THE CRAVE GAMING CHANNEL
V'lanna
 






Affiliates
AnimeBooks
AnimeNation
GameMusic.com
Play-Asia.com

Rebuttal to "Final Fantasy XI - The Anti-Final Fantasy"

by Daniel Orner (Cidolfas)

Original Editorial: Final Fantasy XI - The Anti-Final Fantasy

I disagree with the idea that when a game in the Final Fantasy series transcends its roots, that it should no longer be considered part of the series. Although it's tempting to give in to this notion, it's just not true.

For starters, I would like to quote Mr. Cunningham's original editorial:

As true as it is that each Final Fantasy has been unique, they have all followed certain guidelines. All have been traditional turn-based RPGs with multiple characters that were playable. Each game has been based upon a linear story with a definite beginning and ending.
Unfortunately, while both of these points are partly true, neither of them are fully true. In the original Final Fantasy as well as Final Fantasy III, there was no specific storyline. Instead, you were required to wander around the world, fulfilling tasks as they presented themselves. Perhaps people would guide you along your way, but there was no coherent order to things other than the fact that you need specific items to continue. By your argument, then, these games should not be Final Fantasies. The only difference between this sort of story and an MMORPG's story is the same as that between a line and a ray - the MMORPG story just continues in both directions ad infinitum.

As well, not every Final Fantasy has boasted the same battle system. Both Final Fantasy IV as well as Final Fantasy X were "experimenters" as far as battles go. ATB (Automatic Time Battle), introduced in FF4, was a revolution in that gameplay was no longer turn-based. And is Final Fantasy X's battle system not similar in some ways to FF Tactics (with, for example, the ability to see the exact order of moves)? Yes, there are similarities, but would we hold Squaresoft up to this general battle system for all eternity? FFXII is reported to change it significantly - would that no longer be a Final Fantasy either? The point is that there is no set-in-stone prototypical Final Fantasy that we must hold all others up to in order to determine if it "fits in" to the series.

I am in no way saying that FFXI is exactly the same as the rest of the series, which is why it has merited a subtitle (the full name is "Final Fantasy XI: Online") whereas the other numbered games have not. It is, and it is not, part of the specific series. It does include exploration and battles that are similar in ways to the rest of the series. FF Tactics, on the other hand, was a strategy game completely unlike the other FF games - you couldn't directly control your character, for instance. That is why it was considered its own game/series, whereas FFXI, which shares far more similarities to normal FF games, would not be.

I also do not believe in any way that low sales in FFXI would weaken sales elsewhere in the series. Although the Final Fantasy name is indeed a selling point, the main reason people buy FF games is simply this: because they're good. If people can't afford FFXI, that's fine. The next time Squaresoft comes out with a good, solid, Final Fantasy game that is affordable, people will buy it. Gamers will not suddenly "forget" about the quality of the Final Fantasy series because of one game that they couldn't buy.

And as to how long us poor gamers have to wait for the next Final Fantasy, I fail to see why Final Fantasy X-2 wouldn't fit the bill as a "numbered" Final Fantasy. You could just call it FFXII and be done with it (at least by your argument of what constitutes a "numbered" Final Fantasy). If people own a PlayStation 2 and they like RPGs, chances are they've played FFX. If not, by the time FFX-2 comes around FFX will probably be part of a "Greatest Hits" series and be offered for cheap. In any case, FFX-2 will be available to all the Final Fantasy series fans and to a good chunk of people who aren't fans yet. That should tide us over, I believe.

Finally, about the Final Fantasy movie: The movie did not do badly because it misused the Final Fantasy name. If anything, it did rather better than it otherwise would have because gamers went to see it, whereas if it had been called something else they wouldn't have gone. They complained about it later, but they still bought the tickets. The movie did badly because it wasn't good. Reviews were bad and word-of-mouth information was bad - they criticized the story, the characters, and the dialogue. That's why people stayed away. If it had been called something else, even more people would have stayed away, because of the lack of "push" the FF name lent it.

In short, playing the name blame game is fun to do, but in the long term Squaresoft generally does know what it's doing with these things.

<- Back
© 1998-2008 RPGamer All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy