Thoughts on Final Fantasy 16
Personally I'm none too keen on this new action focus that SquareEnix has taken the series but many people like it.
What really has me second guessing myself are the graphics. They seem not necessarily bad but dated and/or lower budget than I expect from a main series release. Their character models still suffer from lack of mocap especially facial details. The backgrounds are lackluster and the textures basic. Even during one of their much touted Epic Eikon battles they use a completely gray background?! I feel like my PS5 hardware is taking a nap while playing this game.
Edit: turns out that after adjusting settings on both the game and my TV everything looks much better. For some reason my usual game profile on my TV made everything look super washed out. Between that and the beginning of the game being pretty monotone for the first bit with the game look super washed out and without detail.
One of the main driving factors of the series have always been the progression tree. Historically unique awesome visual representations of the skills you can gain with varying paths to choose from. FF16 has a basic interface that essentially amounts to equippable skills with (so far) no exploratory elements whatsoever.
Lastly the main protagonist seems almost like a clone of final fantasy FFXV character. The clothes are similar, his backstory is similar, and his skills are similar.
I understand that I'm probably aging out of their target demographic and I'm especially curious on younger people's thoughts on it.
Edit: After about 30 hours and almost at the end of the game it has grown on me a bit. The combat while still super easy at least it is more fun with added Eikons. The side missions get a bit better towards the last third of the game and some of the hunts are pretty challenging. I'm still disappointed in the lack of RPG elements such as, skill trees, elemenal and status mechanics, and equipment variety but I've enjoyed the game and can at least appreciate the accessibility to a wider audience.
It’s clearly a good game, and I’m enjoying it, but I didn’t particularly want to play the Devil May Cry 6 we’re being given. I want Final Fantasy. But no one seems to want to make those games anymore and I’ve been thinking “I guess I’m just too old now” myself a lot lately.
The complete lack of RPG is the real bummer. Some may argue there is some, but honestly the most recent God of War has more RPG than this.
There have been a lot of indie RPGs in the vein of classic JRPGs, Chained Echoes for example got a lot of acclaim recently. We also just past the massive CRPG revival of the last decade. SE also keeps making titles like Octopath Traveler or Triangle Strategy, so I think the genre is very much alive and well, just maybe not so much in the mainstream.
In that vein I can recommend both the upcoming 'Sea of Stars', which is a lot like oldskool RPGs and 'Crosscode' is more in that realm of active abilities but has a very good fighting system and story.
Crosscode is brilliant, with the caveat that timed puzzles are abundant throughout the whole game. If you don't enjoy them, that might put you off the game. The game does provide plenty of tweakable difficulty settings including puzzle speed though!
Thanks for the heads up!
I hate timed puzzles and/or timed hits in turned based combat.
Not an indie, but Yakuza 7 is a good one.
It's not impossible. Persona and Dragon Quest prove that the formula still works. It's just not the market they want to capture, I guess.
I'm sad. Zelda, Final Fantasy, and other franchises change the entirety of their gameplay in attempt to open new markets. It works, they make bank. As an older fan, I'm left behind, hoping that I get to keep the few franchises I have remaining.
Zelda absolutely needed a change up. One of the most common complaints about Twilight Princess was that it was sticking too close to the usual formula. New dungeon, get the new item, use item to navigate obstacles, fight the boss that can only be defeated with that item, go to next dungeon and repeat. Even a lot of the items were repeats.
I'm sorry, I'm going to press you on this; why did it need a change up? It's not like we're talking about AC, with on recycled game a year. TP came out in 2006, over 15 years ago. The last traditional game, ALBW, came out in 2013, a full decade ago. I don't think anyone could've possibly have been getting bored with the formula.
On the subject of TP specifically, that game did very well, both commercially and critically. Better than BOTW? Of course not. But Zelda wasn't at the point of collapse when they decided to transform the series. It was doing well.
They changed it to make more money. It completely worked. And now I'm left in the cold. Maybe they'll throw me a bone and release a 2D game like Spirit Tracks in between the main entries, but why bother.
Full disclosure, I forgot about Skyward sword and was thinking Twilight Princess came more directly before Breath of the Wild.
I wouldn't call it a bad game, just that there was some rumbling about the series starting to get stale.
My memory might be getting foggy, but the biggest criticism I remember from SS was the motion controls.
But even accepting your argument, surely there could've been a way to innovate in the formula without completing throwing it out.
Nintendo fans (including myself as one) tend to hold Nintendo to a higher standard when it comes to uniqueness. That's a big part of Nintendo's driving philosophy -- doing something different. It's why so many games from Nintendo come out of left field, it's why they innovate far more than the competition, and it's why some of their systems/games fall flat. It leads to successes like the Wii or the Switch, and failures like the Wii U or Virtual Boy or to a lesser extent the N64.
Twilight Princess got plenty of praise, but it also got criticism for aping way too much from Ocarina of Time. Majora's Mask was a quickly-put-together game with a different angle that could take more risk bc it was made quicker and cheaper. Wind Waker tried something new and got roundly shit on for it by fans when it launched. Twilight Princess borrowed extremely heavily from Ocarina because that's what fans said they wanted, and it ended up being kind of bland.
Nintendo was already planning to move in this direction before BOTW. Skyward Sword tried to implement a quasi-open-world approach. It put a bigger focus on overworld gameplay, with the areas leading to dungeons becoming more intricate and filled with challenges and puzzles. It introduced new items and upgrading mechanics. A Link Between Worlds was an even bigger step in this direction as it featured the item rental system, and was designed so that players could go anywhere they wanted and play the game's dungeons in any order they want. At the time people looked at it like a traditional Zelda, but now in retrospect it seems clear Nintendo was testing out the concept of an open world go-anywhere-do-anything-in-any-order Zelda title, albeit not in full 3D.
For better or for worse, Nintendo is typically not a company who looks at what is currently working and says "this is selling, let's keep doing this forever". As mentioned above... their driving philosophy is doing new and interesting things, and that has helped keep them relevant and celebrated for decades in the video game world and many decades before that as a toy manufacturer.
Other publishing houses may see a certain kind of game sell and just ride it into the ground to milk it for what it's worth, but that isn't the Nintendo way. As for in-between Zelda games, I'm sure we will see more, but the 3D titles tend to sell much better so I think it's more likely we will see more remasters (particularly WW and TP HD on Switch).
I do not believe that, in the name of innovation, the entirely Zelda formula needed to be thrown out. It was certainly a financially successful thing to do, but I don't think the choice was BOTW or stagnation.
I think what the previous commenter was getting at, and what I came to bring up, is that the shift to a more seamless "open world" style game has been a long time coming. Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time were fairly open, and even the original NES Legend of Zelda wasn't exactly linear!
So it's certainly not a binary between BOTW or stagnation, because the Zelda formula was already a continually evolving thing. I mean heck: they had a train game at one point!
In any case, Tears of the Kingdom is a lot closer to the "Classic" feel than BOTW, if that helps. It doesn't force you to follow the main story, but it makes it clear what are the Main quests, and there's multiple tiers of sidequests: the Side Adventures (listed hierarchichally just below the Main quests) being the bigger, more "important" ones.
There's certainly arguments to be made about how progress is no longer gated by certain items (once past the first area, anyway), but I'm not so bothered by that, because my own knowledge of how to the items/powers strikes notes of Outer Wilds for me, where progression is locked behind my own understanding of the world. It's certainly not a perfect game, and I can understand folks not enjoying it, but for me it feels like a playground with a Zelda story woven into it IMHO, and that's pretty incredible.
I don't disagree with the larger point, to be honest. Much like FF, this change isn't sudden, and it's been heading in that direction for a long time. There is a spectrum that goes from LoZ where the gameplay revolves around dungeons to BOTW where there's no real dungeons, and while TOTK falls closer to the first part of the scale than BOtW, it is still mostly BOTW.
Everybody has points where they might be left behind. I'm sure some people dropped off with the change to 3D. Others might've fallen off with the different structure (and motion controls) of SS. At some point, someone might say "this isn't Zelda anymore". It just so happens that for me, that point was reached with BOTW. The game feels more like Skyrim than like Zelda to me. And I like Skyrim. But I already had Skyrim.
I haven't played TOTK. I doubt I'll like it. From what I know of the story, it wildly contradicts the timeline, so I won't enjoy theorising. From what I hear, it's the story isn't that good on its own either, though that's obviously subjective. I don't like building, so I'm not going to enjoy ultrahand. And the dungeons don't seem that good (though better than BOTW). It doesn't feel like a Zelda game to me.
I want to emphasise that this about feelings. The game doesn't feel like Zelda to me. Obviously it feels like Zelda to you. More importantly, for millions of people, it is Zelda, it's the first one they played, and the likes it. To me, it is different in a way unlike SS, MM, ST.
I won't bother to talk about most of this bc like you said it's about your feelings... but the timeline aspect you bring up is interesting.
I still have no idea why Nintendo ever bothered to do that 'timeline' they put out (right before BOTW I think). It's been abundantly clear to me as a longtime fan that there is no long term continuity in Zelda, there's just 2-3 games that happened to be more directly connected to each other here and there. So while I don't think you're wrong that TOTK goes against the timeline, I think the timeline is laughable in the first place. It feels like something a fan made up but it was official.
The best thing Nintendo could do with the "timeline" is completely ignored it. Which they did, and I'm glad.
See, I have to strongly disagree with this. The majority of the games follow a clear timeline. AoL is explicitly a sequel to LoZ. LttP is explicitly a prequel to these two. OoT is explicitly a prequel dealing with the fabled Imprisoning War (which has been retconned a few times now. MM is explicitly a sequel to OoT. WW is also explicitly a sequel to OoT, and a pretty strong confirmation of split timelines. PH and ST are explicit sequela as well to WW. TP is explicitly a sequel to MM, and the Hero of Time even appears. TMC is clearly a prequel to OoT, but less explicit. Same for SS. Importantly, all of these games have clear spots in a timeline. MM can't happen before SS. WW can't happen before OoT.
The majority of games have an explicit relationship to another games or a group of games, and the vast majority have clear places in a timeline that organically just comes out. The exceptions are the Oracles and the FS series. There also a few games that we can debate (ALBW, BOYW), but the official timeline exists because there's a fairly clear temporal relationship between most of the games.
TOTK is the first one in a while that goes against it this hard.
I don't think many of these connections are "explicit" at all. I've played the games as they came out since Ocarina of Time, and went back to play the older titles as well, and rarely do they feel very connected other than an offhand reference or a more direct connection between titles (for example there's no debating MM is a sequel to OoT, or that ALBW is a sequel to ALttP).
Then at some point around then, before WW came out, they put out a timeline that said "it's the same Link every time" which people thought was strange... then later went back on that.
I guess my point is -- they kind of just put games wherever they felt like timeline wise and then swapped them around when they decided to do an official timeline. It really has little bearing on the games at all. Most of the time, there's almost nothing holding the games together. I think the clearest one that isn't obviously directly related (like WW to PH and ST) is, as you mention, TP referencing the Hero of Time a bunch and featuring his spirit.
Absolutely, the games you mentioned are a bit harder to place. But even in ALttP, the devs are very conscious of a timeline even back then. We didn't make it up.
In terms of plain sequels there are clear arcs. LoZ-AoS, OoT-MM-TP, OoT-WW-PH-ST, TMC-FS-FSA, OoS<->OoA. Fans can argue about where to fit them, but these are directly temporally linked, in that they're straight up sequels.
Then you have games like SS and TMC which take place in the past and explicitly explain some of the recurring elements, like the Master Sword, the tunic, the cycle of reincarnation, the hat (for a while). These have to take place before other games for their commentary to mean anything.
You're right that a lot of everything beyond this is done by fans, but the broad strokes are in the text. Never forget that the second game they ever made was a sequel, and the third game was a prequel. The Devs have always looked a this through the lens of a timeline.
Until now. I think they think it's getting too complicated. Maybe they're right, but it means my knowledge of the lore of the series in relation to the new games they put out is now obsolete. Which doesn't feel great.
This is completely fair, since there's often many small things that don't fit one's perception of what makes a game (or any artistic series, really) add up to the final product just being off.
For me, this was Fallout 1 and 2 versus most everything else that's come after (Tactics & Brotherhood of Steel included). New Vegas is the closest, since it has a more intriguing (again, to me) story with branching paths, and has characters that feel more alive (again, the feelings), but it still lacks something I can't put my finger on, and it's not just the change of perspective. The Power Armor feels underpowered for one, and I never truly felt like it was a post-post-apocalypse like you really see in Fallout 2's Vault City (things are actually clean there!), and the landscape feels like the bombs dropped a handful of years ago, not generations ago (skeletons in every closet).
So I get it: the Fallout franchise largely isn't for me anymore, and I have to admit that it does bum me out a bit. I wish it had gone in the direction of exploring how humanity rebuilds after the apocalypse, but mostly people just enjoy running around in a shallow dirty landscape.
If someone gave me the keys to the Fallout franchise, I'd probably set it another hundred years after Fallout 2, and have it take place on the West Coast again, but further South: down to Baja California and into Mexico. I'm imagining a Neo-Mayan Empire moving north, possibly on man-made floating islands in the Gulf of California.
I'm curious (though you don't have to indulge me, of course) what would you want to see in a new Zelda game?
That's interesting! I'm not a super big fan of Fallout, but I usually think of NV when I think it a representative of the series. Did Fallout 76 go even further in that direction?
I'm ironically in the opposite position of Zelda with For Emblem. I'm by no means a new fan, but I did love Three Houses, which was radically different from some of the games that came before it. Unluckily for the older fans, it also did magnitudes better than anything else. Engage came out as the anti-3H, and whole it wasn't a failure, it didn't even come close. So I can see the Fire Emblem Raistlin being upset about the same exact thing I'm upset about, except I'm happy about it happening to Fore Emblem. That's why I'm not saying they're wrong for moving in this direction. I mean, I wish they didn't. I do think this and FF are moving in the same direction, which sucks for me. But obviously a ton of people love it.
What do I want? It's honestly hard to say. It's not even the dungeons, really. I just want a tighter, better curated experience. I want a world to explore, but not an open world. I want upgrades to matter. I don't want to fuse a sword into a rock into another sword; I want to find a cool sword that I keep. I want to find an upgrade to that sword that makes it gold. I want to be rewarded for knowing the lore of other games, not punished by being told that lore is now worthless.
That's one I haven't played, but in part because it looked like it went further from what I consider(ed) the core pillars of the series. Namely, it was more action-focused and less about interesting stories.
Also agreed on Fire Emblem! I played some from the GBA era, and while I enjoyed them, I really liked the simulation-esque aspect of Three Houses (though the teatime was a bit much), because it made the characters feel real in a way that the support dialogues didn't, before. It was a sometimes tedious process, but I'm still bummed they apparently toned down that part of the game in the newest one, because I was excited at the prospect of them perfecting it.
Totally fair! TOTK has a bit more of that with the Temples, but of the two I've done, they don't feel as long as those in older games. Likewise, the feeling of progression is a lot more flat in these: other games feel more Metroid-vania-y in the sense that parts of the world open up as you go through the dungeons and gain new items, but in both BOTW and TOTK that only happens in the first area, as you get all your abilities.
So I'm completely sympathetic to the criticism that there's not as strong of a sense of becoming more powerful in these games, or being able to do more as you find new things. Finding a way to do both would be fantastic, but even as someone who isn't a game designer I recognize that's a really difficult ask, as they're mostly ideas in opposition.
This is one of the things I definitely don't like about BOTW or TOTK. Armor/clothing is special, but the weapons are disposable (with some exceptions). I do enjoy experimenting, and I appreciate the intent of the design choice to force people to switch things up, but I wish there was some better balance. Again though, I know those are conflicting design ideas.
I was actually quite surprised by the game, since I thought the whole point was to interact with survivors in a post apocalyptic world. The removal of NPCs certainly was... a choice.
Yup, I'm the same way, but I definitely understand where Engage fans are coming from. The focus of the game definitely changed. And like Zelda, it was a place they were going towards, with Awakening and Fates.
I suspect, based on sales, the next game will be more like 3H than like Engage.
Yeah, in previous games you had some choice sometimes. You can do the Spirit Temple before the Shadow Temple in OoT, for instance. But usually, dungeons were perfectly crafted to use both your skills and the items the devs knew for a fact that you had. Dungeons also generally had nice lore lying around, that was never answered. Take the Forest Temple, for example. It looks lived in, and has recreational areas. Was this a Kokiri city? Do Kokiri even have cities? What happened? Who lived here? The game never tells you, just continue the dungeon.
Not to say that BOTW and TOTK don't so this latter. I don't know if they do, I haven't played much of them. But I get the sense that that kind of mystery lore isn't as prevalent, and what's mysterious is generally part of the story. Other Zeldas were bitsy. You got very little, and went wild with it. I think that's why lore theorising became so elaborate.
Anyway, I digress, I'm just whinging now.
This one definitely confuses me, because it's not a problem other open world games have. It's antithetical to core Zelda, but it was also not a necessary change to make it open world.
I think Dragon Quest is a perfect example of how the series differ.
Final Fantasy has, for more than a couple decades now, been about pushing forward in the JRPG genre and always doing new things. Final Fantasy has changed pretty significantly with almost every mainline title -- certainly since Final Fantasy V or so. Final Fantasy sticking to old-school JRPG conventions wouldn't feel true to its DNA.
Dragon Quest on the other hand is the polar opposite. It is THE traditional JRPG series -- it does grow, and updates with QoL changes and stuff but typically the games are very traditional in terms of subject matter, visual style, settings, etc. Dragon Quest XI feels like the modern evolution of Dragon Quest I... FF is not the same way.
There are a lot of RPGs that aren't action RPGs, but the big budget AAA ones are generally going to be that style these days bc they appeal to way more people. I say this as someone who wouldn't even touch JRPGs for many years... even nowadays, when I've gotten more into them, I still get frustrated if a lot of grinding is required or if the combat speed is slow (part of the reason why Square Enix put a fast-forward button in almost all their FF remasters as well as Dragon Quest XI S).
I think there's a light contradiction in your comment. You said FF has always been about pushing new things you're right. But then you say that FF changed from a turn asked rpg to an action one because the current trend is action rpg. I mean, there's nothing malicious about this, but that's not creativity; that's trend chasing.
A perfect counter example is Persona 5. They changed a lot of things from 4, but their battle system? If anything, they doubled down; they made the best and most beautiful turn based system they could. They proved that it's certainly still possible to innovate in that system, with things like baton pass and technicals. You just have to actually try.
God of war is definitely a game I'm comparing final fantasy to. Gameplay, character models, and especially graphics completely dominate FF. IMHO.
Damn I didn’t realize so many people disliked this game already.
I personally love it and can’t wait to get back to it. Aside from FFXIV, I have no attachment to the series and have zero expectations for this game so I don’t have a means to compare it to anything. I didn’t play any of the previous FF’s for any extended period, maybe I got like, 10 hours in FFXII?
I also have never played DMC or Bayonetta, so I really don’t have a comparison from that angle either.
I see a ton of people saying it’s not a FF game and that they didn’t want to play “FFXVI DMC6”, but I guess I just got lucky in that I haven’t really played either franchise.
With that being said, I freaking love the game. The story is good, the combat is fun to play and I love the visuals. I only picked it up because my PS5 has been collecting dust, and I agree that the RPG elements are non-existent, but I don’t know. I find the game extremely enjoyable as it is, I don’t understand the people saying it’s a bad game
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a bad game (although some parts are objectively bad such as the side quests.) It is just very simple: combat is simple, inventory is simple, abilities are simple, traversal of simple. I imagine that's to appeal to a wide range of people so even a young kid could play it.
Point in fact some of the best items in the game are just found in treasure chests.
Truly I get changing the gameplay to meet expectations of the current generation. I just can't help but feel they left behind some of the best parts that made final fantasy what it was.
I'm sorry but I completely disagree. The side-quests are on par with every RPG I've ever played. You talk to someone, they ask you to do something, you go do it and get a reward. I don't understand how FFXVI is different from any of the other ones.
Combat is as simple or as complex as you want it to be. You can chain multiple abilities together to create insane combos that are really fun to pull off. In FFXII, you press some buttons to attack and occasionally use some magic in between. Not very complex either.
Inventory in every FF has been simple, and so has itemization and travel. I've only really played FFXII and FFXIV, and this game does not do anything different from those two in regards to itemization/travel. Granted, I didn't play either very long so maybe they got way more complex many hours down the line?
It's definitely valid to be disappointed at the departure but all the criticisms I see aimed at this game could easily be applied to every other mainline game in the franchise.
I don't know friend. I'm not sure which specific criticisms you are referring but I wonder if you'd have the same opinions after playing FFX and 12 (for example)
Regardless I am happy that the game got such good reviews and that people really like it. Square Enix had been giving me great games for over 20 years and I hope they can continue for 20 more. For me I think I'm officially passing the torch. Play the crap out of those games and don't forget the back catalog!
I've been meaning to play the older ones, I'll give em a try eventually! I don't have anything against them or anything, I just never really got around to playing them D;
I played through FF6 last summer and it definitely holds up. Story and characters are really good for an era where that didnt get a lot of attention. (Depending on the version, translation can be a bit off in some scenes) It has a good combat system where evey character has their own gimmick ability, equipment might just give stat bonuses or completely change hiw a character plays.
100% recommend it, and when you're done, check out Chronotrigger.
FFVI is a gem, I didn't really play JRPGs for the longest time despite being alive and gaming in the 90s and it still holds up amazingly well. I played through it for the first time in 2019 on the SNES Classic.
Every character controlling kinda differently was a fantastic 'gimmick' and I'd love to see them do something like that again.
I played the first half of it a bunch of times before I actually beat it. Once I hit WoR I tended to get confused about where I was supposed to be going.
The first half of the game is rather linear and guides you where to go but the back half is sort of a "explore the world and do things how you want" adventure.
Iirc there's only a limited number of things you HAVE to do in the second half before going to the ending area, but it becomes much more manageable if you spend more time completing stories for characters/unlocking more of the party members.
If you do playstation+ 7, 8, 9 10, 12, and 15 are all free to download!
No such thing as “objectively bad.” As the person who responded to you said, he likes them. What you think is bad someone else can like.
A person's enjoyment of it would be subjective, however I should rephrase for clarification and say objectively basic. As in short -can be finished in a couple minutes, simple -usually either fetch, fight, or sometimes just talk to somebody, easy- no way to fail and marked on your map, and usually given to you by static dead eyed NPC who sometimes only speak a couple words and who mostly have no other bearing in the storyline.
Thanks for the rephrase and explaining why you don’t like it. I have to agree. They sound awful and half-assed by the devs.
I'm 42, I got left behind by Final Fantasy and zelda in the late 90s.
Final Fantasy changes pretty radically between each entry, so it's not like change is an unforeseen thing in the series, but I think people just want to see more RPG elements and some want a return to a more turn-based or active time battle style (what was used for many later FF games -- it's basically turn-based but with time pressure to make your moves when your characters are 'ready' to take a turn).
If you do want to play the older games (since I see you mention it below) you should know the games kinda go like this: I-III are strictly turn-based RPGs, IV-VI use Active Time Battle (continuous action, but characters have to wait for their meter to recharge before using another action -- changes based on their speed, what abilities you use etc)... and then VII-X, XII and XIII all use systems that change it up a bit but are generally pretty similar. FFXV was a big change for the series because it went to real-time combat, and since then SE have been leaning harder in that direction. It didn't go over super well in FFXV which is why some people wanted to see a return to something more turn-based, but FFVII Remake Part 1 also had action combat and was better received so they probably decided to go that route with FFXVI again (and these kinda games sell better).
You might agree with what SkillUp had to say about it in his review. If you haven't checked it out I highly encourage you to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzfUardkloY
Holy crap a 45 minute review! I'll finish watching the whole thing when I have more time but so far he spot on to my opinion.
SkillUp is my favourite reviewer currently. (Honorable mention to: WorthABuy) We don't always see eye to eye on certain games, and we also don't share the love for certain genres but he is honest, and states his opinion. His review of FFXVI seems spot on overall, and did encapsulate the vibe I've been getting from all the marketing of FFXVI so far, and put to words the utter lack of excitement I have around a new mainline FF. (I have previously adored this franchise, but honestly think Square has lost their way with FF as far back as 11/12. Though I do like some of the deconstruction happening in the FFVII remake.) It's DMC with some vague FF trappings around it.
I’m about 25 hours in. It’s a good game and I’m enjoying playing it. But it’s not the game I expected/wanted.
Demo was really good. First 8 hours after this felt pretty monotonous gameplay wise. The next 15 or so hours have been better and more complex. The story has remained excellent. Music has been good to great. Graphics meet expectations. A lot of the boss battles are very quick-time-event based, but begrudgingly I’ll say that sometimes it works well.
Unfortunately the traditional RPG elements I was hoping for are mostly missing. Status effects are basically nonexistent. You really only control one party member. No puzzles or ‘thinking’ because there’s a waypoint marker for everything. Maybe worst of all, it feel like my play-through of the game won’t look any different from someone else’s.
Here’s the crux of it. I don’t play Dark Souls, Elden Ring etc., because I don’t want to focus on quick movements. So it’s distressing to say that the most important game mechanic in Final Fantasy 16 is the dodge mechanic. Dodge! It’s not right.
I remember (“back in my day”) when games used to be distinct. Final Fantasy X, Devil May Cry, Armored Core 3, and Majora’s Mask were different games. Now the latest iterations are basically the same fast paced strafe, dodge, big attack, retreat mechanics mixed in with a few unique quirks. Obviously games are more accessible these days, and the budgets basically mandate broad appeal, but it sort of sucks having to rely solely on indie publishers or old games to have a truly unique experience.
As for Final Fantasy, I at least wish they had a spin-off series that felt like the old titles. Maybe even a Tactics remake (Octopath doesn’t count for me). Again, all this to say that while Final Fantasy 16: Revengeance isn’t what I wanted, I’m not disappointed with my experience. Just missing days gone by.
Edit: added more pros and cons
You're mostly right, but I would say Tears of the Kingdom is an exception given that if you want to it can play more like Armored Core than a traditional Zelda game, lol. I'm not competent enough to build a working mech but some people have done it.
I guess if Octopath doesn't count for you you may feel the same about others, but Square Enix is putting out plenty of old-school-styled stuff: Live A Live remake, Tactics Ogre remake, Triangle Strategy, Octopath II, Bravely Default II, and that's just the stuff that comes to mind for me.
I'm probably even more aged out with my opinions on the series. Ever since Final Fantasy went ARPG I feel like it's lost it's way. In my opinion Final Fantasy XII was the last good game in the main line non-MMO series (XIV is absolutely fantastic). I grew up on 2 and 3 (US) then 7-10 and I have a very strong love of turn based RPGs so I know I'm pretty biased.
I was also not very into XV, but I still played it because of my residual love for the series as a whole. XVI is very likely the first in the series I won't be buying.
I'm even worse since the last one I played more than a few hours of was FF6 (and thus I consider it the pinnacle of the series.) But I get how you can't make 10 more games without changing things.
The line of on 2 sides and take turns attacking thing, was always a somewhat odd abstraction, that mostly presisted out of tradition more than necessity I think.
Very fair point about making so many games that something has to change or people would be complaining that it's just "another clone."
I do however think there's still room to innovate with the various mechanics and subsystems in a turn-based RPG. FF7's Materia system was extremely good in my opinion. The job/class system of FF2 was similarly really good. Chrono Trigger was able to break the "line up on either side" while keeping it turn based. And then you can add on top the "active" battle systems to break up the strictly turn based style. Even in modern games, Octopath 2 is graphically stunning while keeping it's old school sprite style and the battle system is really great, just be prepared for a mountain of dialog.
I do take your point on tradition vs necessity. I think it probably started off as more necessity because of the extreme constraints of the hardware systems at the time, but as the hardware got better and better the battle system stayed out of nostalgia or tradition and since I grew up in that era, I definitely concede that a lot of my opnions probably revolve around nostalgia.
All of this is not to stay I dislike all ARPGs. The complex combat systems in games like Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and 3 were highly enjoyable and wrapped in rather good story telling.
I'm enjoying it quite a bit personally. I understand this isn't the game some people wanted it to be, but for me coming in with no expectations, it's been a great run so far. Personally, I find a lot of similarities to FFX which I am a huge fan of, in terms of the character arcs and the world building. I really don't understand the complaints about the side quests I've seen, sure they're fetch quests like basically every other game, but none of them feel pointless to me. Each one is building on the world in some way to reinforce a previous concept, or to add in some additional context. And the political development! When you get to around the 40% mark and are introduced to a conflict map breaking down all the major incidents, that really excited me to see clearly laid out.
That's not to say I don't have complaints. I do wish there were more customization options to the way you approach battle. You don't really have to understand your enemy at all to fight them besides dodging their basic attack patterns. There's no real use of tactics in battle, like certain elements being stronger, using appropriate debuffs, etc. I do still enjoy the combat, but I'm unsure if I will be motivated to attempt a NG+ after beating the main story unless things change later in the game.
Definitely the best game, story wise, since FFIX. Absolutely adore the gameplay, missing the resource and team management from the other games, but overall this game is nearly everything i've wanted in a FF. I'm not a huge fan of the shift back to purely Fantasy, since I adore Sci-Fantasy, but I'll take what I can get.
I agree to some comments about FF losing its way. Peak FF was 10 and good bye kiss to classic FF to 9. Also every FF installment was about showing off way ahead technology of the console of the era, now tech wise current FF is not that different to other AAA game, some examples of way ahead games are Cyberpunk, GTA or Red Dead Redemption.
I don't know that FF has ever really been a technical showcase. I've grown up seeing the games release from VII onward and the one aspect where they really wowed people, starting with FFVII, was with cinematics. This was in an age when console games could finally show FMV of a decent quality, and 3D animation was still fairly rudimentary, so there was the potential to blow people away with cinematics. Square did wonders with Final Fantasy in this regard... I remember Blizzard being one of the few companies that could compete with them.
There's a reason why Square decided to make a Final Fantasy movie. But the development timeframe kinda lined up unfortunately with how the importance of cinematics diminished over time. They started making that movie in 1996 I think, after finishing cinematic work on FFVII... but by 2001 it just wasn't as impressive, people didn't care as much and the movie flopped and hurt Square big time.
Nowadays nobody really cares about cinematics in games, generally, some people even find them to be an annoyance. I can't recall any other way in which FF has stood out technically. They do constantly try new things re: gameplay, but not because they are so enabled by new tech. And of course, FFVII onward started using static backgrounds since they could make use of the large storage capacity of the PS1 but they were far from the first to do so, it was commonplace on PS1 by the time FFVII came out.
I'll have to disagree that final fantasy haven't been a technical showcase. Riding high from the success of final fantasy 7 and the back catalog of Chrono trigger, secret of man etc they created square pictures which produced the doomed the spirits within movie. The Spirits Within was absurdly ahead of the rest of the world in CGI and a big reason for that was a heavy heavy investment with computers and rendering equipment. It was even touted as the most advanced rendering system in the world at the time.
Even though the movie failed they still used this equipment (along with funds from Sony's 20% buyout) to create final fantasy 10.
10 Blew the gaming world away. It used to be that some of the very best CGI came from square soft and square enix. Even movies had trouble keeping up with them.
I'd say that it wasn't until how to train your dragon 2 that I really caught myself saying ' this is better than final fantasy.'
Unfortunately it seems like they're relying on that technology to heavy now and not catching up with things like facial expressions.
I finished it with about 35 hours of gameplay. I'll try my best to breakdown my thoughts on the game.
After about 2 hours in the game I switched to playing on story mode, which is something I have never done before for a Final Fantasy game. I love JRPG games and they're one of the few genres I don't mind grinding in because they often have decent side content locked away behind that grind. This has definitely colored my experience and the reason I switched to it is because of some of the negatives about the game that I will call out further down.
There are some really positive aspects to the game, and on average I don't regret buying it for full retail and sinking 35 hours into it. If it wasn't for the solid core story I'd probably not feel this way.
The not so positive aspects of the game.
I may go back and play new game + at some point in the future and maybe it'll be different because I'll be going in knowing about these flaws. But there were moments while playing that I was quite angry about what they took away or chose not to do. I'm really disappointed with the lack of content around the people directly around the main character and not having a party system at all. Followed by the general lack of care in the side quests for most of the game (I'm certain there were some side quests gems that I missed because I stopped doing them. It seemed like half of all the side quests only showed up during the last 1/3 of the game).
TLDR: I think I might've enjoyed a 15 hour Final Fantasy XVI movie compared to the 35 hour husk of a Final Fantasy game that I played.
The NPCs only speaking a couple words was so weird I thought it was a glitch!
I'm probably past halfway it's more enjoyable but I truly doubt I'll play through it again.
You might want to skip the "100%" part. The side quest are, by and large, MMO-style fetch quests. They don't seem to contribute to the story.
The only platinum I've ever gotten was final fantasy 15. It wasn't hard. Thinking back on the countless hours I've spent on ffx dodging lightning bolts and racing chocobos it really hammers home how easy it is to just spam square and beat the game.
After watching it, I'm very interested in playing once it comes to PC. I even consider myself a huge "retro Final Fantasy" fan. I prefer the turn-based style of FF6, and I really enjoyed FF1-9. I have definite opinions about what I prefer about Final Fantasy, and FF16 is likely far from those...
However, I find it incredibly annoying that a lot of the historical fanbase is just too caught up on wanting to force their franchise to always be "a certain way" that they'll review-bomb a game, just because to them it's not their Final Fantasy. I think it's very narrow-sighted to view FF as a "turn-based" franchise or any kind of pigeonholing.
I think it's better to have an open mind and allow franchises you love to branch out into other play styles and tell their stories their own way. Each Final Fantasy game, IMO, for the most part, stands on its own and has its own quirks and ideas and storytelling, and a lot of what a lot of us retro-FF enjoyers think Final Fantasy "is"- it really isn't, and we shouldn't force it to be so.
I'm also extremely surprised at the takes that think that graphics are bad? I've been watching streams of the game in "graphics" mode on the PS5 and I thought it was beautiful and some of the best looking Final Fantasy has ever been with some absolutely gorgeous landscapes and characters. I literally have difficulty understanding how others don't see that too...
The gameplay on the other hand- meh, I think while it's doing nothing amazing from a gameplay standpoint, a lot of the sequences I watched others play seemed really fun, even if it's just "playing a story" or whatever. I think it's okay for there to be some FF games like this. Being able to see some Final Fantasy classics (especially the Eikons) in such glorious detail and fight sequences REALLY sold me on wanting to play it- and I'm okay with the "quicktime" events too
That said, to be fair, and level some of what I've already said, I can definitely see where some of the constructive, and thorough criticisms are coming from (the locking of side quests, the very on-rails nature of the game sometimes, gameplay being less of a focus than story it seems, etc)- I think it's likely far from a perfect game, I just mostly take issue with zero-nuance, knee-jerk reaction reviews that are so common these days from fanbases. I just want the gaming community in general to be more levelheaded, more open to variety, and able to enjoy things without being critical ad nauseum. I see so many people that just seem like they always have to be negative about every new thing. I've been guilty of this before, but I've changed a lot in this regard and I want others to grow and change in that way too. I think a lot of people make their own experience more miserable because of hypercriticality and unrealistic fanboy expectations. Sometimes it's okay to sit back and enjoy.
I found that I had brightness maxed out which washed out the picture and adjusted the settings on my TV (OLED can be a bitch.) It's better now but just had another Eikon battle and again it was set in a featureless sandbox with a gray misty background. It's better now but still eventhough the cities are detailed they feel so static compared to some recent games.
I am in no way trying to drag the series into the old turn based gameplay. But the game is so so soooo easy. Every regular encounter is over in a minute or less. I can't get in the really good combos because all 8 enemies are already dead.
I am enjoying it enough and I'll keep buying them when they come out. I don't expect them to make design the game to make me happy but with the last couple games theny have lost me as a superfan. And that's okay! I was mostly just wondering others opinions and most are stoked but many are underwhelmed especially old school gamers.
All good, sorry- wasn't trying to imply that the criticisms I had frustrations with were your criticisms or anything. I was frustrated and got off on a tangent a bit. There was just a lot of knee-jerk hate on the game as it released. Similar to FF15, I think. I know FF15 gets jokes about how the characters look and the modern setting- but I've learned that it's a game I could probably enjoy too. :)
In fact we probably pretty much agree on it- that it's not what we would have wanted, it's not like the FF experiences we're used to, and despite its flaws, can be appreciated as its own thing
Likewise no worries.
I played another big chunk of it and I agree with your assessment. Combat while not difficult it's more complex once you have more Eikons, also some of the notorious bounties are difficult and fun. Some ninja guy in the desert kicked my ass 10 times before I won.
Like you said the side quests got a bit better and a lot of the side characters are developed enough to make them important.
Combination of the brightness being maxed out and the beginning levels being mostly white and gray sandstone really messed up my perception of it. Now that my TV's tuned and the game is tuned and The environments are richer a bit later on and I'm a lot happier with it.
Totally worth the 60 bucks and a play though!
I'm probably 8 or so hours in. I just got my second eikon and I'm kinda already tired of waiting for the game to be fun?
The only interesting thing I can do during the combat is try to constantly magic burst, no other mechanic they've given me actually seems... To do anything?
Like, I have lunge, and stomp, and phoenix shift, and I can shift into a strike or a spell, or I can etc etc etc... But the combat lacks the action feedback to tell me that any of these are ever the optimal play/ that they do anything at all.
When I stagger a big enemy, I just... Beat on them for a little while? Like, that's supposed to be the "Your enemy is weak!" Big exciting moment and I just... Mash attack and then pop all my specials in the final moments. Every. Time.
There's no nuance to anything I do. There's nothing to explore and I always have the most up-to-date equipment for my 1 party member.
I don't hate the story, but I do hate that they told the localization team "You're allowed to say Fuck, now," and they've taken to it like a goddam 13 year old. I swear, but this game swears so much it's pointless.
I lost interest in FF15 because there was so much to do, I've lost interest in this one because there's nothing to do. Except gratuitous cutscenes
Edit: I am not using any of the easy mode accessories at all. This combat is still brain-dead so far.
I watched a couple videos on some of the deeper mechanics of the battles. Heatwave can block projectiles, Torgol can be used to chain combos, etc. The problem is that there's no real need to do any of it so it doesn't feel rewarding.
I'm not a fan. I don't mind action combat in RPGs. But I find this combat boring. And I can't quite put my finger on it, but it feels like when you're walking around the world outside of combat, it's slow and not fun. Especially since there's not a lot to explore and the game is really linear.
The story is pretty good so far though.
I'm still early on. I like it so far, but the writing isn't hooking me and I wish there were real party members.
I am completely in love with the game ATM. The graphics, music, boss battles and story are all excellent. I understand people's complaints about the combat, especially early on and in non-boss battles. However, I think you can start making the system work for you once you've unlocked a few more powers to switch through to personalize the fighting system.
The voice acting for me was a big surprise. Even the minor characters can shine and meaningful moments resonate within the tonally dark themes being explored. I happen to like the vulgarity, which is a weird thing to say, but it helps humanize the characters and add credibility to the incredibly shitty situations that arise. Same goes with the sexual elements and mature themes (slavery, class struggle, etc). All of the major story beats (about 20-25 hours) have landed and even minor villain's motivations seem plausible.
My main complaint so far stems from the PS5 itself. I really wish the game launched on PC at the same time, as the framerate downright chugs at times. Oddly enough, switching to the "graphics" setting seems to have evened things out enough for my brain to mostly ignore it. When this game comes to PC I may actually replay it just to enjoy the spectacle without compromise.
I do like the active lore! Octopath is definitely in my game queue. My faves are 3(6) 10, 12. Shout-out to 7.
Out of curiosity, how do you find the combat compares to FFXV? I don't mind the ARPG direction of the series, but FFXV combat felt a bit simplistic to me, like the game was doing all the "playing" for me. I unfortunately can't try out the demo since I don't have a PS5 and will need to wait until it's ported to PC.