FF13 Bosses Respond to Western Review Scores

[chozo_hybrid]

People need to stop hating linearity so much. It's a design choice, not a design flaw: what's with this ethnocentrism?

I see what he's saying: the more control you give the player, the less control you have as the designer. It makes telling a compelling story difficult. It's possible, but difficult. They want to tell us their story, and they are taking steps to ensure it. Linearity is not a bad thing, people. Final Fantasy has always told good stories, but in a different way than we do over here in the west: there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes but you would think now and then the series would evolve by more then just the graphics, linearity isn't the problem so much as having no choice about anything, they could throw the odd option at you now and then.

 

[Thaius]

People need to stop hating linearity so much. It's a design choice, not a design flaw: what's with this ethnocentrism?

I see what he's saying: the more control you give the player, the less control you have as the designer. It makes telling a compelling story difficult. It's possible, but difficult. They want to tell us their story, and they are taking steps to ensure it. Linearity is not a bad thing, people. Final Fantasy has always told good stories, but in a different way than we do over here in the west: there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes but you would think now and then the series would evolve by more then just the graphics, linearity isn't the problem so much as having no choice about anything, they could throw the odd option at you now and then.

See though, the Final Fantasy series does change. Maybe it couldn't be seen as "evolution," but it changes. No Final Fantasy game can really be called the same. Even for a while, when the battle systems all followed the Active-Time formula, things worked differently. With "evolution," as we call it, a series adds new things and adjusts old ones with each entry, kind of stacking these changes up as the series goes along. Final Fantasy simply changes, delivering a completely different game each time. The battle system is never the same, the story is always different (and almost always really good), the characters are usually well-developed, the world and atmosphere changes from game to game... Final Fantasy may not evolve as most games do, but to say the series never changes is just not true.

As for choices, I still see nothing wrong with a lack of them. Control over the actual events of the story is not the only way to take advantage of gaming's unique interactive capabilities. Take Final Fantasy VII, for instance, when Cloud was being controlled, driven to kill Aerith. The player tries to press buttons to lead Cloud away, to lower his sword, but each button that is pressed only makes him raise the sword higher. Or Bioshock, how even though the player has full control of his character at all times, the one point where you really, really want it, you're deprived of it. These did not allow one to actually change the story, but they made for moments that were much more effective due to interactivity. Final Fantasy deals in these, delivering set stories with moments of interactivity to drive certain points home. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[TWEWER]

I prefer to have a video game be more linear. If most of my time is spent wandering around the map, then I don't think the game has very good design.

 

[A1]

Likewise, games with incredible stories don't need to be told in a variety of ways. Take... any good film for instance.

Games are games, not movies. Linearity is not the issue in itself, but it goes back to a balance between emergent and embedded narrative. Sure, jRPGs are going to put a much bigger focus on the story they created for the player but by removing any chances(or seriously reducing them) for the player to create his own little narrative, you are putting way too much weight on cinematographic language in your game. At a certain point you can ask yourself: "Why are they making a game and not a movie?"

Simple. The story couldn't hold itself has a movie and it needs that little part of interactivity they put in to pace said poor story in order to keep the player hooked.

Okay, now I'm don't agree with you on THAT. Whether or not a video game story could hold itself as a movie without the factor of interactivity is a question which I think is best handled on a case-by-case basis as opposed to the generalization that you seem to be making.

I think there are indeed video games out there that have stories and/or scripts that are indeed worthy of a movie. And interestingly enough there are numerous video games that have film adaptations in the works like Gears of War, Uncharted, inFAMOUS, and Mass Effect (although I find this one rather ironic). And I suppose the recently released Halo Legends also counts. It would seem that as video game stories, scripts, and technologies become more and more sophisticated the line between video games and movies has slowly started to blur. Perhaps the most noteworthy example of this is Uncharted 2.

How to best blend the factor of interactivity with a good, movie-worthy story and/or script is a good question that I think a number of individuals and developers are putting some real effort into answering such as Hideo Kojima, Naughty Dog, BioWare, and David Cage. And so far the results have been both noteworthy and promising.

And if you want an example of a video game story that ACTUALLY HAS been made into a movie then look no farther than Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children.

For the record I believe that the idea of players being able to create their own little narratives as you put it is overrated because it essentially compromises the story. But to be more specific I'll break it down into two reasons.

First, their own little narratives can essentially never be more than that: their own little narratives. Their narratives can't be canon. Or they can't be THE official narrative or official story of the game. And the reason for this brings me to my second reason.

Second, the reason that their own little narratives can't be THE narrative or story is essentially because their is no official narrative or story to the game. The game essentially is a deliberately incomplete story with a number of blanks carefully placed here and there for the player to fill in. But no matter how the player chooses to fill in those blanks there are going to be a number of other players doing the same thing and doing it differently with ultimately no player's own little narrative being THE narrative. Or in other words because a game is at least somewhat malleable and can be influenced in such a way by the player the game essentially doesn't have a solid identity of it's own. Of course the developer could come along and declare certain ways of filling in the blanks to be canon, but even if they did that it might make you wonder exactly why they bothered to created those blanks in the first place.

Perhaps a decent example of this is Bioware having default and quite possibly canon settings for Commander Shepard's first name, gender, appearance, class, and voice. These things being featured ever so prominently in at least one of the commercials for Mass Effect 2.

This is also the main reason that I find the idea of a Mass Effect movie to be ironic.

I think this is fundamentally a question of finding the right balance between story and interactivity. And quite frankly I don't think that the BioWare-style method of leaving blanks and having players create their own little narratives is the best way to do it. I think a better alternative for example is having a silent protagonist. This way the players are given the opportunity to project their own thoughts, feelings, and ideas onto the protagonist. Or to essentially "make the character their own" as I once heard it put. But this way would able to avoid compromising the story with actual blanks. Although in truth I think this would best be done with an in-story explanation as to why the character doesn't speak. Like a childhood accident or something.

But anyway I think that the best example of the silent protagonist approach is probably Gordon Freeman and the Half-Life series.

I think that I've said all that I need to say in this post so let me end it with a link to an article which I believe is quite relevant to this topic.

http://www.destructoid.com/the-path-of-no-divergence-why-linear-games-have-their-place-90753.phtml

 

[chozo_hybrid]

People need to stop hating linearity so much. It's a design choice, not a design flaw: what's with this ethnocentrism?

I see what he's saying: the more control you give the player, the less control you have as the designer. It makes telling a compelling story difficult. It's possible, but difficult. They want to tell us their story, and they are taking steps to ensure it. Linearity is not a bad thing, people. Final Fantasy has always told good stories, but in a different way than we do over here in the west: there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes but you would think now and then the series would evolve by more then just the graphics, linearity isn't the problem so much as having no choice about anything, they could throw the odd option at you now and then.

See though, the Final Fantasy series does change. Maybe it couldn't be seen as "evolution," but it changes. No Final Fantasy game can really be called the same. Even for a while, when the battle systems all followed the Active-Time formula, things worked differently. With "evolution," as we call it, a series adds new things and adjusts old ones with each entry, kind of stacking these changes up as the series goes along. Final Fantasy simply changes, delivering a completely different game each time. The battle system is never the same, the story is always different (and almost always really good), the characters are usually well-developed, the world and atmosphere changes from game to game... Final Fantasy may not evolve as most games do, but to say the series never changes is just not true.

As for choices, I still see nothing wrong with a lack of them. Control over the actual events of the story is not the only way to take advantage of gaming's unique interactive capabilities. Take Final Fantasy VII, for instance, when Cloud was being controlled, driven to kill Aerith. The player tries to press buttons to lead Cloud away, to lower his sword, but each button that is pressed only makes him raise the sword higher. Or Bioshock, how even though the player has full control of his character at all times, the one point where you really, really want it, you're deprived of it. These did not allow one to actually change the story, but they made for moments that were much more effective due to interactivity. Final Fantasy deals in these, delivering set stories with moments of interactivity to drive certain points home. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The battle system is basically the same it has been since FFVII, if not before then, adding in QTEs and the odd new battle command doesn't really make it a new system.

I never said the stories weren't great, they're okay but a little choice cannot hurt the franchise. It would just be nice to see a company that claims it pushes the envelope in the JRPG genre to take a new step instead of just "updating" the game with tweak between each one.

 

[t_rexaur]

Thaius you are a true hero of this generation.

There is nothing wrong with a linear story. The hilarious thing about linear vs open world is that the open world is a rather elaborate lie. Sure you can go around and do whatever you want and explore parts of the world. But in the end the game has a story to tell and it WILL make you go from point A to point B to do it.

Take this example from Dragon Age: Origins:

Spoiler

Arl Eamon's son is possessed by a demon and is doing some random evil shizzle. You can deal with this situation in several ways but they all end with the same outcome, you stop the evil.

Then you have to save the Arl from his illness. To do this you need the Urn of Sacred Ashes. You can't not do this. You cannot leave the Arl to die. If you want to continue the story, you have to heal the Arl. Even when you are presented with the option to defile the Ashes, you still have to take a pinch to heal the Arl.

Then when he wakes up, he helps you, even if you explored all your options and found out you could have saved his son, but decided to kill him for lulz.

 

[Thaius]

People need to stop hating linearity so much. It's a design choice, not a design flaw: what's with this ethnocentrism?

I see what he's saying: the more control you give the player, the less control you have as the designer. It makes telling a compelling story difficult. It's possible, but difficult. They want to tell us their story, and they are taking steps to ensure it. Linearity is not a bad thing, people. Final Fantasy has always told good stories, but in a different way than we do over here in the west: there is nothing wrong with that.

Yes but you would think now and then the series would evolve by more then just the graphics, linearity isn't the problem so much as having no choice about anything, they could throw the odd option at you now and then.

See though, the Final Fantasy series does change. Maybe it couldn't be seen as "evolution," but it changes. No Final Fantasy game can really be called the same. Even for a while, when the battle systems all followed the Active-Time formula, things worked differently. With "evolution," as we call it, a series adds new things and adjusts old ones with each entry, kind of stacking these changes up as the series goes along. Final Fantasy simply changes, delivering a completely different game each time. The battle system is never the same, the story is always different (and almost always really good), the characters are usually well-developed, the world and atmosphere changes from game to game... Final Fantasy may not evolve as most games do, but to say the series never changes is just not true.

As for choices, I still see nothing wrong with a lack of them. Control over the actual events of the story is not the only way to take advantage of gaming's unique interactive capabilities. Take Final Fantasy VII, for instance, when Cloud was being controlled, driven to kill Aerith. The player tries to press buttons to lead Cloud away, to lower his sword, but each button that is pressed only makes him raise the sword higher. Or Bioshock, how even though the player has full control of his character at all times, the one point where you really, really want it, you're deprived of it. These did not allow one to actually change the story, but they made for moments that were much more effective due to interactivity. Final Fantasy deals in these, delivering set stories with moments of interactivity to drive certain points home. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The battle system is basically the same it has been since FFVII, if not before then, adding in QTEs and the odd new battle command doesn't really make it a new system.

I never said the stories weren't great, they're okay but a little choice cannot hurt the franchise. It would just be nice to see a company that claims it pushes the envelope in the JRPG genre to take a new step instead of just "updating" the game with tweak between each one.

I respectfully disagree about the battle systems being the same. Sure, at their core, they're all turn-based battle systems, but those kinds of systems have never been about the actual systems, but rather about the customization surrounding them. The Materia system from FFVII, for instance, is nothing like the Licenses or Gambits from XII, or the drawing from VIII, or the sphere grid from X, or the simple "learn new spells at certain levels" system of older RPGs. Most of the battle systems may not have differences at a fundamental, battle-to-battle level, but turn-based battles are about customization outside of battle and strategic use of your setup in battle. And Final Fantasy changes that up completely from game to game.

As for story choices, I'd have to agree with this guy:

There is nothing wrong with a linear story. The hilarious thing about linear vs open world is that the open world is a rather elaborate lie. Sure you can go around and do whatever you want and explore parts of the world. But in the end the game has a story to tell and it WILL make you go from point A to point B to do it.

No matter what, even if you have choices within a story, you are still experiencing a set experience: but with an open world, you are simply choosing which one, or exactly how you will experience it. But the fact is, you will always go through the Omega 4 Relay to face the collectors at the end of Mass Effect 2, no matter what other choices you made along the way. Because they designed the game that way. Free choice in games is an illusion: not to say it's not a good thing, it's fantastic (Mass Effect 2 is one of my favorite games), but at its core, open world is not really any freer than Final Fantasy: they just do a great job making it feel like it is.

Nothing wrong with story choices, of course, but I don't think they need to be intense. Little things like choosing who asks Cloud for a date at the Golden Saucer within an epic, set grand narrative are good enough for me.

 

[A1]

Thaius you are a true hero of this generation.

There is nothing wrong with a linear story. The hilarious thing about linear vs open world is that the open world is a rather elaborate lie. Sure you can go around and do whatever you want and explore parts of the world. But in the end the game has a story to tell and it WILL make you go from point A to point B to do it.

Take this example from Dragon Age: Origins:

Spoiler

Arl Eamon's son is possessed by a demon and is doing some random evil shizzle. You can deal with this situation in several ways but they all end with the same outcome, you stop the evil.

Then you have to save the Arl from his illness. To do this you need the Urn of Sacred Ashes. You can't not do this. You cannot leave the Arl to die. If you want to continue the story, you have to heal the Arl. Even when you are presented with the option to defile the Ashes, you still have to take a pinch to heal the Arl.

Then when he wakes up, he helps you, even if you explored all your options and found out you could have saved his son, but decided to kill him for lulz.

I agree, but personally I like to refer to an open world game's pseudo non-linearity as just a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Little more than a grand illusion.

 

[Feylynn]

It has nothing to do with culture. Players in Japan from what I heard have complained about it's linearity (among other things) plenty.

I have actually heard nothing 'good' about this game yet, I've heard a lot of people say it failed at almost everything it set out to do. =/
Underdeveloped characters, weak story, poor level design, boring mash X for 50 hours and change jobs every now and then combat.
They gave up building real towns because 'it was to hard'.

That said, I'm hoping all of those complaints are wrongly founded and I'm still likely getting it.
partially out of stubborn lame fan driven 'it's still final fantasy' because I fail.

I d'know though... In the face of Dragon Age and Mass Effect I say good luck to Square.
They will likely need it. Western RPGs have been seriously learning.

When Advent Children first came out I was ecstatic, it was amazing. Now? I'm not so sure it was a good thing, it has square so convinced they are trying to make action games it's seriously harming some of there development choices.
I hope they realize that people used to love Final Fantasy because it was an RPG.

 

[A1]

It has nothing to do with culture. Players in Japan from what I heard have complained about it's linearity (among other things) plenty.

I have actually heard nothing 'good' about this game yet, I've heard a lot of people say it failed at almost everything it set out to do. =/
Underdeveloped characters, weak story, poor level design, boring mash X for 50 hours and change jobs every now and then combat.
They gave up building real towns because 'it was to hard'.

That said, I'm hoping all of those complaints are wrongly founded and I'm still likely getting it.
partially out of stubborn lame fan driven 'it's still final fantasy' because I fail.

I d'know though... In the face of Dragon Age and Mass Effect I say good luck to Square.
They will likely need it. Western RPGs have been seriously learning.

When Advent Children first came out I was ecstatic, it was amazing. Now? I'm not so sure it was a good thing, it has square so convinced they are trying to make action games it's seriously harming some of there development choices.
I hope they realize that people used to love Final Fantasy because it was an RPG.

Here, I think you might want to take a look at this:

http://www.destructoid.com/ten-things-i-loved-about-final-fantasy-xiii-162457.phtml

 

[Feylynn]

That list is definitely a bit more needed hope. I intended to hold my personal judgment till playing of course, but it's hard to be optimistic going in with all of the negative I've read.

But then again I loved FF7,8,9,10,T,12,CC KH1,2,358/2 etc
and I have heard terrible things about most of them as well.

Low expectations don't hurt as long as you give it a chance.

 

[Skullmaster123]

FF13 doesn't suck because it's linear.
It suck because it uses the incredibly stupid 'let's not give the player direct control over the party' combat mechanic. Once Square gets it through their fat heads that FF's combat system still sucks balls, then FF will be a series of games worth playing.
Seriously, the new damn game looks almost exactly like the others(in terms of gameplay and story). C'mon Square, do something original for once.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

I'm sorry? Western reviewers are scoring the game from a Western point of view? What other point of view should they use?

What a load of crap. FFs I through to XII didn't get this kind of response, so maybe it should occur to them that perhaps the changes they made to the game weren't actually that good? FFXIII is linear even by the standards of JRPGs so I think they have a bloody cheek to go bagging out the reviewers for not having the right frame of mind to review it properly.

 

[SendMeNoodz84]

"When you look at most Western RPGs, they just dump you in a big open world, and let you do whatever you like... [It] becomes very difficult to tell a compelling story when you're given that much freedom."

With this I'm done buying Square-Enix's games. They're not even trying anymore. Go play Mass Effect or Dragon Age you moron. Of course the western reviewer's are going to review it from a western review perspective, that's why they're WESTERN REVIEWER'S YOU IDIOT. I think most people would agree with me when I say that most would rather play a game that gives you both freedom and a compelling story, not FF13 "genius" game design made up of unchanged linearity. Yeah it's definitely not that Square-Enix can't pull it off, it's that they choose to go against the majority of gamers. And don't think that I'm just some Western RPG fanboy. I've played every single main Final Fantasy, and have been a fan since the SNES days. Another thing: Why would you get rid of towns in FF13!?

 

[ssjsuperman]

I dont really have a problem with a game being linear its the other changes with the game i dont like but it those not seem like a bad game i will at lest rent it for the story.
but if the reviews come out that the game sucks i wont get it no matter how good the story is.


but im very interested in what the ff fanbase will think of this game im a big rpg fan but never really cared much for the ff series but i think the guys that think every ff game sucked after ff7 will love this one it looks really old school.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Is too much linearity a dealbreaker? Or is it just a design choice?

Design choice definately.

The problem is, too many developers, especially the auter types, use design choice as a catch all excuse, when the phrase they are looking for is not good enough.

Half Life for example is shamefully linear, there's one way and one way only, but the construction and pacing of the series is such that you don't especially care. Same for things like Modern Warfare and even Mass Effect 2's main plot. Like a good blockbuster, it may be leading you by the nose but that's ok because it's showing you a hell of a good time.

If you're going to make a linear game it can't be dull and it especially can't have situations where the player is capable of advancing, but arbitrarily held back by the script, which is a criticism you can level at many jrpgs.

The reality of what Kitase and Toriyama could be saying is,
"We are not capable of telling a compelling story in an openworld environment,"
Other people and series can certainly do it (STALKER, Mass Effect, Fallout), so the argument doesn't hold much water.

Of course, there is another side to their cultural differences argument. Which is that the Japanese are so used to a regimented, lead from above society that when faced with the ability to do anything they are simply incapable of leading themselves. It was ably demonstrated by Toyota's formula 1 team and it's obsession with 'the Toyota way' to the point of self destruction, so why not apply the same to Japan's gamers?

Then again it could be,
"We felt this story was better told in a linear manner, so that's what we did,"

Whether their way is better or they simply weren't capable will have to wait until it's on general release, we'll see.