If you kind of liked the XIII games, I highly recommend Lighting Returns. Time limits make me deeply anxious but that game’s timer is VERY generous, especially because you can stop time pretty much forever. I 100% my first run in, like, four days out of thirteen.
The story is wacky as hell (I honestly didn’t care much after XIII-2), but gameplay’s solid and exploration is fun.
As for the last question, I think that they should go back to their roots. They pivoted away from the JRPG genre with each title, but recent successes from similar games (such as Persona 5 in the AAA department, and Sea of Stars in the indie category) proved that people still crave a more traditional turn-based system.
I'm just disappointed in the way Square Enix seems to think turn-based combat is anathema for some reason. The series has abandoned its roots, it just isn't FF to me.
I thought it was a really nice change. They kept the ATB system all the older games had, and it didn’t break between overworld and battle screens constantly, making for a seamless transition between the two.
I tried to like 12, but I found it painfully tedious. I couldn't carefully ration my MP the way I wanted to with gambits, and I don't want to automate the game anyway, I want to actually play it myself. But manual takeover just felt way worse than a normal turn-based system too, the way it grinds the pacing to a halt and takes forever made it apparent that the game isn't designed to be played manually.
I think that is what made that battle system interesting: More focus on delegation over micro management.
The main portion of the battle played outside of the battles themselves and was all about how you essentially “programmed” these workflows for each character to work in harmony together to win battles. You could get in the fray to fix any unintended outcomes of these flows, but was mainly to observe the outcomes and make adjustments.
I was actually very cold to the idea of the gambit system early on because “the game plays itself” sounded like such a cheap style of gameplay.
Later, though, when I got a better sense of what it was trying to accomplish, it made a lot more sense, especially when thinking about the game in the context of sharing the same world as Final Fantasy Tactics.
Tactics is all about troop strategy, simulating that experience of being a military commander. The gambit system in 12, meanwhile, is like taking that concept and moving it down to the ground level, where you have to strategize with your allies before an engagement and then trust that people know what to do in the moment, with the player intervention happening one character at a time being more like real-time improvisation than strategizing.
It's not like Square Enix doesn't know how to make good turn-based games. They've been hitting it out of the park with their smaller budget projects like Bravely Default and Octopath Traveler. So I don't know why they've rejected it for FF, imagine what they could do with a big budget title if they tried.
I joke about how halfway through development, someone at Square Enix must've realized that Bravely Default was actually a good game, and thus too good for the FF name. So instead they had to throw darts at an English dictionary to rebrand it.
Squaresoft games were so good that there was a weird full decade there where the name Square Enix still managed to get me interested into checking out games, but the games themselves never did. Eventually this too died out and I finally don’t care at all about square anymore.
Honestly, I think the market is so saturated with superhero media (movies, games, tv shows) that anything that’s not at the top is at the bottom. I kinda know that Green Arrow is a superhero just from what I’ve heard and seen in other superhero stuff, but that’s about it. Most people that aren’t really into the superhero genre won’t bat an eye unless they market it as the next best AAA game, and then if it falls short of that it’s a bust.
Edit: it may be better off as an indie-style, lower budget game that the fans can get into without the producers having to risk a whole lot, but with the whole Marvel/DC stuff they seem to have huge budgets and bigger profit expectations.
Because Warner Brothers owns the rights to all DC games right now and nobody at Warner has any idea how to actually produce good video games. The Arkham games were good because they came out before loot boxes and online-only games were a thing. Now if a game doesn’t earn a billion dollars in the first year, the game is considered a failure.
FF games are like pizza. They’re all a round, baked dish, but you can have them so many ways and everyone will have their opinions. For example
I thought 10 was linear and boring and only played it once
I really liked 10-2 and the entire dress sphere concept as well as being open to go where you wanted.
I absolutely loved 12, as it had amazing lore and call backs to literally every other FF game in the series. A lot of people hated on the battle system but the magic of the strategy was figuring out the best gambit combinations
13 had a beautiful story and graphics, but was way too linear and then suddenly opened up in the end game. Would have made a better movie or visual novel
13-2 is one of my all time favorites in how it was non-linear, expanded on what happened with the 13 cast, who I liked, and also had secret endings
13-3 is good, but it becomes one massive fetch quest. However it has New Game+ which is perfect for curb stomping baddies
15 was one I thought I wasn’t going to like (an FF with cell phones?!) but oddly they pulled it off well and it wasn’t too bad. The villain was frankly one of the best in any FF series. Voice acting was top notch and the DLC really fleshed it out (you could argue it should have been part of the core)
Playing 16 right now, and hopes it was Square returning to its roots, but frankly…… it’s not an FF. The pacing is all over the place, and they randomly throw in an FF theme or name in a way like it’s saying “see! We’re a final fantasy game!” This is the first game that I really thought they lost their way on
I haven’t played 11 and 14 but I figured that’s my $0.02 when everyone has their own favorite toppings.
While I’m sure it could be a great game, it’ll never happen. WB just canceled a Wonder Woman game and shut down its developer. If they don’t have faith on a game based on one of their most well known characters, there’s no way they’d even green light a game based on a lower tier hero. A detective game based on the Question would be great too, but since he’s not one of DC’s top heroes it’ll never happen.
14 is going down hill. I have played it for many years and cleared a lot of the harder content. It’s a lot of rinse, wash, repeat. 15 had some beautiful graphics but it dropped the ball in the open world. 16s battle system was fun. The story was good. Had a decent Gothic roots of fantasy in there.
13-3 and 14 1.0 are complete trash imo. And some of that era leaked into 15, sending it into development hell. But aside from that, no. They’re held to a higher standard so a FF that’s only a B+ is seen as a complete failure and the internet spends a decade hateposting about it.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze