A letter to Square

[shane239]

I consider myself a glass half full as well. Unless it is only a quarter full of course! :P

[SkyeWindbinder]

Final Fantasy XIII was first and foremost a game. It has to be judged as a game.

Indeed. Secondly, it was a Final Fantasy game. It must also be judged as that as well.

If you've "come to expect" certain things from a FF title, then it's only your responsibility if you're displeased when those certain things don't appear.

That's a rather irresponsible way of looking at it. In fact, I would deem it a pretty poor copout and very close to White Knighting Squeenix.

If a game franchise is going to include things in their franchise that their fans have grown fond of for almost the entire franchise over decades, then of course it's fair to expect that those things would be in the latter games. It's also fair to complain when they're not. It's also common freakin sense to expect that people are going to be complaining about these things. True, expectations can lead to disappointments. But if elements of a game are absent that have been in every game in it's franchise before it, then you can't possibly even begin to try to tell me that the disappointment consumers feel is their own fault. And if that really is your attitude, then here's a tip: Don't ever, EVER get into the game making business. Your consumers will hate you, and you will likely fail. lol

Game development is (or should be) a creative process, not a matter of going through a checklist of things that you MUST put in your game to avoid displeasing a segment of your fans (notice, you're talking for "the fans" again).

I'm more citing the many words of disappointment that fans have said about the game (myself included) than talking "for them". A parrot can repeat what others say, it doesn't make them the representative of whom they're repeating. And yes, game development is a creative process. But as a Final Fantasy developer, you must also be mindful that you are trying to get people to buy your game. And many of the people buying your game are fans of the franchise, and the familiar things in each Final Fantasy have played a huge part in that.

If you think that a series that has given you something "for years" has to give you those same things "forever", then you're just holding the evolution of the series back, that in a market that does evolve, means condemning it to irrelevancy sooner or later.

That's not true at all. Certain things are staplemarks of a Final Fantasy game. As they have always been. When they're not there, people are going to complain. Not including them is like not including a toy in a Happy Meal. Not necessarily essential for the meal, but do you really think that taking this staplemark out of the Happy Meal will go over well with kids who have been getting toys with their Happy Meal every time their parents take them? Of course it's not. You seem to almost be of the mind that Final Fantasy becoming ludicrously linear, claustrophobic, and rushed in the process or progressing through the game is some sort of "evolution". Well, I, for one, am inclined to disagree. And if "evolution" is what SE was trying to do, there are plenty of other and more successful ways they can do that.

IYay for creative freedom, mh?

Creative freedom is all well and good. But you also have to be careful when you're steering from the formula. Especially if it involves getting rid of aspects of a game that have served it well in the franchise. It's easy to just say "Well, it's the customer's fault for expecting this and that", but if you create expectations with your product over decades then take it away, it's just really pouty, condescending and stupid to blame the customer for having a problem with that.

[Abriael]

Indeed. Secondly, it was a Final Fantasy game. It must also be judged as that as well.

No. Not really. A game is a game. If a game is good, it's good regardless of the brand on the box. If it's bad, it's bad regardless of its franchise.

Funny how many bash developers for not "steering from the formula", but yet when they do, they get backlash anyway.

I would say that encouraging, or even demanding, formulaic development is "irresponsible" (to use your own word), as it stifles evolution and innovation.

It's actually a lot easier to just assemble a nice checklist of popular elements into a game than to create something new.

But if developers did just that, we'd still be eating pills in a maze.

[Obsy]

What she said

What he said

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing a disconnect in this discussion boiling down to "Apples are red" vs. "Apples taste good".

You're both clearly intelligent and can solidly argue the points you're bringing to the table, but right now it's looking like these points aren't entirely connecting with each other.

[Keith_Dragoon]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing a disconnect in this discussion boiling down to "Apples are red" vs. "Apples taste good".

You're both clearly intelligent and can solidly argue the points you're bringing to the table, but right now it's looking like these points aren't entirely connecting with each other.

Welcome to FFXIV forums! :P

[SkyeWindbinder]

No. Not really. A game is a game. If a game is good, it's good regardless of the brand on the box. If it's bad, it's bad regardless of its franchise.

But we're not just talking about "A" game, we're talking about a game "franchise". And grading a game, especially one that belongs to such a popular franchise, isn't as easy as just saying "Hey, it's pretty good, it passes" or "Hey, it's pretty good, it fails". Call of Duty is a shooter franchise, for instance. Now suppose Activision (I think they're who develop those annoying games) made the next Call of Duty game a friggin RPG? It could be a good RPG, heck it could be one of the best. But do you really think it's going to go over well with the fans of the COD franchise? Saying "If it's good, it should work" is a shallow, black and white way of looking at it. You have many things to take into consideration here.

Funny how many bash developers for not "steering from the formula", but yet when they do, they get backlash anyway.

Games are always going to get backlash, no matter how good or great they are. Welcome to the game industry, lol. However, backlash from fans caused by taking out staple elements that were in a franchise are, imo, quite understood and rather expected.

I would say that encouraging, or even demanding, formulaic development is "irresponsible" (to use your own word), as it stifles evolution and innovation.

Want to know what helps evolution and innovation? Criticism. SE wanted to try something new with FFXIII. Fair enough. However, evolution did not really have to come at the price of taking things out of the game that customers have had with the franchise for decades. Perhaps the linear collar-and-leash approach to progressing through a game is an "evolution" in your opinion. But to me, it's the opposite of that. Freedom of exploration (among other things absent from FFXIII) are loved by the people who have been with the franchise for years. I'm pretty sure there are better ways of so-called "evolving" than taking those elements out. Especially since SE has shown themselves that there are better ways and they are capable of implementing them (better graphics, revamped battle systems, more engaging side quests, ect.) Gamers have criticized SE's decisions to go such a route as they did with FFXIII. Maybe that will help them to "evolve" in different ways, while keeping a lot of elements that have kept fans coming back for each new installment in the franchise.

It's actually a lot easier to just assemble a nice checklist of popular elements into a game than to create something new.

But if developers did just that, we'd still be eating pills in a maze.

It's also a lot easier to make a game in which you just have to progress from point A to B than to make one in which the world is more open and exploration is possible. And considering that, SE seems to have definitely taken the easy road with FFXIII. You again seem to equate evolution with taking out staple elements in a franchise. I think evolution in a game to be much different. Instead of taking out the elements, why not evolve them (I mean REALLY evolve them). Instead of taking out the airship, how about adding the ability to build and customize your own airship? Now THAT'S evolving. Instead of making a game super linear, how about adding a few elements in which the world is open and, depending on how you interact or what you do in it, the world changes with your decisions (kind of like what they do in sandbox games). Not THAT'S evolving. SE didn't evolve the franchise with these decisions. They just made it different. And depending on how you handle it, different can be good or bad. As I said, when changing the formula, you have to take things into consideration. You have to know what parts of the formula to change, what parts not to. The FF's before XIII did pretty good with this. The changed some things to put their own stamp on the franchise, while staying true enough to the franchise. FFXIII, not so much, at least as far as a lot of players of the game think.

[SkyeWindbinder]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm sensing a disconnect in this discussion boiling down to "Apples are red" vs. "Apples taste good".

You're both clearly intelligent and can solidly argue the points you're bringing to the table, but right now it's looking like these points aren't entirely connecting with each other.

Well, we have different views on the subject, so naturally we approach them with clashing ideas, lol. I think disagreements are good, as they add the flavor of the spice of life to the fanbase of any franchise. I'm just looking for the middle ground myself. ^^

[Obsy]

Well, we have different views on the subject, so naturally we approach them with clashing ideas, lol. I think disagreements are good, as they add the flavor of the spice of life to the fanbase of any franchise. I'm just looking for the middle ground myself. ^^

Oh no, I fully understand and appreciate that. My observation was more along the lines of there being some frustration (seemingly quashed at the moment?) due to dodging one argument to highlight another, as barely-related as it may be. I guess we'll see as this progresses.

[Abriael]

But we're not just talking about "A" game, we're talking about a game "franchise". And grading a game, especially one that belongs to such a popular franchise, isn't as easy as just saying "Hey, it's pretty good, it passes" or "Hey, it's pretty good, it fails". Call of Duty is a shooter franchise, for instance. Now suppose Activision (I think they're who develop those annoying games) made the next Call of Duty game a friggin RPG? It could be a good RPG, heck it could be one of the best. But do you really think it's going to go over well with the fans of the COD franchise? Saying "If it's good, it should work" is a shallow, black and white way of looking at it. You have many things to take into consideration here.

Unfitting comparison. Final Fantasy XIII is still a RPG. Square Enix didn't change genre. They merely tried to find some evolution *within* the genre.

Comparing FFXIII with Activision turning Call of Duty into a RPG is completely unfitting, as that would be a radical change of genre. You can compare it with something like Activision trying to put some RPG elements within the Call of Duty franchise.

Guess what? That's exactly what they did. And it worked very well.

Games are always going to get backlash, no matter how good or great they are. Welcome to the game industry, lol.

The fact that it happens doesn't make it good, and doesn't mean we should encourage and justify it when it's irrational. And in this case it mostly is.

However, backlash from fans caused by taking out staple elements that were in a franchise are, imo, quite understood and rather expected.

And then they complain when the game industry is stagnant. No, I'm sorry. There's nothing rational in demanding that developers always abide to the same formula. Numbered Final Fantasy games aren't even sequel of each other, mind you.

Demanding formulaic developement over and over is just stifling creativity. After thirteen (actually more) episode, it's time to allow developers to try something new.

The more you stifle creativity and evolution, the more the fanbase will shrink (because some people just get tired of playing the same games over and over, and it's harder for games based on older concepts to gain new fans), condemning the franchise to obscurity on the long run.

That's one of the reasons why devs always look for ways to evolve their formula.

Besides, I sure wouldn't want to be in the shoes of developers that have to abide to formulaic development without room for change. It'd become an extremely boring and frustrating job very, very fast (honestly, I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of anyone on the FFXIV staff mind you, because they have to deal with a fanbase portions of which I don't hesitate to define downright nasty, sorry).

Want to know what helps evolution and innovation? Criticism.

Constructive and rational criticism. Of which I see very little from certain fringes of the FF fanbase (and from part of the press).

SE wanted to try something new with FFXIII. Fair enough. However, evolution did not really have to come at the price of taking things out of the game that customers have had with the franchise for decades.

The more you anchor change to old elements the less change you'll be able to instill. And after a while you'll just grind it to a halt.

Perhaps the linear collar-and-leash approach to progressing through a game is an "evolution" in your opinion. But to me, it's the opposite of that. Freedom of exploration (among other things absent from FFXIII) are loved by the people who have been with the franchise for years.

You're still talking for the "people who have been with the franchise for years". I'm "people who have been with the franchise for years" (Since the Final Fantasy as a matter of fact). You don't represent me, thank you very much

You don't even have any tangible element to demonstrate that you represent a real majority.

It's also a lot easier to make a game in which you just have to progress from point A to B than to make one in which the world is more open and exploration is possible.

Not necessarily. Some parts of it are easier, some parts of it are harder. Linear games have entirely different (and more stringent) pacing requirements than open world games, for instance.

Mind you, I find it rather funny that you and some others continue to describe the previous Final Fantasy games as some open world miracles, as for most of them the open world "freedom" was just a mere illusion, as progression was extremely linear. Sure, you could go around, but that gave you almost nothing and you had to return to the linear path in order to get any kind of progression.

Open world games are games that allow you to progress in multiple directions freely. Final Fantasy games have never been part of that group. Final Fantasy XIII just removed the illusion, and just for half of the game.

The "freedom of exploration" you're holding up as a banner never existed in anything else than very few limited elements and part of Final Fantasy XII (the story of which suffered in exchange for the limited freedom). Anywhere else it was an illusion.

Want "freedom of exploration"? You're playing the wrong franchise.

Please do let that sink.

[Xeonerable]

Hey Abriael are there any points that Skye has said that you actually do agree with?