Final Fantasy XIV gets a 4.0 on Gamespot....HOW CAN SQUARE ENIX GO SO WRONG?????????
October 09, 2010this is the lowest ranking final fantasy game i have seen in recent memory......whats up with that?????HOW CAN SQUARE ENIX GO SO WRONG?????????
| Most recent blog posts from Sohail Saleem... | |
| Feedback | |
 |
Leroux - October 09, 2010 (02:22 PM) You should probably read their review to find out. |
 |
EmP - October 09, 2010 (02:23 PM) Easy there; it's only one review and it's gamespot, to boot. Who takes them seriously? Besides, even if it is an awful game, it'll hardly be the first crap title SE have spat out. |
 |
blood-omen - October 09, 2010 (02:42 PM) but first crappy FF title......ok so its Gamespot but their scores arent that different from other gaming sites......are they?????? |
 |
jerec - October 09, 2010 (02:46 PM) It's good to see the mainstream media aren't afraid to give a bad Square game a bad score. |
|
blood-omen - October 09, 2010 (03:31 PM) but if mainstream media gave bad games, good reviews wouldnt they loose their credibility???????and why would they do such a thing??????even if companies pay sites to give bad games good reviews.....the word will eventually spread through the user community and the game will fail one way or the other so why is there so much hate against the big game reviewing sites? |
|
EmP - October 09, 2010 (03:34 PM) There's been bad FF titles before. And recently. |
 |
espiga - October 09, 2010 (04:59 PM) It isn't that FFXIV is a BAD game... Square Enix jumped the gun though, and released it way before it was ready. However, due to its MMORPG nature, it'll be constantly getting patched up, and I'm sure that in a few months, most of the mechanical complaints about the game should be gone. FFXI had similar problems when it first hit in Japan, but these days the game is stable and runs great. Any complaints about the gameplay then come down to taste. |
 |
zippdementia - October 09, 2010 (10:23 PM) Sorry Blood-Omen, but not all FF games are great. Here's a spoiler: Crystal Chronicles... |
 |
WilltheGreat - October 09, 2010 (11:32 PM) A FF game wasn't printed on pure gold and didn't singlehandedly change the face of gaming? Colour me unsurprised. |
|
blood-omen - October 10, 2010 (12:05 AM) fine an FF game isnt printed on gold but its such a big franchise u would think that Square Enix would take extra care when making a game that bears the FF name.....like Polyphony does with the Gran Turismo series........ |
|
jerec - October 10, 2010 (02:36 AM) Square has reached the point where they know they can put the words Final Fantasy on something and it'll sell even if it's rubbish. |
 |
sashanan - October 10, 2010 (07:52 AM) A 4 to an SE game? That's not very Gamespot. *goes to read* |
|
zippdementia - October 10, 2010 (04:27 PM) To look at this more critically, because I do think Blood Omen touches on something here, Square Soft used to release a product that very few other companies could match. Dragon Quest was a very similar game, but Final Fantasy did character growth before Enix did, they did more in depth character class customization before other games touched that, and they tried to release something ground breaking with each product. But it's harder to do that now. There's more companies making more games and players have a lot to choose from no matter the genre. Square Soft/Enix is in the position of having to try to be innovative while not wanting to move away from a tradition that had been very successful. They act afraid of failure and so the steps they take in the right direction are teeny tiny cautious steps that hardly change the status quo. |
 |
zigfried - October 10, 2010 (05:18 PM) When Square did character growth and customization, they were copying what other developers had already done. The Final Fantasy series has never been about innovation; it has always been about good graphics and anime-styled storylines. It's not a series for directors to flex their muscles. The series is designed to appeal to Square's perception of what the lowest common denominator wants. That was their goal with the original Final Fantasy. Looking at 16-bit RPGs that came before, Final Fantasy 6 was formulaic. That doesn't mean it wasn't good -- but it was unsurprising (the game just needed to be made by a company with lots of money). Final Fantasy 7 played it very safe. Final Fantasy 13 also played it safe; in an era where people have turned against the JRPG formula but appreciate action games with linear narratives, Square made a really pretty, linear game that's all about combat. There were a couple of aberrations (FF2 and FF5) that were funded on the success of their predecessors... but Square always returned to the formula for the next episode because those two games made less money. Ever since, all of Square's experimental -- and less successful -- stuff falls under different labels. Vagrant Story, Last Remnant, Final Fantasy sidestories, etc. So I would disagree with saying that Square has become less innovative -- looking at their past history, I simply don't think that's possible. The problem appears to be that Final Fantasy XIV is a clearly unfinished product from a company whose greatest strength has always been spending lots of money to finish things properly. //Zig |
 |
joseph_valencia - October 10, 2010 (07:27 PM) FF5 wasn't an aberration. It took over the job system from FF3 and further developed it. It also developed the ATB system from FF4, which was further refined in the next game. Really, the first aberration in the franchise was FF8, which started to turn away from the standard inventory/equipment system of the original titles. FFX was even more radical for doing away with the classic menu format, which has yet to make a complete comeback. The franchise really hasn't had any formula recently. It used to be that every game shared basic mechanics that were carried into the next installment, but now there's no real coherent development. Across FFX, FFXII and FFXIII, three different turn systems have been introduced and discarded. Compare that to the period from FF4 to FF9, where every game shared the same Active Time battles. That's not even mentioning the two online games. This series has had a real identity crisis recently. |
|
zigfried - October 10, 2010 (08:17 PM) Thanks for the clarification on sales, my perception is clouded since FF5 never got released here (and FF Anthology didn't exactly light the nation on fire), but I didn't bother to look up anything solid before posting. I still haven't, but I'll take your word for it. On the formula piece, I think we're talking different things. I see Square's formula as being "snazzy graphics + trendy story, and the mechanics will supplement those". So if one battle system is different from another, it doesn't matter much to me, unless the mechanics somehow trump the emphasis on graphics/story. I actually see FF4 and FFXII as being variants of the same system, except that FFXII can play itself. //Zig |
|
jerec - October 11, 2010 (01:12 AM) And the difference between FFXII and FFXIII's combat is that in the former, you program what the characters do automatically. |
|
sashanan - October 11, 2010 (05:25 AM) I withdraw my remark that a 4 for an SE game is not very Gamespot. They still trashed it way beyond what one would expect for that mark, so they pulled punches on the scoring after all. Just not as much as I'm used to. |
 |
overdrive - October 11, 2010 (10:42 AM) With Final Fantasy, Square has been gradually going wrong for years, as they've apparently decided that really glossy presentation is far more important than creating a game that's actually really fun to play. Still, this particular review shows a stunning lack of effort on their part, especially since they're getting ripped on for the sort of things that you'd think any remotely competent game designer would catch. |
|
blood-omen - October 11, 2010 (10:55 AM) so i guess now Final Fantasy XV needs to kick ass whenever it is released....... |
 |
honestgamer - October 11, 2010 (11:17 AM) I agree, blood-omen. XV has a lot resting on its shoulders. That's not entirely fair, since XIII was an excellent game that was worthy of a better response than it received from some, but the reception is what it is. The most vocal members of the masses have spoken and XIII was apparently not anything like the enjoyable experience that I found it to be, but rather a complete and utter disappointment not even worth completing. I was stupid enough to finish the thing instead of quitting after six hours and passing judgment, so what do I know? The extremely important fact of the matter is that the last proper FF title to meet with near-universal praise was FFX and that came a long time ago. There have been a lot of unfair things said about the franchise in these past few posts, but it's not unfair to summarize the series as one that has always stressed graphical polish and other conventions that appeal to the mainstream. I think that half of the real problem here is that JRPG fans now fall into several different groups, rather than a unified whole, even as their total number becomes increasingly less impressive compared to the WRPG fans who like to pretend that they know what's best for the JRPG. It's no longer an easy task to appeal to the bulk of the existing audience. That situation could spell trouble for FF unless Square-Enix chooses to ignore some of the whiners that it will never please and instead just do a really good job of doing what it has always done. The really scary part is that even if Square-Enix does pull off a miracle with FFXV and makes the best game the franchise has ever seen, there's no guarantee that it will be enough now. Odds are good, in fact, that it won't. |
|
jerec - October 11, 2010 (12:34 PM) Now that I think about it, Square-Enix hasn't given us any really good games yet. Squaresoft did. |
|
zippdementia - October 11, 2010 (01:31 PM) Thank you Jerec. I was going to say that, but it's probably better that you did. |
|
sashanan - October 11, 2010 (01:40 PM) Well, even as FF has escaped from the reach of what consoles I own, I loved Dragon Quest VIII and IX both. |
|
joseph_valencia - October 11, 2010 (02:09 PM) I was stupid enough to finish the thing instead of quitting after six hours and passing judgment, so what do I know? If an RPG can't grab someone in six hours, I can't blame them for letting go. When some people pick up an RPG, they want to jump straight into a dungeon or get started on battles and exploration. The inital hours of FFXIII, from what I've seen, are on and off in this regard. |
|
zippdementia - October 11, 2010 (03:10 PM) I got to the point where FFXIII began to interest me but dear god it took most of the game. That's not a recoverable position, in my book. |
|
zigfried - October 11, 2010 (05:55 PM) If an RPG can't grab someone in six hours, I can't blame them for letting go. Agreed. Six hours is a long time to waste in hopes of "getting to the good part". The worst case of this was Xenogears -- people told me it would get good after 20 hours. They lied. //Zig |
|
zippdementia - October 11, 2010 (06:13 PM) Yeah, Xenogears really pisses me off as does the entire Xenosaga series. These are games that I really want to WATCH but goddamn they are boring to play. |
|
WilltheGreat - October 11, 2010 (09:01 PM) I was stupid enough to finish the thing instead of quitting after six hours and passing judgment, so what do I know? Six hours is a lot of time to sink into a game, Jason. Six hours means you sit down at noon and play until suppertime, and in that time if the game has yet to interest the player can you really blame them for "passing judgement" on it? Really, can you blame anybody for "passing judgement" on a game at all? You say that as though video games are some kind of sacred medium that should be immune to criticism and judgement but isn't that exactly what we do here at this video game review website? |
|
zippdementia - October 11, 2010 (10:06 PM) Plus, when was the last time that an RPG got REALLY GOOD after 6 hours? All the good RPGs I recall were good from the start. They may have had lulls here and there or maybe the first hour or two were nothing incredibly special, but I've never played an RPG that wasn't engaging for six hours of play and then suddenly got really good. The closest game I can think of is Kingdom Hearts, which blew me away with its ending, but I liked the game from the start. It was the middle of the game which had some bizarre failings. Maybe Kingdom Hearts 2, though, with it's 6 hour intro involving Roxas... but then I didn't love Kingdom Hearts 2 and the one thing I did really like about it (combat) was there from the start. |
|
honestgamer - October 11, 2010 (10:14 PM) Will, I'm not ready to take the time to walk this forum through every point I might care to make about the game. You're mostly familiar with it. But in brief: 1) I didn't feel that the first six or eight hours were aweful enough to quit playing. They were pretty good. The fact that the rest of the game got better as it went--and markedly so--was merely a bonus. 2) I don't feel that six hours is enough time to spend with a game that's 60 to 80 hours long and that changes frequently throughout the course of that 60 to 80 hours. It's not enough time, that is, to provide a proper perspective from which to write a review. There are plenty of other things someone might write about the game based on that time, but a review isn't really justified or helpful. I could say a lot more, but I've noticed that a lot of the people who jumped on the "Square-Enix sucks!" bandwagon in this thread are the same ones who always do, and then cry "foul!" if someone like me says "Hey, Square-Enix isn't the Antichrist." So I'm not sure that saying more is really in my best interest, or in anyone's best interest. Adieu! |
|
honestgamer - October 11, 2010 (10:20 PM) Most of the first few hours of Final Fantasy VII, reactor raid aside, were pretty awful to me, Zipp. It's my opinion, but that's what we're talking about here. I stuck with the game because I didn't have anything better to play, not because I liked it. And it got better, obviously, after the first 15 hours or so. It wound up pretty great, but I still have trouble playing through those first hours. That's the easiest example to give you, but it's a genre norm. |
|
zigfried - October 11, 2010 (10:26 PM) The first couple hours of Final Fantasy 1 is still one of my favorite parts of the game. That's a big reason why I played through the whole thing when I was a kid (at the time, I had a bunch of computer RPGs I could be playing instead) //Zig |
|
honestgamer - October 11, 2010 (11:03 PM) Thinking it through now, I would say that the original Final Fantasy started out strong, yes. So did number six, and so did numbers nine and ten. I couldn't say how three did, or twelve. The others all started out either decently or weakly. That puts the franchise right on track with the genre. I do love RPGs, by the way, but the genre as a whole isn't one for people who are looking for immediate gratification. Most of the best moments of any great RPG--even the ones that start strong--don't happen until much later in the game. |
|
WilltheGreat - October 11, 2010 (11:05 PM) 2) I don't feel that six hours is enough time to spend with a game that's 60 to 80 hours long and that changes frequently throughout the course of that 60 to 80 hours. It's not enough time, that is, to provide a proper perspective from which to write a review. There are plenty of other things someone might write about the game based on that time, but a review isn't really justified or helpful. I may be quick to cry foul, but I'm also quick to admit when I'm wrong, and here you have a very good point. While I don't think one should have to play through a game entirely before passing a verdict, you're absolutely right to say that a tenth of the way through is maybe too soon to judge it fairly. |
|
jerec - October 11, 2010 (11:52 PM) The first 6 hours were tolerable. I've played enough RPGs to know they often start off slow, but when you're in Chapter 10 of 13 and it still feels like you're in tutorial mode, there's a problem. I finished the game, looked back on it and realised I hadn't found it fun. It was just so easy, took so little effort to play, that I just went through the motions. Sitting back in a chair, watching the pretty colours on the screen, controller rested on my knee, pressing a button every now and then. FFXIII took the game out of role playing game. |
|
blood-omen - October 12, 2010 (09:27 AM) yes.....FFX was the best FF game i have played.....i didnt play FFXIII so i dont know how it was but i still have faith in SquareEnix and i still believe its one of the best companies when it comes to making great games......so SquareEnix, fingers crossed with FFXV........ |
|
zippdementia - October 12, 2010 (09:35 AM) There seem to be several different arguments going on here and I want to clarify which ones I'm talking about. I want to say that I would never review an RPG based off of just 6 hours. I personally haven't had an experience like Jason where a game got better after that, but usually I finish an RPG before I even consider reviewing it. The only exception is when I lose interest in a game to the point where playing it is no longer fun. Once that happens, I think it's valid for me to begin writing a review, because gaming should never feel like working in data entry. On the other hand, if a game is so fun that I can't stop playing it or I find myself thinking about it at (or bringing it to) work then I know I can start reviewing it. All that I've been saying on this thread, or have been meaning to say, is that I have always known, 6 hours in, whether I'm going to like a game or not. Funny, the first 10 hours of FFVII are my favorite of the game. I never liked the rest of the game as much as those opening hours. Playing through it again recently was awesome, though. |
|
zigfried - October 12, 2010 (09:49 AM) Most of the best moments of any great RPG--even the ones that start strong--don't happen until much later in the game. I agree with that. And I think it's silly to abandon a game if the first six hours are "only good", because... well, it's good. Why stop playing something that's good? I suppose if something better comes along, then sure, but it's goofy to turn around and insult a game that you thought was good. But if a game starts with six weak/bad/lame hours, then the developers screwed up. Expecting people to invest more time if they didn't enjoy the first six hours is crazy. I disagree with the notion that most RPGs start off poorly, just as I disagree with the notion that most RPGs are bad. If developers take more than six hours to grab peoples' attention, then they suck as game designers -- even if the game does happen to have some good parts later on. //Zig |
|
blood-omen - October 12, 2010 (11:59 AM) i agree with zippd on the fact that gaming should never feel like work and i also agree with zigfried that it shouldnt take a game 6 hours to suck me in......who wants to wait that long in a time and age when u got so much other choice????? |
|
zippdementia - October 12, 2010 (10:27 PM) That's a very good point, Omen. Many of the games I thought I loved as a child I actually only liked because there was nothing better out there. Some of that shit I just wouldn't put up with today. Like the terrible import of Metal Gear that Americans got. Or fucking Ghostbusters. Or Dick Tracy. I thought those games were good as a child, but no... they sucked. |
|
WilltheGreat - October 13, 2010 (01:46 AM) I tried playing Comix Zone again a little while ago. ...uh, okay bad example, that's still awesome. Okay, I tried playing Star Trek: Invasion again a little while ago. It was pretty terrible in comparison to more recent entries in the genre. |
|
blood-omen - October 13, 2010 (10:11 AM) but i dont even remember what games of the past sucked and which didnt suck :S from the years of the mega drive that is.....PSOne and onwards i remember quite clearly...... |
 |
radicaldreamer - October 13, 2010 (09:31 PM) I didn't know Final Fantasy XIV even existed until about a month before it came out. I feel like that in itself was not a good sign. Was I just not paying attention or am I right? |
|
zippdementia - October 13, 2010 (10:40 PM) Personally, I thought this was the worst sign. |
|
sashanan - October 13, 2010 (10:41 PM) No, I was the same way, and for FFXI as well. I just don't keep track of MMO news though. |
|
blood-omen - October 14, 2010 (08:46 AM) yeah....im also totally not interested in MMOs |
 |
Halon - October 14, 2010 (05:01 PM) Radicaldreamer: to make you feel better I didn't know FF13 ever came out. I thought the series was still on XII. |
 |
Calvin - October 14, 2010 (06:18 PM) "Purely out of curiousity, when was the last time that an RPG got REALLY GOOD after 6 hours? All the good RPGs I recall were good from the start. They may have had lulls here and there or maybe the first hour or two were nothing incredibly special, but I've never played an RPG that wasn't engaging for six hours of play and then suddenly got really good." I tried playing through Mass Effect a few times before getting into it, the first couple times only getting through the first couple hours and losing interest. Then I forced myself to play through it, realizing that it's probably one of those "important" games to play through (and because I wanted to transfer my character to the sequel). After about 8 hours I finally realized how well made the game was and felt compelled to play through the rest of the game. Mass Effect has since become one of my favorites and now I'm slowly working my way through ME2. That's really the only game that comes to mind for me, although I suspect Fallout 3 would be the same sort of deal, but I can't get myself to play through to completion. I haven't played through any of the numbered Final Fantasy games after VII, and don't play MMOs, so I don't know what to make of the FF XIV scores. |
 |
Suskie - October 14, 2010 (06:21 PM) ^^^ I didn't love Mass Effect the way I do now until I replayed it. Consider that. |
|
zippdementia - October 14, 2010 (06:39 PM) Well games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age can change based on how you set up your characters. I didn't like the game when I played as a mage but I really enjoyed it as a dwarf. Just don't have time to finish it. Hell, I don't even have time for a full campaign of Left 4 Dead, just chapters. It's doing wonders for my achievements >_> |
|
Suskie - October 14, 2010 (07:08 PM) Also true. I played Mass Effect with a Soldier and wasn't blown away, but the game really grew on me when I replayed it with a Vanguard. I think Genj had the same experience. |
|
overdrive - October 14, 2010 (08:43 PM) Zipp...speaking of Dragon Age, I looked at being a mage as just horrible. And my brief time in the Fade during the "save Arl Eamon's son" quest as a mage really met those expectations. I'm a human rogue and think if/when I play again, it will be as a dwarf fighter. I tend to be happiest when I control the stupid, one-dimensional brawler dude. I loved the rogue's trap-disarming ability, but would rather just slam the side of an axe into some fool's neck. |
|
zippdementia - October 14, 2010 (10:11 PM) Same with me, OD. I think our generation naturally associates themselves with the rogue characters, seeing as how our young adult fantasy books and video games always followed emo-rogues. But I'm much more comfortable with an axe in hand and a stringent code of honor to follow. The dwarf's campaign really surprised me with its twists and turns! I think it's the least played campaign, which is too bad, because they put a lot of work into its opening... I found it much more enthralling than the mage opening. |
|
blood-omen - October 15, 2010 (08:30 AM) i didnt like Dragon Age at all....got it, played for a few hours and then uninstalled it.....it never grew on me although i wish it had coz it got such gr8 ratings.....Mass Effect 1 and 2, loved them both and finished them both too but again only once, didnt bother playing it again with a different class......and yes Fallout 3 does take a little time to get started but once it does, its an AMAZING game......loved this game from the beginning to the end and all its expansions of course...... |
|
© 1998-2024 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors. |