FFXIV as a FFXVI Valisthea MMORPG

I think they should take XVI, forget it, and pretended it never happened and move back on to turnbase or MMO.

With he success of BG3, turn-base was never a dated un-modern concept. SE just wanted to be edgy, and are probably action game fans themselves. Now they they got all that BS out of their system, get back to your roots. If BG3 had the FF IP attached to it, game would have sold damn near 20 million units by now.....(Not a BG fan, no plans on playing it...but just saying...)

What they did with XV-XVI does not work, has not worked, and will not work....move on.....But I digress.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonsutaMan

I think they should take XVI, forget it, and pretended it never happened and move back on to turnbase or MMO.

With he success of BG3, turn-base was never a dated un-modern concept. SE just wanted to be edgy, and are probably action game fans themselves. Now they they got all that BS out of their system, get back to your roots. If BG3 had the FF IP attached to it, game would have sold damn near 20 million units by now.....(Not a BG fan, no plans on playing it...but just saying...)

What they did with XV-XVI does not work, has not worked, and will not work....move on.....But I digress.......

---

I'm not sure why we're taking two of the worst examples yet of action-based combat (no depth and very poor relative tuning, and floaty af in XV's case) to say that turn-based is necessarily superior for a mostly-linear storytelling model, under the FF name or otherwise...

Moreover, if BG3 instead had the FF IP attached to it, it likely would have sold worse than just remaining attached to what is arguably THE flagship DnD-based western RPG series. BG1 and BG2 were tremendously successful for their time, but even among western RPGs, they're about as far from what is modal among iconic "JRPGs" as you can get, much preferring freedom of questing, significant customization, involved side-plots, interaction with the world, etc.

If players were looking for just a central cast and central story, sure, they'd likely go for a turn-based FFXVI too because it's FF, but why the assurance that the players who came to BG3 for its Baldur's Gate-ness would be fewer than those who'd come for that central story alone, let alone that it being turn-based is the primary consideration there?

P.S.:
Baldur's Gate being turn-based, btw, is new. BG1 and BG2 were real-time. This is also not because of any shift in the BG1 and BG2's design philosophy. It's instead because it's a new studios (Larian) at the helm who basically has only ever made turn-based games, although usually in a more flexible [imo, better, if not for the obvious direct DnD buy-in] fashion than BG3's use of turn-based combat. Plenty other descendents of BG1 and BG2 still use that original real-time combat model. Baldur's Gate 3 is at least as akin to a Divinity 3 in its handling, but with the Baldur's Gate name purchased precisly because that name really meant something -- likely more among more freeform RPG lovers than FF does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MonsutaMan

I think they should take XVI, forget it, and pretended it never happened and move back on to turnbase or MMO.

---

Honestly I dont think its just Final Fantasy.
Alot of people in the RPG space think turn-Based combat is boring and slow. Its why we have plenty of Action RPGs now.
But BGIII coming in makes me happy because its a game that reminds us the Turn-Based can still be good.

Tbh it's not turn-based combat itself that is boring...but how they implement it

PRESS X, DO X, REPEAT is boring af

Action combat can be even more boring, i cite FFXV as example.

When they use some shenanigans to make you change your strategy like they did in FFXIII or when they implemented a more dynamic system like Zodiac Age...it's fun.
When they allow you to use your environment like Solasta and Divnity...it's also very fun

Yeah there's definitely better and worse implementations of both genres. I felt they did much better with games like Octopath Traveller and Bravely Default than they do with their mainline games, although IX and X where when the enemy scripting was beginning to improve.

BG3 has struck a good balance of being fairly user-friendly and intuitive to newer players while also offering challenge if you want it on the harder modes. I'm not the biggest fan from what I've seen of 5e D&D (although it has some stuff I like, like the reaction mechanics), being more partial to 3.5e (Pathfinder uses a very similar system), but it's still fun and offers room for customisation without overwhelming newer players, which 3.5e could be guilty of. The Pathfinder games are generally good at explaining how everything works, but there's still an awful lot of complexity to them. Turn-based games, like action games, come in many flavours, and some, like Larian's own D:OS2, can be a lot more complicated than others, although I enjoy the fact that it offers a lot of room to do what you want with it.

I'm not the sort of person who needs to know every detail in depth, beyond "this functions well", because I have fixed ideas about how I like to play, but the fact that there's lots of ways to achieve the same end goal is a plus. BG3 being as good as it is is down to Larian's strengths as a studio, but like Shurrikhan mentioned, this is more a Divinity 3 in some ways, just not in a bad way. The original games played very differently and I'd have to go to something like the Pillars of Eternity or Pathfinder series for a comparable experience. Nonetheless, SE could take lessons on character writing from Larian and I think it says a lot that I want to see more from Larian.

I tend to enjoy both turn-based and action games, and with XVI I just can't say I liked its combat system. The game had potential to do much more with its action combat, especially with the eikonic swap outs. Still consider 7R and SoP to be their more successful 'action' RPGs. It also doesn't help that action games are more and more frequently incorporating RPG character building mechanics to the point, and even in such comparisons, XVI comes across as being on the shallower end of the spectrum.

It is a pity because I both liked what they marketed of its world, and Clive... just not a lot about how it went about implementing it all in practice, with a very abrupt shift from the court intrigue and a very weak antagonist and lacklustre gameplay owing to its ease (really, I consider it to be bad practice to lock harder modes behind a playthrough, especially when the baseline is this dumbed down) and on the rails style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elissar

When they use some shenanigans to make you change your strategy like they did in FFXIII or when they implemented a more dynamic system like Zodiac Age...it's fun.
When they allow you to use your environment like Solasta and Divnity...it's also very fun

---

Yes, I still remember that version of XII fondly and intend to replay it. I think Matsuno was much more skilled as a writer in pulling off a political intrigue heavy setting, balanced with the usual FF supernatural elements beyond the banal "kill god" (more like loosen their grip, and with uncertain outcomes), and genuinely creating a new brand of FF game, with its own distinctive visual and music flair - generally I love the art direction of his games. Still probably one of my favourites in the whole series.