place int he same universe.
With gamers today, it most certainly is a case of 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' unfortunately. Basically everything in games is (and life, really), because the open nature of the internet means every tiny complaint can have a huge voice that carries far. Not saying the open nature of the internet is a bad thing of course. Just pointing out that -as Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it- it has allowed people to type any complaint imaginable into a search engine, and it'll find every other person just like them, giving them the false sense that they're actually on to something; it gives them the impression that everyone has the same complaint as them, and these companies like Square need to change things to fit their preferences.
What about Persona exactly? Not sure I know what you're asking.
What about Persona exactly? Not sure I know what you're asking.