I personally just don’t buy Squeenix software any longer. They’ve abandoned too many titles (mostly on mobile, but elsewhere too) and I just don’t feel good about giving them money. Last one I purchased was FF14 for the PC (which is one of the best MMOs I’ve played).
That’s just my take on things. If it happens to show up on Epic for free or Game Pass (unlikely on both, I know), then sure I’ll grab it to try.
The PS1 also sold the N64 3:1, But FF7, the highest selling FF game, only sold about 9m to OoT’s 7m. Relative to console sales, oot thrashed final fantasy 7. Of course, it helps that they cranked these games out way faster than Zelda back then.
The current situation is similar, except the switch is wildly more prevalent than the PS5. There is almost 1 TotK sold for every 6 switch units, which is utterly insane when you consider how many ignored/lost/broken units are probably out there. By contrast, there is about 1 FF16 for every 10 PS5 units out there.
These are the numbers I found for 5th and 6th gen games:
FFVII: 10.0
FFVIII: 8.6
FFX: 8.5 Ocarina of Time: 7.60
Wind Waker: 6.79
Majora's Mask: 6.82
FFIX: 5.5
FFX-2: 5.4 Oracle of Seasons & Oracle of Ages: 3.99
Minish Cap: 1.76
So maybe "a lot" is an overstatement, but they did generally sell more. You have a point regarding sales-per-console, but also remember PS1 had over 1900 games to N64s 388. That's way more competition for third party FF games to get sales. Many people that buy Sony consoles don't even look twice at JRPGs, whereas most people that buy Nintendo consoles know day one they are going to get the latest Mario and Zelda.
sure, but the series and Square are by far very different than they were in it's heyday. Square has really been racking its players over the coals with shitty tactics lately and has signaled pretty loud and clear that they don't care about games at all and are just trying to get money out of you (I mean all major companies are like that, the others are just better at it and shut up about it) I said Tears of the Kingdom because it's the current high selling game, that's what they wanted this game to be and I honestly don't know why you'd even hope for something like that when handling business the way they do. (as people have mentioned they'd play it but do not have the system.)
No I agree. The fact that Final Fantasy used to outsell Zelda and now sells 1/3rd of it should speak volumes about how Square has handled the franchise. Gaming has only gotten bigger since the late 90s.
I’m kinda surprised to see the hate this game is getting.
I’m probably 80% ish of the way through and while I wouldn’t say it’s my GOTY or anything, it’s fun. I appreciate the different direction they took, and the combat is just straight up fun.
The side quests do suck. Some of the zones are absolutely bland and consist of nothing but wide open space and random enemies just kinda… peppered in there. The Eikon battles are cool and pretty and badass but gameplay-wise they are boring. So yeah, it’s not a masterpiece, but I’m enjoying it.
Lol nobody in this thread is hating on it. You must be seeking out negative opinions if you’re seeing them, because everything Ive chanced across has been middle of the road to positive about the game.
Wasn't a fan of the gameplay at all. It's in a kind of no man's land where it isn't an RPG but it's also nowhere near as good as DMC or Bayonetta. It's just so damn easy to button mash through everything. There is depth there if you want to explore it but it's a flaw in the game design that you are not actually incentivized to do that.
While I've enjoyed seasons past, including the animated bit they put out that one year, after watching an episode and a half of the first half of this last season 3 a couple things became clear, there are too many subplots/characters to the point that I simply tune out all the names and don't care, focusing instead on the main three, and lastly that I'm bored. It's become something tiresome, and I shut it off after a couple episodes, maybe I'll revisit, probably not.
Yeah same, I was really hoping the witcher show would turn out great but then when they first showed the nilfgaard armours before S1 I lost hope and my fear turned out to be justified.
The tale of producers dumbing down plot and dialogue for greater main stream appeal is as old as show business. And from my experience said producers are almost always wrong. Sorry pal, but you can’t blame social media for something your peers have always been doing.
This is just damage control, there doesn’t have to be meaning to these words other than a try of appeasing the fans. That said though, it’s ironic how the Witcher games at least (haven’t read the books yet) have quite mature and well-written content compared to most other games, so they’re like the opposite of what he’s trying to say here and people LOVE the games for that. So it’s literally the opposite that’s true. If you put out over-simplified garbage, you will not create anything good with that kind of ingredients.
Game of Thrones was the most popular show in the world not too long ago and is more complicated. House of the Dragon is also complicated and did well just last year. There have been tons of complicated dramas that have been popular. This is just a dumb excuse
He's really blaming the execs and showrunner between the lines I think. Saying she had to "make tough decisions" means "she fucked up". It's Netflix and the showrunner who think they need to go to the lowest common denominator with scripts to appeal to Americans, especially hard fantasy/sci-fi. So he's kinda pissed at both groups really not just audiences.
It's a shame because other works like GOT 1-5 show the opposite. Go for complex, go for the source material, and audiences will be patient for it.
Then blame execs and showrunners, not the audience. American audiences are savvier than he thinks, just because he had one pitch that didn't fare well with American audiences doesn't mean that they won't embrace more complicated elements of The Witcher.
Plus it just sounds sad; blame audiences for something you, as a producer, can't effectively produce.
I think too many people have tricked themselves/each other into thinking long games are bad because they are long. No, it’s because 95% of the time (moreso today than in the past), a high hour-to-complete time signals a game with 10 hours or content stretched out to an absurd extreme, often in support of MTX/live service type features available ay launch.
An 80 hour game can be good if it has 80 hours of actual content. A 25 hour game can be bad if it’s still just 3-4 hours of real game stretched out to 25-30.
As someone that trudged through Odyssey and has been really enjoying Valhalla despite its immense size, I welcome this change. Good Lord these games are huge.
I enjoy the scale of large games, but Odyssey and Valhalla was too much even for me. I’d like maybe half that (which would still be at least 50 hours I suspect).
I want a dark souls anime in an older style animation (think berserk) and directed by Lynch. I want to walk out of every episode feeling confused, exhausted, and vaguely depressed.
After 30 minutes, you will be given a trivia test. You have to tick the right box with your remote. If you fail, you get a “You died” screen and have to watch the episode again until you succeed and can watch the next episode. There are no help pages on the internet. If you google for help, all you get is "GIT GUD! People who ask for a story mode are shouted at.
As a massive saints row fan, the ‘reboot’ made my jaw drop. Even Gat out of Hell was an enjoyable title compared to this mess. And it barely even had cutscenes!
eurogamer.net
Ważne