The reason FFXIV is lacking content is because of casualization.

[Raven2014]

More than likely the name dropping of Chrono Trigger has nothing to do with sales numbers and more to do with the game still being called one of the gold standards of JRPGs appearing on nearly every list. Something that even FFVII cannot claim but FFVI can.

By who? Is there a industry-certified from a panel of expert to define that set of standard? Or again, it's merely an echo some gaming blog writers with nostalgia?

Like I can go to many old anime data base and sort by popularity, the top result will also be cult classic series from decades ago so I'm not unfamiliar with those kind of bias. But anyone who believe that means the same thing as "there have never been anything better", then they got the interpretation wrong. Also gold standard has to comply with the "relevant" standard at the time too. A game or show that was a perfect match for the standard of their time doesn't mean they can hold up to a different standard of a different time.

Maybe they are the "best of their time", that does not mean they are the "all time" best.

Sorry FFXV was garbage, I agree with FFXIII that was aweful. Kingdom ?Hearts was in reality horrible especially since it was a Disney game. Let's admit their IP's are bad lately. Look at Forspoken it bombed and the studio was shutdown permantely

The enjoyment I got from playing those game disagree. And the sale number of those games disagree too. Like I said, there is this and there is that, I don't need to conflate things together.

Another example ... I will hold Xenogears dear to my heart, and always proclaim it's one of the best JRPG I've played. That does not stop me from appreciating the Xenoblade series (especially the first one) as a superior gaming experience.

[RitsukoSonoda]

By who? Is there a industry-certified from a panel of expert to define that set of standard? Or again, it's merely an echo some gaming blog writers with nostalgia?

Like I can go to many old anime data base and sort by popularity, the top result will also be cult classic series from decades ago so I'm not unfamiliar with those kind of bias. But anyone who believe that means the same thing as "there have never been anything better", then they got the interpretation wrong. Also gold standard has to comply with the "relevant" standard at the time too. A game or show that was a perfect match for the standard of their time doesn't mean they can hold up to a different standard of a different time.

Maybe they are the "best of their time", that does not mean they are the "all time" best.






The enjoyment I got from playing those game disagree. And the sale number of those games disagree too. Like I said, there is this and there is that, I don't need to conflate things together.

Another example ... I will hold Xenogears dear to my heart, and always proclaim it's one of the best JRPG I've played. That does not stop me from appreciating the Xenoblade series (especially the first one) as a superior gaming experience.

By who? Industry experts, reviewers, players, etc. Just because it doesn't have a shiny seal of approval sticker doesn't make any of it invalid. Criteria looked at is generally a mix of story and gameplay elements. Lists may have multiple entries from the 8bit and 16 bit areas but usually include titles from the PS1, PS2, and Dreamcast morrow wind or oblivion (i dont remember which of the 2) and I believe 1 specific title that was released on Game Cube that I can't remember the name of atm. FFVII wasn't a bad game however it's popularity with players nowadays stems from nostalgia glasses as for many it was their first experience with the FF series as gaming didn't start becoming a mainstream thing until that time. FFIX tends to be the one held in highest regard for titles post FFVI. Similarly with the Dragonquest series most western gamers never heard of the series until DQVIII appeared for PS2. As for the whole then and now thing. Chrono Trigger is regarded as one of those titles that have managed to age extremely well. 2 things being seen far too frequently in newer games is poor execution of an idea and lack of substance within the title which seem to be a result of overfocusing on looking pretty. This results in stripping away details in games that made them more immersive or entertaining over time. While some are welcome QoL things like MH doing away with things like consumable mining picks and bug nets, this title has removed nearly every detail and mechanic expected in an RPG.

In the end comparing sales number between different generations of games when the market was far smaller back then has less relevance to the argument.

[Raven2014]

This results in stripping away details in games that made them more immersive or entertaining over time.

Again, say who? You presented a very illogical argument. If you're old enough to remember games from the PSX era, it means you're long term, or even life long gamer at this point. Would you actually stick with the medium for that long if your experience has been progressively worse. Adding the fact gaming have been getting increasingly more expensive over the year, you would be essentially throw money away for less and less.

If I can be so bold, the reason most people stick around for this long because the experience as a whole has been enjoyable and worthwhile. I can at least say to myself I'm sticking this long to both gaming in general and to Square as a company for this long simply because I enjoy what I get. Sure there are high and low point just like everything else, but on average it's an up trajectory. If something like Chrono Trigger was the peak, then I would be done with Square long before FF14 even come into existence. The only reason I still invest even more money and time into gaming these days comparing to 20-25 years ago simply because I'm getting just as much more from it.

Gaming is hardly my only, or even most favorite hobby, I would relegate it to the trash bin a long time ago if your so call expert, reviewer, players ...etc... are correct. They're people who share your opinion, nothign more, and that's ok too. But by no mean they're setting any standard, much less "the" golden standard, no matter how much you and yours want to tell themselves that.

In the end comparing sales number between different generations of games when the market was far smaller back then has less relevance to the argument.

Aka, just cherry pick on which element convenience to my argument, and headcannon ignore the rest. People who simple complain for the shake of complaining most of the time don't notice how flaw their complain is.

But then again, maybe I'm the weird one here for thinking people would only spend time and money on stuff their enjoy and worthwhile. Given the state of this forum here where a lot of people seem to love spending money and wasting time on a game they don't like, if you're part of the chorus I guess it's unsurprising (in an unhealthy way) you hold such opinion.

[Vyrerus]

Again, say who? You presented a very illogical argument. If you're old enough to remember games from the PSX era, it means you're long term, or even life long gamer at this point. Would you actually stick with the medium for that long if your experience has been progressively worse. Adding the fact gaming have been getting increasingly more expensive over the years...

First I'll say I agree with you overall. Just because something is a classic or an old time great, doesn't mean it's implacable when compared to later games.

However, I will point out that gaming actually has gotten cheaper. A large part of this is inflation, but the other part of it is there was a time when even brand new SNES games cost as much as $70. Sometimes more. And them's 1991 dollars!

In addition to that, gaming has always had a myriad of game options to choose from, with A LOT of absolute trash. Just look at the AVGN, ProJared, or any other nostalgia type gaming channel that, for the most part, reviews games that were absolute garbage even back in their time.

The same is true today. There are thousands of games to play, but most of them are incredibly bad. You could look up IronPineapple who is a Dark Souls based youtuber. He does, "Steam Dumpster Dives" for "Souls-Like" games in the hopes of finding surprise gems. He's playing a lot of garbage.

The reason people are expecting more from Square Enix is because they have a history of putting out decent games. People like to trust their brand, but for a lot of folks this trust is being infringed on, because Square is no longer putting out things they like. They complain because they hope the company will go back to being what it was in the 90s/early 00s. Of course, it will not, as its target demographics have shifted, not too mention all of the technological creation process for games in addition to who controls and works for the company and why.

What people really mean when they complain about Square Enix's recent era is that they'd rather not have to sift through Square's products to find the gems. Even though Square's track record still had some garbage all along, even in the 90s.

It's less about sticking with the medium for your whole life, and more that the medium isn't going away and is always an option. You can find the games you like at any time, but you just as easily find all the ones you don't.

[Raven2014]

The reason people are expecting more from Square Enix is because they have a history of putting out decent games. People like to trust their brand, but for a lot of folks this trust is being infringed on, because Square is no longer putting out things they like. They complain because they hope the company will go back to being what it was in the 90s/early 00s. Of course, it will not, as its target demographics have shifted, not too mention all of the technological creation process for games in addition to who controls and works for the company and why.

Then people are entitled or have selected memory. Even in that era, not all games SE put out were a gem, they have always released some average run of the mill tittles, or even flop. RomanceSaga, Mana Legend, Front Mission, Grandia, Radiata stories .etc. are those games that you kinda play and then forget, and they have always outnumber the few flagship tittles.

I think this could also be just confirmation bias. How many people here can honestly they remember games in those series I just listed above? (most of them wasn't even one game, but an actual series). It has been far too long that those less than stellar tittles probably had fade from memory, leaving only the the brightest as what people remember. And that's normal, but I would call it's hardly a fair assessment. Like I said, over there years there always gonna be up and down, but on average, it's an upward trajectory, otherwise the company would have fold long ago. You don't survive in this industry and a free-market by staying on a 20+ years down spiral. As you said, the market have become much bigger than it ever was, and they have more competition, not less.


As often when people complain, they talk with feel rather than fact, and thus sometime ignore what is "logical".

[RyuDragnier]

RomanceSaga, Mana Legend, Front Mission, Grandia, Radiata stories .etc. are those games that you kinda play and then forget, and they have always outnumber the few flagship tittles.

Excuse you, I have never forgotten SE's best titles, and still play them to this day.

[Raven2014]

Excuse you, I have never forgotten SE's best titles, and still play them to this day.

Well, I had played every Front mission games, including the one that didn't come out in English. To me they're some of the best TBS games ever. But it's safe to say given its popularity, I'm not exactly in the majority :P

[PintyMcEars]

Then people are entitled or have selected memory. Even in that era, not all games SE put out were a gem, they have always released some average run of the mill tittles, or even flop. RomanceSaga, Mana Legend, Front Mission, Grandia, Radiata stories .etc. are those games that you kinda play and then forget, and they have always outnumber the few flagship tittles.

I think this could also be just confirmation bias. How many people here can honestly they remember games in those series I just listed above? (most of them wasn't even one game, but an actual series). It has been far too long that those less than stellar tittles probably had fade from memory, leaving only the the brightest as what people remember. And that's normal, but I would call it's hardly a fair assessment. Like I said, over there years there always gonna be up and down, but on average, it's an upward trajectory, otherwise the company would have fold long ago. You don't survive in this industry and a free-market by staying on a 20+ years down spiral. As you said, the market have become much bigger than it ever was, and they have more competition, not less.


As often when people complain, they talk with feel rather than fact, and thus sometime ignore what is "logical".

I loved Grandia 1&2 but ya the others I didnt play. But yeah square have had their fair share of flops even in the good ol days.