Did Ff16 Flop?

I would have rather had no itemization at all, than what we got. Definite low point.

More options would've been good. I like the Eikon system but everything else was pretty limited. That said coming up with combos was satisfying more often than it wasn't.

My biggest takeaway from the Eikon system and the combat in general was "god DAMN, map the eikon options to signs and this would be the best *** Witcher game ever"

and its not like you need 16 equip slots to make gear interesting, beloved ff7 had just 2 but unique gear combined with materia the possibilities were endless.

agree they could have omitted it entirely and just did the eikon skill tree.

So story heavy that they just throw out the game part and make it into a really long movie.

and to be clear, theres nothing wrong with SE being a story game company with bad gameplay. it just sucks for those of us that liked the previous style

They tried that, it didn't work out so well

Yes, they threw the game part out. There is no gameplay in XVI at all.

Advent Children scraped by based on pedigree but the movie actually sucked eggs

Narrative depth of the hungry hungry caterpillar with passable action scenes at the end

then in life imitating art, this thread is like the human centipede

I mean, Advent Children was a rousing success compared to Spirits Within, which I saw in an actual goddamn theater like the fanboy I am

So I take it, XIII (most pointless combat) and XVI are what should be made a movie.

Yep, so the answer was to add pressing buttons and moving the protagonist between scenes.

You just described every final Fantasy game ever made.

And what is a turn based JRPG other than pressing buttons and moving the protagonist around???

Just incase it gets edited out, I gotta quote it.

Saevel pullin one of these with that line:

Is that how you felt playing FF 1-9? Tactics? Legend of Dragoon? Breath of Fire? Or you are just purposefully misinterpreting what Saevel meant?

There is a huge difference between a game building up the hype and perfectly closing it with a CS (Sephiroth killing Aerith), than a game just making you go from CS to CS.

The gameplay of JRPGS, and Final Fantasy, has always been a vehicle to the next story segment. Implying that, somehow, text based emote filled cutscenes in between dungeons are better than the cinematic ones in modern FFs is perplexing.

I want to know how this narrative that the old turn based FF games practically require you to be the Magnus Carlsen of JRPGs with their intense strategic depth came about.

ok


Please explain how this is not "pressing buttons and moving the protagonist around"

Are you creating an imaginary argument so you can counter it? Cause I have not seen anyone making such argument. Nobody here is saying that FF is harder than Bloodborne because FF is turn based. I have not found any FF game hard tbh. Abusing cinematics is like adding coffee to your sugar... It should work the other way around.

I have explained it already. Just read the replies.

Well considering one of the main hanging points here is "pressing buttons and moving the protagonist between cutscenes", it's easy to infer that people are assmad that the game isn't the type of gameplay that they want (spoilers, this has been a frequent argument since the game was announced as an action rpg in case you somehow missed it) and thus it's being boiled down as having no gameplay whatsoever instead of being an adult and admitting that it just isn't the type of gameplay that they personally care for.

I'm going to drop a bombshell, this may be shocking to some readers: final fantasy has never been challenging. Even the most difficult superbosses often boil down to hours long chains of the same busted ability over and over to whittle down the millions of hp required and either prevent the boss from..acting at all or kill them before they kill you. While this isn't a justification for newer games never being harder, it is just fact that this is how it has always been. Just because the game has you pressing X to swing your sword in real time instead of pressing X to spend your ATB bar to swing it instead doesn't mean the game has no gameplay.

-Provided with rings that make you basically invincible.
-If you lose a boss, you get to restart from partway through the fight with added potions you didn't have to start with.
-Itemization is next to nonexistant, so there's no side questing to prepare yourself for the next boss.
-Combat specialization is too low cost, you can fully respec your tree for no penalty whatsoever anytime you want. (Not saying it should've been extremely expensive given the way the game is set up, but it removes an element of progress.)

Just to name a few things aside from it being an arpg...

As far as cutscenes go, I guess we're just going to ignore the hours and hours of exposition between boss fights in every single numbered FF to date. You seem to think that things like only having a couple of FMVs/action cutscenes in the earlier 3D FF games was an artistic decision when, in reality, it was a technical limitation. As soon as they started putting games on the PS2 they've been packed with choreographed cutscenes to drive the narrative. Singling out 16 for this specifically is nonsensical and disingenuous.



The ring is an easy mode addon for accessibility if people just want to experience the story and is not an indictment on the quality of the gameplay. If you chose to use it and it ruined the game for you, that's on you not the game.

If you lose a boss in turn based FF games you just load at the save point right outside the boss room and try again, what's your point


We've already discussed the lack of character customization options and it is agreed that it would have been better if there were more, but being able to change your skill load out is a staple of these types of games and again doesn't have a negative impact on the quality of the gameplay. What hampers XVI's overall gameplay loop is meaningless gear progression and the fact that you never feel stronger, instead you just get new toys to play with that aren't necessary outside of changing the flavor of gameplay.

I don't disagree with you. I have already said I never found any FF game difficult. I just haven't seen anyone saying the opposite, so idk why you brought this up.

A lot of the fan-base didn't like the direction SE took FF (me included). I never liked DMC games but I had been a long-term fan of the FF series. I did find Sekiro and Bloodborne very challenging and I like those games for that reason. However, I would not want FF17 to be Souls-like. I want it to be FF.. To feel like FF. Now, if SE is able to reach a different audience, and that's their goal. So be it. Best of luck to them.

i call this the yoshi-p syndrome or the ffxiv factor

Yes it is very reminiscent of the item level system in XIV. A lot of it is also due to the fact that monsters scale with you making it impossible to ever actually feel like you've gotten stronger than them.

This is entirely in your head and likely you projecting.

I've was never really into Devil May Cry and find the Tails and Y's games to be more my style of action combo RPG game. If you liked FFXV / FFXVI then more power to you and I'm happy for you.

It's just really fun to watch Apple Final Fantasy fans go apeshit when someone doesn't like their chosen product.

I didn't use it(gf played but she didn't either). But, the fact it's there feels like having cheat codes built into the game.

A lot of them are not necessarily going to have a save point right outside the boss room, you'll probably have to go through a bit of dungeon. More importantly, you will have to start the boss from the beginning, meaning you have to become strong enough to win the entire fight. There's a concept of a boss being too difficult for you at your current strength level, forcing you to go back and acquire new weapons or equipment, buy more medicines to handle a specific status effect, level up, etc. When you can resume from (near enough to) where you last were with free potions, none of that exists.

Agree that it's a major problem, but I don't think it's the only problem with the gameplay loop.

There's a difference between being easy and having a free pass to beat the game without any technique/strategy/preparation. Yes, all turn-based FFs were easy, but you could still lose fights if you didn't prepare or failed to grasp the mechanics. There were consequences for losing fights. This inspired you to go back and become stronger, learn more about the fight, and made finally beating the fight more enjoyable. The level of ease also varied with how much outside information you used, of course someone copying all of their strategies from GameFAQs or reading the brady guide would be able to walk through the games. They had no mechanical skill checks.

If folks want to see what a real Action RPG looks like,



Bandai Namco been doing this awhile and got pretty damn good at it. Itemization has meaning, skill choice has meaning, characters have different build styles that favor different playstyles, choices have meanings and fights can be hella hard.

nothing wrong with removing the middleman for cheats in a single player game, do whatever makes you happy.

removing some of the nintendo hard elements from dungeon crawls and bosses is good and bad. cheapens the sense of accomplishment but saves a ton of frustration if you are truly stuck. i could go either way on this one depending upon the circumstances.