Sequels that feel radically different from it's predecessors?

[NightmareFarm]

30 minutes ago, Grungie said:

No, I definitely do not know what I'm talking about with FF, this picture is a lie.

 

Back to being serious, I don't know what you're talking about with the games being formulaic to the extent of Pokemon. Like how are the games tied to each other? What makes a game more "Final Fantasy" than another? When I play FF 3, it's different from 7, or 6, or 10. None of the lore lines up, it hops between medieval and science fiction, and I haven't seen crystals of the elements mentioned in ages.

When you throw around vague blanket terms, you need to back those up with something quantifiable. I feel like you're using a word salad. "The weapons in 12 are like FF1-3". Like what, how? You need to further elaborate things, and not dodge my questions.

It's self explanatory. I don't see a need to debate this matter. Put a clip of FFXV gameplay side by side with a previous FF game(besides FF 13 and the MMOS). And put that game side by side with another FF game. No matter the games you choose FFXV is going to be the odd one out. Just look at the clip I sent it is like a different IP disguised as an FF game. 

 

If we talked how different FF13 is compared to prev games I would be fine debating but this is way too obvious. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by NightmareFarm

[Grungie]

4 minutes ago, NightmareFarm said:

It's self explanatory. I don't see a need to debate this matter. Put a clip of FFXV gameplay side by side with a previous FF game(besides FF 13 and the MMOS). And put that game side by side with another FF game. No matter the games you choose FFXV is going to be the odd one out. Just look at the clip I sent it is like a different IP disguised as an FF game. 

 

If we talked how different FF13 is compared to prev games I would be fine debating but this is way too obvious. 

Good job at dodging my other questions. I love the “items obvious” or “it’s self explanatory” responses people give, like they don’t have to substantiate it if you just say it’s obvious.

FF7 remake also isn’t a real FF game I’m taking? Or is it because it’s a remake, it IS a real entry?

Edited June 11, 2022 by Grungie

[NightmareFarm]

1 minute ago, Grungie said:

Good job at dodging my other questions.

FF7 remake also isn’t a real FF game I’m taking? Or is it because it’s a remake, it IS a real entry?

7R being a remake of 7(one of the strongest core identity FFs) is much closer to the general FF zeitgeist than XV. It is not based in reality for one, magic actually functions like FF magic in that game rather than bombs. Summons also have an active role like other FF games. The combat is half turn based and not focused around warping.

[Grungie]

17 minutes ago, NightmareFarm said:

7R being a remake of 7(one of the strongest core identity FFs) is much closer to the general FF zeitgeist than XV. It is not based in reality for one, magic actually functions like FF magic in that game rather than bombs. Summons also have an active role like other FF games. The combat is half turn based and not focused around warping.

How is FF7 one of the strongest core identity games? I feel that comment is only based on it being the most popular Final Fantasy game.

I don’t feel like the rolling around to dodge is much different than FF15’s warping. So I feel it’s weird to say FF15 isn’t a real FF game, but FF7R IS a real Final Fantasy.
 

FF12 plays like an MMO (which by your logic, the MMO’s don’t count), so it also shouldn’t count because it’s not turn based. The setting is based on Ivalice, which makes it more in common with Vagrant Story and FF Tactics, so should that also discredit it from being a real FF game? You said it’s more and world are more like a “real” FF game, despite its world and lore being tied to a spin-off and a non-Final Fantasy game.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Grungie

[Shagger]

I'd hardly call myself a Final Fantasy expert, I didn't play a Final Fantasy game until FFX, but given that up until FFX-2 no two games actually shared the same universe, talking about how the games differ from thier processors seems a little arbitrary. I think this is especially true when talking about the games that have come out since FFX as Square Enix have not rested on thier morals and brought out something drastically different each time not just in terms of lore and setting, but in terms of the gameplay itself. How one feels about about each game will inevitably differ drastically each time, that's the cost of this diverse creative approach, but It's still a good thing overall. Even with the games where I don't like the approach (for example I hated the levelling system in FFXII until we we got "The Zodiac Age"), I can at least appreciate them for trying to bring something fresh. What I really don't understand, and please nobody tell me, I DON'T want to be told, is what it takes to make a so-called "true" Final Fantasy game. Maybe it's because I came into the series late and only really played the games from FFX onwards, but the very idea of a "true" Final Fantasy sounds alien to me. I don't want a purest Final Fantasy experience, to many JRPG franchises stubbornly stick to years old formulas as it is, we don't need Final Fantasy to do the same thing.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Shagger

[Grungie]

33 minutes ago, Shagger said:

I'd hardly call myself a Final Fantasy expert, I didn't play a Final Fantasy game until FFX, but given that up until FFX-2 no two games actually shared the same universe, talking about how the games differ from thier processors seems a little arbitrary. I think this is especially true when talking about the games that have come out since FFX as Square Enix have not rested on thier morals and brought out something drastically different each time not just in terms of lore and setting, but in terms of the gameplay itself. How one feels about about each game will inevitably differ drastically each time, that's the cost of this diverse creative approach, but It's still a good thing overall. Even with the games where I don't like the approach (for example I hated the levelling system in FFXII until we we got "The Zodiac Age"), I can at least appreciate them for trying to bring something fresh. What I really don't understand, and please nobody tell me, I DON'T want to be told, is what it take to make a so-called "true" Final Fantasy game. Maybe it's because I came into the series late and only really played the games from FFX onwards, but the very idea of a "true" Final Fantasy sounds alien to me. I don't want a purest Final Fantasy experience, to many JRPG franchises stubbornly stick to years old formulas as it is, we don't need Final Fantasy to do the same thing.

As someone who played all of them except FF11, I don’t think there really is a “true” Final Fantasy. Even if you go back to the Nintendo era games, they changed a lot around too. Even going from FF1 to FF2, there’s a lot of gameplay and story elements that were vastly different.

Sure they were both turn based and top down, so at face value they look the same. (It also doesn’t help that if you played the NES versions of both, and your main FF1 character was a warrior, the same character sprite.) Then you get into the battle system and things get very different.

They jettisoned the traditional level up system with something akin to Elder Scrolls, where each stat is individually leveled up for each character, the same goes with each character’s individual spells. There are no classes, no crystals of the elements. What summons?

That’s just with the first two games. So I agree with you, I don’t think there’s a “true” Final Fantasy game if they change it up every entry. Fans claim FF9, but that’s mostly because it’s like a callback to all of the previous 8 games.

[Clasher]

Personally , I feel devil may cry 2 is one of the worst game sequels and was in no way as good as the predecessors. It was available on PS2 when I played it.

[Shagger]

22 minutes ago, Clasher said:

Personally , I feel devil may cry 2 is one of the worst game sequels and was in no way as good as the predecessors. It was available on PS2 when I played it.

 

You are not alone. I hated that game with a passion. It somehow looked worse than the original with really muddy, dull graphics and it looked somebody had done something private to the camera lens. Pretty surprising considering all the recycled assets, like bosses from the first game we saw die coming back for no reason and with no explanation. The game just lazily executed and felt sluggish and uninspiring to play. You can tell Capcom, likely surprised by Devil May Cry's success, just shat something out quick to cash in.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Shagger

[Clasher]

4 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

You are not alone. I hated that game with a passion. It somehow looked worse than the original with really muddy, dull graphics and it looked somebody had done something private to the camera lens. Pretty supposing consideringe all the recycled assets, like bosses that were dead coming back for no reason and with no explanation. The game just lazily executed and felt sluggish and uninspiring to play. You can tell Capcom, likely surprised by Devil May Cry's success, just shat something out quick to cash in.

And surprisingly the game was still a commercial success, I felt everyone was expecting something fascinating as the previous devil may cry, but after I purchased the game I regretted my actions in a few days. Capcom practically changed the personality of Dante and lowered the game difficulty, the combat system was less refined, they brought back the same weapons as were in the previous game but this time they made it stronger or weaker instead of bringing new weapons with their individual advantages or disadvantages, the list just goes on and on.

[NightmareFarm]

7 hours ago, Grungie said:

As someone who played all of them except FF11, I don’t think there really is a “true” Final Fantasy. Even if you go back to the Nintendo era games, they changed a lot around too. Even going from FF1 to FF2, there’s a lot of gameplay and story elements that were vastly different.

Sure they were both turn based and top down, so at face value they look the same. (It also doesn’t help that if you played the NES versions of both, and your main FF1 character was a warrior, the same character sprite.) Then you get into the battle system and things get very different.

They jettisoned the traditional level up system with something akin to Elder Scrolls, where each stat is individually leveled up for each character, the same goes with each character’s individual spells. There are no classes, no crystals of the elements. What summons?

That’s just with the first two games. So I agree with you, I don’t think there’s a “true” Final Fantasy game if they change it up every entry. Fans claim FF9, but that’s mostly because it’s like a callback to all of the previous 8 games.

False equivalency strawman.

Yes, games are always going to have a change each entry but my point is, 15 is changed so so radically it has nothing in common with the things the previous games share in common. The previous games changed some things up but still had the same formula. FF1-10 had basically the same formula, 10 and 12 also felt similar enough. They were all turn based, semi open world or had an overworld with screen transitions for combat, combat was based around attacking, magic, skills, summons and items. In FFXV, it's based around attacking, teleporting and weapon switching. Prev games are all based in very fantastical settings whether it be medieval or steampunk or cybperpunk rather than being as the devs say "A fantasy based on reality"(hence why the series is called "Final FANTASY"), magic is magic not item bombs, summons play a more active role in combat rather than something you trigger once in a while.

THAT is the series "core identity". 

FFXV being an open world action game where you can enter an enemy base and sneak around doing stealth kills like it's metal gear solid, use mounted turrets to fire at enemies like it's call of duty, do QTEs in combat like it's freakin bayonetta or god of war. I mean no offense but I don't get how you're equating the changes made in this game to changes made in previous game, they are not the same changes.  

Anyway, I don't feel like debating further because i'm just repeating myself at this point. To each our own. 

[Withywarlock]

It's hard for me to choose one, and @Yaramaki's impressive list beat me to games that should've been obvious with games like Fallout and Banjo-Kazooie, games I've batted for over the years.

The only game that comes to mind for me, which is debatable as to whether it counts is Baldur's Gate. Originally a real-time with pause (RTwP) Computer Roleplaying Game (CRPG) based on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition (AD&D 2E. We're going full on with the brackets today, aren't we?), Baldur's Gate III's combat is entirely turn-based and based on Dungeons & Dragons' Fifth Edition (D&D 5E).

While not radically different per the title, it caused - and likely still causes - quite the storm in public debate about the game.

[killamch89]

On 6/10/2022 at 7:46 PM, Shagger said:

I'd hardly call myself a Final Fantasy expert, I didn't play a Final Fantasy game until FFX, but given that up until FFX-2 no two games actually shared the same universe, talking about how the games differ from thier processors seems a little arbitrary. I think this is especially true when talking about the games that have come out since FFX as Square Enix have not rested on thier morals and brought out something drastically different each time not just in terms of lore and setting, but in terms of the gameplay itself. How one feels about about each game will inevitably differ drastically each time, that's the cost of this diverse creative approach, but It's still a good thing overall. Even with the games where I don't like the approach (for example I hated the levelling system in FFXII until we we got "The Zodiac Age"), I can at least appreciate them for trying to bring something fresh. What I really don't understand, and please nobody tell me, I DON'T want to be told, is what it takes to make a so-called "true" Final Fantasy game. Maybe it's because I came into the series late and only really played the games from FFX onwards, but the very idea of a "true" Final Fantasy sounds alien to me. I don't want a purest Final Fantasy experience, to many JRPG franchises stubbornly stick to years old formulas as it is, we don't need Final Fantasy to do the same thing.

I never put much thought into it until today but I have to agree that "core" Final Fantasy is a bit of a myth because almost every game barring X and X-2 take place in different timelines so the lore is all over the place. "Core" Final Fantasy means different things to different people.

[Clasher]

On 6/11/2022 at 10:27 AM, NightmareFarm said:

False equivalency strawman.

Yes, games are always going to have a change each entry but my point is, 15 is changed so so radically it has nothing in common with the things the previous games share in common. The previous games changed some things up but still had the same formula. FF1-10 had basically the same formula, 10 and 12 also felt similar enough. They were all turn based, semi open world or had an overworld with screen transitions for combat, combat was based around attacking, magic, skills, summons and items. In FFXV, it's based around attacking, teleporting and weapon switching. Prev games are all based in very fantastical settings whether it be medieval or steampunk or cybperpunk rather than being as the devs say "A fantasy based on reality"(hence why the series is called "Final FANTASY"), magic is magic not item bombs, summons play a more active role in combat rather than something you trigger once in a while.

THAT is the series "core identity". 

FFXV being an open world action game where you can enter an enemy base and sneak around doing stealth kills like it's metal gear solid, use mounted turrets to fire at enemies like it's call of duty, do QTEs in combat like it's freakin bayonetta or god of war. I mean no offense but I don't get how you're equating the changes made in this game to changes made in previous game, they are not the same changes.  

Anyway, I don't feel like debating further because i'm just repeating myself at this point. To each our own. 

@NightmareFarm you've given a good breakdown of what final fantasy is, I have been final fantasy for a while now but I never really paid close attention to the intent of why the game is called final fantasy.

Drawings reference from what you said I feel the world and environment that is featured in final fantasy is meant to be a fantasy and not look like anything from the real world as we know it.

[NightmareFarm]

3 hours ago, Clasher said:

@NightmareFarm you've given a good breakdown of what final fantasy is, I have been final fantasy for a while now but I never really paid close attention to the intent of why the game is called final fantasy.

Drawings reference from what you said I feel the world and environment that is featured in final fantasy is meant to be a fantasy and not look like anything from the real world as we know it.

Exactly. That's part of the reason why XV feels so alien to me(although it's a huge list of major changes that collectively make it feel like a different IP). 

[NightmareFarm]

3 hours ago, killamch89 said:

I never put much thought into it until today but I have to agree that "core" Final Fantasy is a bit of a myth because almost every game barring X and X-2 take place in different timelines so the lore is all over the place. "Core" Final Fantasy means different things to different people.

Well like I said each game differs but there are certain strings that tie them together such as having fantasy settings and whatnot. FFXV severs all those strings. Even FF16 is more faithful to the series core identity.