179: The Battleship Final Fantasy

[Dom Camus]

The big innovation of FFXII, the gambit system, is really a way to avoid the tedium of playing Final Fantasy. The amazing thing about going back to play all those old FFs is that you discover you're still using the same pattern of presses on the D-pad, over and over again. It's disturbing when you skip from game to game, as I did while writing this piece, to find yourself making precisely the same inputs from decade to decade.

If the aim was to remove the tedium they failed - gambits actually make the game far more tedious. The problem is that the gambit system is actually too stupid to encode any reasonable combat strategy. So any player who actually enjoys playing the game well and getting some kind of challenge out of it is screwed. Use gambits and all the fun is gone from the combats, it just becomes a near-interminable level grind. Avoid gambits and the semi-realtime system will leave you crushed under the ridiculous level of buffs you have to micromanage.

Also it turns out that almost none of the game's combats involve any skill at all (I counted two). Compared to VII, this is beyond pathetic. No other genre that I'm aware of has ever dropped the ball so badly. (Except possibly when platformers first went 3D - views vary.)

Incidentally, XII wasn't "big". It's actually tiny by FF standards using any metric other than size of game assets on disc. FF-VII has at least twice as much plot, at least ten times as many monster types (assuming you don't count recoloured copies) and a far higher quality of writing.

As Akas discusses above, Square knew they'd hit the ball out of the park with VII, but they didn't know why. And ultimately I think your battleship analogy is a pretty good one. It's impossible to make a modern FF-VII because the environment has changed and the sales would no longer cover the vast cost of production (compare the poly counts in VII to XII and then compare the number of distinct models and scenes).

 

[GloatingSwine]

The big innovation of FFXII, the gambit system, is really a way to avoid the tedium of playing Final Fantasy. The amazing thing about going back to play all those old FFs is that you discover you're still using the same pattern of presses on the D-pad, over and over again. It's disturbing when you skip from game to game, as I did while writing this piece, to find yourself making precisely the same inputs from decade to decade.

If the aim was to remove the tedium they failed - gambits actually make the game far more tedious. The problem is that the gambit system is actually too stupid to encode any reasonable combat strategy. So any player who actually enjoys playing the game well and getting some kind of challenge out of it is screwed. Use gambits and all the fun is gone from the combats, it just becomes a near-interminable level grind. Avoid gambits and the semi-realtime system will leave you crushed under the ridiculous level of buffs you have to micromanage.

But then, most Final Fantasy speedbump battles prior to FFXII were simply a case of "hold down X to win".

In FFXII it's more rewarding to use varied tactics preprogrammed into the gambit system because of the facts that

a: Buffs persist outside of combat. In every prior FF game, a turn spent casting a buff was a turn wasted, in which you would probably have killed an enemy anyway, reducing the number of attacks the party would take and thus the incoming damage.

b: MP regenerates. In most prior FF games, magic is simply not worth using for most fights, it doesn't offer a significant advantage over physical damage from the "fighter" characters, meaning that at best a mage character can keep up in damage, and it's got a cost attached, so using it for speedbumps means it's likely to be unavailable for the boss fight.

Final Fantasy XII simply also has more going on than other Final Fantasy games. The population of Midgar appears to be about twelve. Rabanastre has loads of people milling around (in fact, the game had to take a graphical hit to fit in the amount of Stuff it is trying to show, as the PS2 simply couldn't render FFXII's environments at the same poly count as FFX's due to there being more going on on screen at once.

 

[Nurb]

He forgot to mention the fact that all male roles are played by women XD

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Article. Fails.

Firstly, themost important failure is the failure of the author to understand naval warfare in the second world war. Carriers were not the only defining force. Battleships played a critical role. yes, Yamamoto was bombed to death by carrier planes, but it was one fucking battleship being bombed by about six carriers worth of planes. To take this as an example and then declare battleships at the time obsolete is an epic fail. The fact of the matter is that, if one takes the German battleship Bismark, one sees-

It sank Hood and crippled Prince of Wales.

Aircraft disabled it, but it took other battleships to sink it. At point-blank range. With really big guns.

At the time, carrier planes had a limited utility and were hideously vulnerable. If one had replaced the yamamoto and it's sister ship with, say, the Bismark and Tripitz, then the Yanks would have simply had their planes shot out of the sky. If they'd had a carrier to provide cover, they could have sailed into the US fleet and summarily dispatched it to the bottom of the ocean, assuming they had support.

 

[GreatNexus]

So Final Fantasy IV is the best Final Fantasy? When was that decided, because I think I missed the meeting.

Whilst this article raises some valid points - the best of which is regarding the diminishing returns of the series (and in fact JRPGs in general) - it seems a little shoe-horned into both conceits; the battleship simile and the handheld gaming subject of this issue. The title of the article should have been "I think Final Fantasy sucks and for these reasons..." which would be fair enough.

I can't say I really agree with the sweeping statements made about the series having incoherent plots. Inconsistant would probably be better. The FF series is in my favourite games list but I'd never say they were perfect. There are problems: bad translations, on/off ropey dialogue, the rage of being stuck in the invisible traffic jam of random encounters. Also, a couple of the games have dropped an arbitrary, ultimate and impersonal evil on you at the end of the game for no apparent reason (IV and IX, I'm looking at you). But that doesn't mean that they don't do something very well and that's giving players a grand adventure. It's not Tolstoy, but it's not supposed to be. It fits in that niche of culture that Star Wars and Lord of the Rings occupy.

The point in the article that really resonated with me is that Final Fantasy is labouring under its own legacy. The series has become a series of traditions and whilst some fans expect certain things and anticipate them, others have come to know what to expect and ennui has set in. Playing through multiple 70+ hour games with progressively less suprises is definitely dissatisfying. Innovation is constrained by tradition and the fans are constrained by loyalty. I've enjoyed pretty much every Final Fantasy, but none rival the first two I played (FFVII & FFT) in my affections.

For me FFXIII will be a watershed where I choose whether to "abandon ship" or not. The departure of some of the leading names in the creative teams at Square and a disaffection with their cynical reliance on past success and somewhat mercenary marketing (Lightning from XIII is their attempt to make a female Cloud from FFVII, apparently) have left this FF fan apprehensive about the series' and Square Enix's future.

Here's hoping they surprise us.

 

[RyuGaiden]

I've gotten a pretentious vibe from Final Fantasy the last few years. I guess I understand the analogy between Final Fantasy and battleships, but I must admit, I've never finished a Final Fantasy game outside of VII. I'm gonna pick up XIII, but I can't guarantee I'll enjoy it, much less finish it.

 

[Virgil]

Interesting article.

The one main issue I have is your central argument that placed FFIV as the template of the future games. While in some way it is, as it represents the first major shift to an actual narrative and defined characters, the game was really not that successful outside of Japan. Neither was FFVI, though both get a lot of critical acclaim. While they helped solidify the direction of the series, they were only stepping stones.

The turning point and template for the series today is FFVII. This includes the interchangeable characters, convoluted mini-games and sidequests, and the increasingly esoteric plots. And on those points I generally agree with you - Final Fantasy has built upon itself so much that it really could use a streamlining of the gameplay and complexity.

I completely disagree with you in terms of the place of the story though. It's just another stab at the "ludology vs. narratology" debate, and like all of them it generally misses the mark. Final Fantasy games, particularly the old ones, are not (as you seem to propose) about the gameplay while using the story as a veneer to explain away roster changes. Nor are they about the story with some gameplay as filler as others frequently claim. The real magic of the Final Fantasy series, and the thing that has always made any truly great games, is the integration of story and gameplay. They would be useless on their own.

And that's why I'll buy the next one, and probably the one after that, et cetera. Sure, it's not high literature, but not everything has to be Macbeth.

 

[Syntax Error]

Hold on let me go quote myself, because i'm tired of stupidity, meant in a humorous way or not.

lots of stuff

I knew Bridget is gonna get in there eventually.

 

[dcheppy]

The problem with most RPGs is their length. somewhere in the rpg rulebook, it says the game has to be has to be 70 hours long. There is nothing wrong with the core battle mechanics in most rpgs, its just 95 percent of the time the game throws hundreds of enemy encounters at you that take the same approach to defeat. There is no reason an rpg can't give you a unique challenge during each battle and let the player use the core mechanics to figure out how to win. Oh wait, there is. It would make the game to short.

 

[Slycne]

Article. Fails.

Firstly, themost important failure is the failure of the author to understand naval warfare in the second world war. Carriers were not the only defining force. Battleships played a critical role. yes, Yamamoto was bombed to death by carrier planes, but it was one fucking battleship being bombed by about six carriers worth of planes. To take this as an example and then declare battleships at the time obsolete is an epic fail. The fact of the matter is that, if one takes the German battleship Bismark, one sees-

It sank Hood and crippled Prince of Wales.

Aircraft disabled it, but it took other battleships to sink it. At point-blank range. With really big guns.

At the time, carrier planes had a limited utility and were hideously vulnerable. If one had replaced the yamamoto and it's sister ship with, say, the Bismark and Tripitz, then the Yanks would have simply had their planes shot out of the sky. If they'd had a carrier to provide cover, they could have sailed into the US fleet and summarily dispatched it to the bottom of the ocean, assuming they had support.

Another thing to consider was that the Yamato was essentially sent to her death. The plan was to beach her on Okinawa and form an unsinkable gun emplacement with which to shell US landing forces. She was only escorted by a single light cruiser and 8 destroyers. The battle group also only had enough fuel to reach Okinawa.

The Bismark and Tripitz would have suffered the same fate. The Yamato could throw up 19,784 lbs. of AA fire a minute( 10,050 lbs. was light 25 mm fire though). The Bismark class could only put out 20,677 lbs. a minute. By comparison a US Iowa class battleship could output an astounding 48,992 lbs. of AA fire a minute.


Arguments aside, I think this article deserves metaphor of the year award.

 

[Syntax Error]

It's because of most of the arguments posted in this article that made me go by way of Atlus. Persona 3 is a great RPG underneath the initial shock of how you summon your personae. I'm looking forward to playing 4 (probably one of the last great games for the PS2).

Even if Persona 3 was at its core a grindfest, the way it defied general convention kept me coming back. That, plus not fighting monsters during the day was actually entertaining.

 

[malestrithe]

I am wondering how much of this article is clouded by nostalgia.

 

[Ray Huling]

Arguments aside, I think this article deserves metaphor of the year award.

Well; some like it, some don't; but why not push it a little further?

An open question: what would be the aircraft carrier of RPGs?

 

[Ray Huling]

Article. Fails.

Firstly, themost important failure is the failure of the author to understand naval warfare in the second world war. Carriers were not the only defining force. Battleships played a critical role. yes, Yamamoto was bombed to death by carrier planes, but it was one fucking battleship being bombed by about six carriers worth of planes. To take this as an example and then declare battleships at the time obsolete is an epic fail. The fact of the matter is that, if one takes the German battleship Bismark, one sees-

It sank Hood and crippled Prince of Wales.

Aircraft disabled it, but it took other battleships to sink it. At point-blank range. With really big guns.

At the time, carrier planes had a limited utility and were hideously vulnerable. If one had replaced the yamamoto and it's sister ship with, say, the Bismark and Tripitz, then the Yanks would have simply had their planes shot out of the sky. If they'd had a carrier to provide cover, they could have sailed into the US fleet and summarily dispatched it to the bottom of the ocean, assuming they had support.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. Battleships were previously the center of the fleet, but by WWII, as your own examples show, a battleship fleet sailing without sufficient air coverage was inviting destruction. Carriers were now the core of the fleet, and were central to both the offense and defense; battleships became escorts, and were phased out of the world's fleets after WWII.

Regarding your assertion that the Bismarck and Tirpitz could have run the gauntlet that the Yamato could not, I'd have to say you're dreaming. The anti-aircraft capabilities of each were barely better than the Yamato. As good as the tracking systems on the Bismarck were, they failed to defend against the Swordfish torpedo bombers that were responsible for crippling her maneuverability - and Swordfish were slow biplanes, let alone torpedo bombers that have to maintain level flight straight at the ship in order to attack it with torpedoes. I can hardly imagine their performance against the more advanced Helldivers and Avengers that sank the Yamato could be significantly better.

Finally, the Yamato was escorted by a cruiser and 8 destroyers, of which only 4 destroyers survived the attack, one of which was heavily damaged. They managed to down only 10 fighters of the 300+ that attacked them. Even if the US lost the entirety of their air-wing in return for the Yamato, in economic terms, and comparative loss of life, it would still be a victory.

 

[GloatingSwine]

You need to just shut up and expand your JRPG Libraries, what you have said has already been done before. (Sonic Chronicles for one)

Except, of course, everyone moaned about Sonic Chronicles for being too interactive.