Nautilus
Banned
(If anyone doesn't want to read this admitedly big text, I have made a low effort, low budget video talking about the same thing, which is located below)
Truth be told, Final Fantasy has been confused about what it should become ever since Final Fantasy 13. The first Final Fantasy I played (and fell in love with) was Final Fantasy 10, and ever since then, through the years, I have gone back and played every single game from this legendary franchise. Yes, even the 8th game. And even though they all vary in excellence, they all share similar qualities beyond just having Moogles, Chocobos, and a random dude named Cid. As a Final Fantasy fan, I was excited to see what a new Final Fantasy could bring to the table. And then they showed FF 16. I gave the game the benefit of the doubt about its ability to impress me as a longtime fan, but then the State of Play Showcase in April 2023 happened. Now, I am sure of one thing: Square Enix has no idea what to do with Final Fantasy as a brand.
Don’t get me wrong.: the game looks absolutely beautiful, and as its own self-contained game, it might be great. But FF 16 is a far cry from what a franchise that practically birthed the RPG genre should be about. There is a saying among hardcore gaming enthusiasts and modern Final Fantasy fans that goes somewhere along these lines:
“Final Fantasy has always been about change. No game is ever similar to the previous one.”
This, my fine gentlemen, is one of the most stupid phrases anyone who has played multiple Final Fantasy games could hear. Yes, the franchise is not about a singular storyline that spans multiple games, so in that sense, each game is its own self-contained universe, and so it isn’t restricted by any story or any type of narrative. But the problem is that they are all Final Fantasy. They all carry a certain amount of expectation. And for anyone who has played the early games, they know that even if there are some changes to the structures of the story and gameplay here and there, they all retain a singular DNA, which is:
1 - Focus on telling a compelling story.
2 - Deep, tactical battles that focus on the build and strategy of the decisions made and their ramifications in the future, rather than reflex and last-minute decisions, much like a chess game.
3 - And finally, the progression of your strength through the game is focused on different builds you can make, rather than, once again, the inputs you can make at the last second, the reflexes you build through playing the game, or the combos you can employ. To put it simply, the skill comes from being able to read what your enemy is capable of and will do in the future, and act upon that knowledge, considering what your party is currently able to do, rather than building your reflexes to react to an attack the enemy is doing.
So comes the Showcase with an extended look at the 16th game in the franchise, and the only conclusion I could draw at the end is that Square Enix was envious of Capcom and its Devil May Cry franchise and decided to copy it. Because from the core foundations that Final Fantasy had as a brand until recently, they are missing two of them, with the only one that Square seems to be honoring and building upon is telling an interesting story. And even then, they seem overly focused on telling a VERY pretty story, full of eye candies in certain scenes and not having much else, which further puts into question where their focus really is: Do they want to make a great Final Fantasy game, or do they want to make a beautiful game that chases the latest trends?
I fear that the only reason Final Fantasy 7 Remake was such a wonderful and worthy addition to the franchise was because it had an anchor: the original Final Fantasy 7 and the expectations of both fans and developers to honor its legacy. Thanks to this, I feel like we got a perfect balance between taking the DNA of what Final Fantasy is, using almost 30 years of innovation to make it fresh again, but without Square’s apparently innate fear of missing out on potential sales by not adapting to trends and systems that seem more “popular” today. Don’t get me wrong, there is always a need for evolution. That’s how we got Ocarina of Time when the jump to 3D was necessary, and that’s how we got Breath of the Wild recently. That’s how we got God of War 4, and now God of War 5, and so many more. Clinging completely to past glories will make you obsolete, which is what is happening to many Microsoft franchises that failed to reinvent themselves.
But there is a difference between reinventing oneself and going completely the opposite way. Elden Ring was a successful game because of its unapologetic difficulty and masterful craftsmanship in most aspects, but it managed to sell 13 million copies in one month because it had been building a fanbase for more than a decade, ever since From Software released Demon Souls. Dark Souls 1,2, and 3, Bloodborne, and now Elden Ring. Each new entry didn't reinvent itself, even the ones that were technically a different franchise, but they did improve what they did wrong and what they did right. There was an evolution without breaking the fundamental conventions of what a “Dark Souls game” is about. And when they veered too much off the path, they went and made something different, like Sekiro. But Square is squandering that legacy and that chain of events by doing what is essentially a new franchise with a different philosophy inside an existing franchise that already had its own philosophy. Anyone who is a devotee to what Final Fantasy used to stand for will look at this and feel like the company doesn’t care about what they want. And for Square Enix, having lost that safety net, they will basically need to convince an entirely new audience to buy that game because they are no longer catering to their old, faithful audience, instead of making something that would be a true evolution and potentially appealing to both, as Zelda and God of War did, like FF 7 Remake was.
I do think that, without considering it part of one of the oldest gaming franchises around, Final Fantasy 16 will probably be a great game. Excellent, even. But this is a Final Fantasy game only in name, and I am left scratching my head wondering what Square was thinking by naming this game FF 16 instead of just making it its own original IP, which would make the game a much easier sell to anyone, as it wouldn’t leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth. One day, I hope Square rediscovers what Final Fantasy stands for. But until then, I will be looking elsewhere for the itch the older games of this franchise used to scratch.
Truth be told, Final Fantasy has been confused about what it should become ever since Final Fantasy 13. The first Final Fantasy I played (and fell in love with) was Final Fantasy 10, and ever since then, through the years, I have gone back and played every single game from this legendary franchise. Yes, even the 8th game. And even though they all vary in excellence, they all share similar qualities beyond just having Moogles, Chocobos, and a random dude named Cid. As a Final Fantasy fan, I was excited to see what a new Final Fantasy could bring to the table. And then they showed FF 16. I gave the game the benefit of the doubt about its ability to impress me as a longtime fan, but then the State of Play Showcase in April 2023 happened. Now, I am sure of one thing: Square Enix has no idea what to do with Final Fantasy as a brand.
Don’t get me wrong.: the game looks absolutely beautiful, and as its own self-contained game, it might be great. But FF 16 is a far cry from what a franchise that practically birthed the RPG genre should be about. There is a saying among hardcore gaming enthusiasts and modern Final Fantasy fans that goes somewhere along these lines:
“Final Fantasy has always been about change. No game is ever similar to the previous one.”
This, my fine gentlemen, is one of the most stupid phrases anyone who has played multiple Final Fantasy games could hear. Yes, the franchise is not about a singular storyline that spans multiple games, so in that sense, each game is its own self-contained universe, and so it isn’t restricted by any story or any type of narrative. But the problem is that they are all Final Fantasy. They all carry a certain amount of expectation. And for anyone who has played the early games, they know that even if there are some changes to the structures of the story and gameplay here and there, they all retain a singular DNA, which is:
1 - Focus on telling a compelling story.
2 - Deep, tactical battles that focus on the build and strategy of the decisions made and their ramifications in the future, rather than reflex and last-minute decisions, much like a chess game.
3 - And finally, the progression of your strength through the game is focused on different builds you can make, rather than, once again, the inputs you can make at the last second, the reflexes you build through playing the game, or the combos you can employ. To put it simply, the skill comes from being able to read what your enemy is capable of and will do in the future, and act upon that knowledge, considering what your party is currently able to do, rather than building your reflexes to react to an attack the enemy is doing.
So comes the Showcase with an extended look at the 16th game in the franchise, and the only conclusion I could draw at the end is that Square Enix was envious of Capcom and its Devil May Cry franchise and decided to copy it. Because from the core foundations that Final Fantasy had as a brand until recently, they are missing two of them, with the only one that Square seems to be honoring and building upon is telling an interesting story. And even then, they seem overly focused on telling a VERY pretty story, full of eye candies in certain scenes and not having much else, which further puts into question where their focus really is: Do they want to make a great Final Fantasy game, or do they want to make a beautiful game that chases the latest trends?
I fear that the only reason Final Fantasy 7 Remake was such a wonderful and worthy addition to the franchise was because it had an anchor: the original Final Fantasy 7 and the expectations of both fans and developers to honor its legacy. Thanks to this, I feel like we got a perfect balance between taking the DNA of what Final Fantasy is, using almost 30 years of innovation to make it fresh again, but without Square’s apparently innate fear of missing out on potential sales by not adapting to trends and systems that seem more “popular” today. Don’t get me wrong, there is always a need for evolution. That’s how we got Ocarina of Time when the jump to 3D was necessary, and that’s how we got Breath of the Wild recently. That’s how we got God of War 4, and now God of War 5, and so many more. Clinging completely to past glories will make you obsolete, which is what is happening to many Microsoft franchises that failed to reinvent themselves.
But there is a difference between reinventing oneself and going completely the opposite way. Elden Ring was a successful game because of its unapologetic difficulty and masterful craftsmanship in most aspects, but it managed to sell 13 million copies in one month because it had been building a fanbase for more than a decade, ever since From Software released Demon Souls. Dark Souls 1,2, and 3, Bloodborne, and now Elden Ring. Each new entry didn't reinvent itself, even the ones that were technically a different franchise, but they did improve what they did wrong and what they did right. There was an evolution without breaking the fundamental conventions of what a “Dark Souls game” is about. And when they veered too much off the path, they went and made something different, like Sekiro. But Square is squandering that legacy and that chain of events by doing what is essentially a new franchise with a different philosophy inside an existing franchise that already had its own philosophy. Anyone who is a devotee to what Final Fantasy used to stand for will look at this and feel like the company doesn’t care about what they want. And for Square Enix, having lost that safety net, they will basically need to convince an entirely new audience to buy that game because they are no longer catering to their old, faithful audience, instead of making something that would be a true evolution and potentially appealing to both, as Zelda and God of War did, like FF 7 Remake was.
I do think that, without considering it part of one of the oldest gaming franchises around, Final Fantasy 16 will probably be a great game. Excellent, even. But this is a Final Fantasy game only in name, and I am left scratching my head wondering what Square was thinking by naming this game FF 16 instead of just making it its own original IP, which would make the game a much easier sell to anyone, as it wouldn’t leave a bad taste in anyone’s mouth. One day, I hope Square rediscovers what Final Fantasy stands for. But until then, I will be looking elsewhere for the itch the older games of this franchise used to scratch.
Last edited:
