An onslaught of factors leads to the changes in these styles, from something as simple as adhering to the limitations set by the world the plot is set in (read: appropriate tone of language, to keep in line with the book analogy) all the way to suitable and realistic (in the sense of "realism" that would be perceived by the people within that world) ideas set by the people within the world (read: system/disc size limitations)

Expecting everything to be similar to everything previous is, probably, one of the most ignorant stances of video gamers that I'll never understand. Nostalgia really doesn't help anything move forward.

If you'd rather the series end than ride the wave on which it rests, then just stop paying attention to it. They will ride it out until people stop talking about it, as being spoken about at all will translate into sales.

Your distinctions do seem rather arbitrary, Dray, though to be honest any distinction made beyond what lone outlined (about the authorial nature being the only common thread) is bound to be arbitrary.

For instance, to return to Lantis's graphic for a moment, it's not that I don't play the classics it's that I tend to separate the series into roughly three 'generations' (to keep within the basic lingo of gaming) in my head. 1-6, 7-10, X-2 - 13.
This is entirely personal, and accidental, and isn't supposed to have any real bearing on reality.

4 and 6 are the stand-out experiences of the early set, with 6 being a kind of culmination of quality that's utterly rare to my experience with video games.

7-10 are set aside on this chart less because of the graphics or console revolutions, and more for a general evolution of type of game altogether similar to, and distinct from, the evolution that culminated in 6. FF did, and wanted to do, different things from this point forward, and 10 is arguably the culmination of that, in the sense of culminating the evolution this time, rather than necessarily meaning with quality as well, like 6 meant.

The defining characteristics of the third set are simple enough: 1.) There is a new artistic, financial, and methodological goal-set involved, 2.) There was a merger, 3.) I haven't played any of them to the point of beating them, and in several cases haven't played any of them.

But, to get off my own arbitrary feel for the series, the point is that I see just as much of a veering away from in the changes between the first and second sets as the second and third sets - the changes were more stylistic and methodological than the ones you're talking about, though, which tend to take place in the framework.
It's still so very different, however, in its own way, that the only reason not to think of them as three different series is that they aren't published that way.

Also - why doesn't the mag inform me of people posting while I'm typing anymore?

Those are the words I was trying to convey when Lantis and I were arguing pointlessly over whether Selphie from FFVIII was cute or obnoxious. Because he was right when he said that she, Rikku, and Yuffie were all the same - the cute childlike member of the group for all of our loli fanatics. The argument I stood for was that I liked Selphie as a character while hating Rikku and Yuffie, but at a glance that doesn't seem logical if they are all the same (stereotypical) type of character. What I was trying to say that Selphie delivered/executed her cuteness in such a way as to make her attractive rather than annoying to me. Rikku and Yuffie failed at it. If anyone wants me to elaborate, I will; but otherwise, this would be pretty much off the topic.

The same concept with FFXIII's rumored "lack of towns", and what we already know to be X's and XII's lack of a "world map". I don't plan to take what was said to be a lack of towns at face value; I am certain there will be a satisfactory substitute for them or somehow "towns" will be present in the game in a different sense. Lantis and I once complained in a Mag article about the one-screen-size display of the entire world in X and XII, but in the end that was fine because it turned out that in both games the outside worlds of Spira and Ivalice were simply viewed in a different light. The lands had simply become "dungeons" in and of themselves, explored and conquered just like the traditional "inside" dungeon would be - in a linear fashion. In fact, at least as a new concept to try out for a while, I actually liked this approach even more than the free-roaming overworld map that we're all used to seeing in 90+% of RPG's. The outside world of Spira in FFX only seemed to have been painted more vividly to me this way than, say, Gaia in IX (pretty as it was even for PS1 graphics). Who can deny the scenically aesthetic value of the Macalania woods or the Zanarkand mountains in FFX? Would these locations have stood out to us if they has just been brought to us in the game as the generic clump of trees representing a forest or the white field representing a snowy tundra that you are bound to see on the overworld map of any other RPG?





No, it doesn't. But still, you have to admit that change usually sucks. ^_^

To be fair, most of this thread is off-topic but hasn't really degraded into inane whining, so I've been leaving it be.

But, I would agree with this entirely - I also preferred Selphie over her 7 and 10 equivalents for the same reasons. The execution is vital, and applies to every single aspect of anything related to human creativity, video gaming or otherwise.



This is, in part, the kind of thing that makes the difference. The implementation of a fully explorable world map, and towns, does a lot of things to a game - it creates an overall larger game (in the sense of data size/processing power required by the system) that, in older games, always translated into having to split the game across several discs.

Lately, to avoid this, games have been removing maps in favor of greater detail in the areas you actually DO see. I would definitely agree with them having been less memorable if every square foot of the world were explorable.

And if they weren't less detailed due to the full world being made, more time would be spent on developing the game, driving up costs for the company and thus us, and people would still complain.... the very same people that are complaining now.



This is what a lot of people seem to be stuck on - the fact that they're all published under the same name. Was trying to convey that the "Final Fantasy" refers to an author of a title, which is always the same, while everything else can change.

Thanks for expanding a lot on what I was trying to concisely convey, quite insightful really.



Because it thinks you are all-knowing and don't need to see what other people say before you lay your word on the table.

I never lay my word on tables, dear boy, it might break them.

In response to:

viewtopic.php?p=127180#p127180


The problem with attempting to give your previous argument a proper holding based on how I chose to word things now is that your argument was pertaining to one single game, not a generation which is the case in Bo's Metroid posts.

You were attacking a game you've never played - and continue to do so with the no towns deal. Let me ask you this: if you were an enemy of the ENTIRE WORLD, would they welcome you with open arms when you stroll into their cities? No, no they wouldn't. Can't even argue otherwise. What makes it worse is you're all visibly branded as enemies and have been seen on television. Still a lost cause trying to defend your criticisms of a game you have never played and clearly don't understand.

For clarity's sake, you didn't draw a line between 12 and 13. Bo, on the other hand, is drawing a line between Prime and this new one. He also hadn't played an ENTIRE generation of which HE defined. You, however, have. That's why I actually addressed your opinion - yes, it carried more weight than Bo's. No, it wasn't a valid point.

The whole reason I commented on your criticism of Bo, which sounds very similar to the things I was saying to you in this thread, was simply to comment on how much more well thought out it seemed compared to your previous arguments. You really didn't need to backtrack and ruin that.